You remember the Obama speech video I posted a few days ago, right?

This is absolutely ludicrous.

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values,” Obama said. “It requires their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.”
Dobson said the suggestion is an attempt to lead by the “lowest common denominator of morality.”
“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?” he said. “What he’s trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.”

No, no that’s absolutely not at all what he’s saying. Read his quote again.
Obama is simply saying that you have to support your positions with non-religious arguments, not that you have to convince everybody that you’re right (and certainly not that you have no right to fight for your beliefs).

Ugh I hate evangelicals.
I reiterate that people who misuse religion (or use it to justify their actions) are destroying this nation (and, to a certain extent, the world).

On the flip side, why is this even an issue?

Bhutto’s killing was an “unfortunate event,” he said, but McCain’s “knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be commander-in-chief. And it helped us.”
Asked if McCain would stand to benefit from a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black answered, “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him.”

I read absolutely nothing malicious in that. He was trying to emphasize that, in such an event, he believes McCain would be better suited to handle the situation. Perhaps he could have phrased it better (something like, “He would handle the situation better and, as such, would have an advantage over his opponent Barack Obama.”) but I don’t believe the meaning is lost.

Don’t even get me started about how people overanalyzed Mrs. Obama’s comments on being proud of her country (you know what she meant, seriously) and their “terrorist fist jab.”
What is wrong with politics these days?

Stolen from Rob:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion to religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I can’t simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke god’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves compromise, the art of what’s possible and, at some fundamental level, religion doesn’t allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If god’s spoken then followers are expected to live up to god’s edicts regardless of the consequences. Now to base one’s own life on some uncompromising commitments may be sublime but to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

No matter how religious they may be or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don’t want faith used to belittle or to divide because in the end that’s not how they think about faith in their own lives.

Things like this are why Obama deserves to be elected president. Please do your part this November and bring some sanity back into our government.