Obama blows it with "Kingdom on Earth" comment

[Karmadillo]

Interesting response from a progressive.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mary_sha_071014_obama_blows_it_with_.htm

I was really liking Sen. Barack Obama. I was thinking that a Gore-Obama ticket in 2008 would be just what this country needs. (I know, I know, Gore says he has fallen out of love with politics and doesn't want to run. But a girl can dream.)

But then, on October 7, Obama disappointed me, big time. I know he's a religious man, but he overdid it this time. In my opinion, he crossed the line re: separation of church and state when he told the congregation at an evangelical church in South Carolina: "I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

Clearly he was trying to demonstrate that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on religiosity. But I saw it as pandering to the conservative Christian base that the Republicans have traditionally claimed as their own, and ignoring the Constitution in order to do so. That may win him some points among that crowd, but it cost him some serious points with me (for what it's worth).

A Kingdom right here on Earth, huh?

Two things:

First, if you want to run this country, sir, you should accept that it was established as a representative republic, not a kingdom.

But of course you were talking about a Kingdom of God. That's almost as bad, sir. You see, as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And, by extension, I think it's safe to assume that the founding fathers didn't think that a presidential candidate should try to establish a religious Kingdom on Earth either.

more...

[MethuenProgressive]

1. "I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth." WTF??

I can't believe his people knew he was going to use that line...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

2. So what was the context?

Some "christians" don't care about improving earth for their fellow man as long as their saved, and - well - the rest can go to hell. literally.

Others believe that we can make this kingdom a better place for all people by living out the gospel.

I'd happily vote for the second kind of Christian. Obama doesn't strike me as the type who will abuse the office of president with his faith.

[gratuitous]

4. Oh, don't let facts get in the way

This is going to be another mindless Christian-bashing thread at DU. I advise just avoiding them, because the level of willful ignorance will just piss you off.

[jefferson_dem]

6. And with the usual suspects latching onto any phony criticism of Obama...

without shame.

:eyes:

[Karmadillo]

8. I thought supporters of theocracy were supposed to use "heretic" instead of "usual suspect."

And then, if I remember correctly, you're supposed to burn us.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Um...

Cute. Paranoid, reactionary, and misinformed as a mutha. But cute.

:toast:

[beam me up scottie]

18. Good luck brave Heretic!

I can't stay but I recommended your thread.

In a similar thread last night, I was called a fanatic because I said I wanted all religion out of politics. How un-American of me. :eyes:

Obama can create his god's Kingdom on his own time.

When you're a heathen and you're looking at the world from inside the fire, all "Instruments of God" look the same, don't they?

[cuke]

30. It is an un-american idea

Our constitution keeps religion out of government. It doesnt keep religion out of politics

[Goblinmonger]

36. Please explain the difference.

If you can. Doesn't whoring yourself out to the religious lead to religion being part of government? See Bush 2000 and 2004 if you are confused.

[cuke]

64. The difference is

that government consists of the activities of the three branches. Those institutions are prohibited from being guided by religion and from engaging in any action that represent an "govt establishment of religion"

Politics is a word that describes a lot more than simply what the institutions of our govt do. Our institutions do not campaign for office; politicians do. Campaigning is a political activity, but it is not a government activity. Therefore, politicians and their campaigns may be as religious as they choose to be.

And yes, the religious zeal of a politician can represent a danger. That's why I advise not voting for those candidates whose religious fervor represent a threat to our form of government.

[Goblinmonger]

67. I have no problem

with the distinction between government and politics. MLK is a good example. What he did was political but not governmental hence no first amendment problems. Obama's rhetoric is more and more seeming to look like he will bring that bullshit into the government and continue it on its slide away from secularism. That is scary. Will I support him if he is the nominee for the Dems? Yes. Will I vote for him in the WI primary? No.

[cuke]

70. I would not vote for anyone I felt was a threat to to our form of non-theocratic democracy

IMO, Obama is no such threat. I've seen none of the scapegoating and fear-mongering, and none of the rigid doctrinal commandments so typical of the theocratic-minded.

But you obviously feel differently. In that case, vote for a candidate you feel more comfortable with.

[Goblinmonger]

35. So worrying about a creeping theocracy

and a presidential candidate making comments that seem to lead to a breach of church and state is christian bashing? Get off the cross, Jesus needs it. How far do you need to look to feel persecuted?

[maximusveritas]

33. Exactly, I have yet to see anyone provide the full context

This was simply a caption on a CNN political ticker that got picked up by Drudge and spread down the RW blogosphere.
I can understand why they wouldn't want to question it, but I'd hope that a supposed liberal like this author would want to check the context before launching into this attack where she takes his comments as literally as possible.

[Goblinmonger]

40. So please explain the context

since you know it so well.

[maximusveritas]

48. That's what I'm asking for

I never said I knew it. I just have a very good feeling it'll prove the interpretation in the OP wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

54. I think it will prove him right.

I've read the speech. Seems like the OP is dead on.

[sandnsea]

3. Because that would be a fuckin' tragedy man

The Kingdom of the Prince of Peace, love, nurturing, brotherhood. What a fuckin' horror.

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

12. word

Peace, love, and understanding?

What an effin nightmare!

[SidDithers]

27. Constitution be damned! We'll have a Kingdom...

whether it's legal or not!

All religion out of politics protects both politics and religion.

Sid

Edit: typo

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. You said it. Keep the enlightenment alive!

[Goblinmonger]

42. 1st Amendment, bro

Read it. Love it. We aren't all followers of your Jesus.

[Bluzmann57]

5. Lighten up

The large majority of people in this country will say that they are Christian when asked by a pollster or anyone else. I have always thought that a candidates faith is a personal matter anyway and I resent the "Religious Right" and everyone else bringing it up at every turn.
Yes, I know Obama brought it up on his own, but maybe he feels pressured by the media to do so. And Gore ain't running, so give it up.

[Goblinmonger]

44. well, if the majority are christian

then let's just make this a christian government.

Oh, wait, we have to get rid of the first amendment, first.

[gateley]

7. I feel uncomfortable with his statement because it just feels too Religious

Right-ish, and it also feels as though he was pandering to his audience. I wouldn't like it if my candidate had said it. We don't need to make too big a deal of it, though.

[Capn Sunshine]

16. Then you should get used to it. Obama is a person of faith.

He's never made a secret of this, and to present it like he's pandering indicates you haven't really gotten to know the man.

Being a Democrat doesn't automatically mean you think believers are evil. You've been reading too much Ann Coulter.

[gateley]

19. Jeez - I can't even read Ann Coulter's NAME without retching - so you're

wrong on that account.

I know he's made no secret of his faith - nor should he. I just think the wording was unfortunate and more tailored to a religious gathering than to a political gathering.

And I didn't "present" it as pandering (I rarely make judgments like that). I said that how it felt to me - my interpretation.

Calm down.

[tomg]

9. Ms. Shaw who wrote the

article seems to lack even the simplest sense of context. The Kingdom on Earth, the City of the Hill - all images that, though drawn from the Bible, speak to our highest aspirations, whether we are religiously inclined or not. While that rhetoric has often been used in defense of the most reprehensible actions from the Puritans on, it is also the rhetoric of some of our finest progressives: Martin Luther King, of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers, of the Berrigan brothers, of the Society of Friends, Sloan Coffin and countless others. While I don't share their beliefs, I share their desires.

It is a message that will resonate - and rightfully so - in an evangelical church. Can she miss that it echoes King's speech? I sometimes think that the Dems are such shoe-ins in 2008 that we can run my dog and win ( even though my dog is not yellow - sort of blondish, though). Other times, I am sure we can screw it up. Ms. Shaw's carping over a phrase that has such historic, cultural and emotional resonance convinces me we still might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

For the record, I am a proud agnostic who believes rather strongly in separation of Church and State, and I do not support Obama.

[jefferson_dem]

98. Thanks for offering some reasonable perspective to this thread.

Much appreciated! :bounce:

[madfloridian]

10. Rev. Welton Gaddy on State of Belief AAR really blasted Obama for that.

He was really upset about it.

He said we are electing a president, not a pastor.

[Raster]

20. Careful Rev. Gaddy! You too can be accused of "Christian bashing."

Or "religion bashing." And for the record, we ARE electing a President, NOT a Pastor. Never before in the history of our country has the basic tenant of separation of church and state been more important as it is today. We must never forget that a major factor that allowed the advent of homegrown American bubba fascism was religious histrionics. Religion is a CHOICE, never a mandate.

Wake up America!:kick:

[SidDithers]

28. Rev. Gaddy made a good point ..nt

Sid

[enid602]

11. Makes sense to me.

It seems to me that he's saying that the purpose of govertnment is to create conditions that benefit poeple while they're living, rather than put resources into some apocalyptical scheme supposedly meant to hasten Jesus's second coming and bring about the Rapture.

[incapsulated]

14. Kingdom on Earth = Heaven on Earth

I know some people have trouble with church talk but no, he isn't calling for a Christian Theocracy, amazingly enough.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Yeah, sure

and he wasn't saying that to people that believe this is a country that was founded on Christian principles and that see a theocracy as a wet dream.

[incapsulated]

90. If you seriously believe ALL Christians

Want to establish a theocracy, I suggest you suffer from the same delusional nature of those who think all Muslims want to blow up their house.

[Goblinmonger]

111. Yeah, when did I say THAT strawman master.

Evangelicals, generally, would be happy with that. Sure there are liberal evangelicals, but they are not the majority. Obama was talking to evangelicals when he did his kingdom on earth speech. "Kingdom on earth" + evangelicals + politics (should)= scaring the shit out of all of us. No where did I say ALL christians. Build the strawman somewhere else.

[incapsulated]

113. Well pardon me...

But when you say: "Yeah, right, and he wasn't saying that to people that believe this is a country that was founded on Christian principles and that see a theocracy as a wet dream." I just assume you mean his audience. Which is based on... what, exactly? The fact that he is using religious language?

I've really had enough of this nonsense.

[Goblinmonger]

114. Here's my problem

You correctly quote me. Where in that quotation do I say ALL christians want a theocracy. I SPECIFICALLY say "saying that to people." I was clearly talking about that group/sect and not all Christians. Yet you have to take the militant atheist meme and claim I was speaking of all Christians. I wasn't. It was clear I wasn't. Why do it?

[sandnsea]

76. Incredible the lies so-called liberals will spew to slander someone

I guess there might be a handful of people who don't know the context, but it's hard for me to imagine that they're all on DU.

[mark414]

15. i am usually an enthusiastic religion basher, and even i'm not turned off by this

[calteacherguy]

17. You are misrepresenting Obama's statement.

He meant we have to focus on the here and now, on Earth.

[jenmito]

21. He's for civil unions, gay people serving openly in the military, pro-choice,

pro-affirmative action, etc. etc. As an atheist with agnostic tendencies, I have NO problem with his message and what his faith leads him to believe in.

[ecstatic]

22. Umm... you guys don't get it

It's not about a literal Kingdom form of government.

A lot of evangelicals/Christians suffer and accept that suffering because they're looking forward to some sort of afterlife in Heaven. All Obama is saying is that things can get better here, on Earth, that people don't necessarily have to wait to die in order to lead a better life/have peace.

[jenmito]

23. If you read the posts, you'd see a lot of us DO get it.

:hi:

[Raster]

24. Um... a lot of us do get it. The Kingdom of Whomever is someone else's fairytale. Not mine.

Believe it all you like. Keep it out of our government.

[jefferson_dem]

26. Of course.

I so wish that damn religious fella Martin Luther King, Jr. would've kept his doctrinal ass out of the doings of government. Do people realize he was a fucking ordained minister! Shudder the thought! How dare he impose a progressive policy vision of civil rights and social justice on the rest of us! They even mobilized and organized at...wait for it...CHURCHES....

:scared:

How about all those damn Quakers and religious pacifists demanding we end the Vietnam War! Who the fuck do they think they are!!! Imposing their religion on the rest of us...

[Raster]

43. Stop. Stop. Stop. MLK was not a member of the United States government, nor up for any election.

The Quakers never entered the political arena as elected officials. There is a very good reason the founders made the separation of church and state one of the basic tenants of American democracy. Every man, woman and child has the right to believe and worship as they choose. Once they cross the line into the political arena, those beliefs should be relegated to their proper position, as PERSONAL items of faith. Politics and the pulpit DO NOT MIX.

[jefferson_dem]

53. Thanks.

Point of clarification: I too am as aggressive, outspoken opponent of ANY effort by the US to establish or sanction religion as such would violate the Constitution and our founding principles. My long time membership in the ACLU vouches for that.

If ever my candidate or any other crosses *that* line, I will be the first to speak up. I just don't see it here, with Obama's message. In fact, I find it refreshing that we have a candidate who is not willing cede a fucking thing (yes...including a moral foundation for policy) to the bastards on the other side.

Promoting a faith-based foundation for progressive policy is not a sin.

[Raster]

66. "Promoting a faith-based foundation for progressive policy is not a sin." True.

However it is against the Constitution of the United States. Citizen Obama has every right to his personal faiths and beliefs. Senator or President Obama has every duty to keep those beliefs separate from undue influence upon his political personae.

[jefferson_dem]

69. Well, I guess we read it differently.

No line is crossed...as long as the government isn't used to endorse, sanction, or promote religion. Thus far, I don't see anything close to that.

[trotsky]

74. "a moral foundation for policy"???

Please explain. Can only Christianity provide "a moral foundation for policy"? Is it not possible to have a secular basis for morality?

[jefferson_dem]

77. Of course.

I believe morality can be derived from a non-religious foundation. That's the case in my life. I'm not a "Christian" but I respect the many who are and appreciate how that faith tradition can be directed to serve progressive ideals.

[cmkramer]

103. have you forgotten about Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover?

FTR, I know you mean Quakers as a whole and not just individuals.

[Goblinmonger]

47. MLK was elected?

He was running for office?

I did not know that.

[jefferson_dem]

51. Upthread you are arguing that religion should play no role within the US political system.

So you're ok with "mixing" of religion and politics a la MLK since he was not an elected official?

[Goblinmonger]

55. I'll type slowly so you can understand

The first amendment dictates the action of the federal and state government. MLK was neither. He can do what the fuck he wants. Obama is running to be part of the federal government. The first amendment would apply to him.

Why is that so damned hard for people in this thread to understand?

[jonnyblitz]

57. they are just trying to rationalize it because they are Obama

supporters. I can't believe they are really this fucking stupid . seperation of church and state unless he is a liberal?!?! please. if this were Bush talking this kingdom on earth gobbledy gook they would be screeching their heads off.

[Goblinmonger]

61. exactly

good point about Bush.

[jefferson_dem]

60. LOL!

Exactly what is Obama proposing or what did he do that violates the First Amendment's "Wall of Separation", in your view? Or is it merely his rhetoric that offends? Please be specific. Thanks.

[Goblinmonger]

62. It's his rhetoric.

It's his "kingdom on earth" bullshit. It's his pandering to those that would cream their jeans if we had a Christian theocracy. It's that type of rhetoric that makes me remember the bullshit bush was doing that lead to the faith-based bullshit we have now.

If Bush said the same thing, DU would collectively explode. Why do we give Obama a pass?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

75. The first amendment only binds congress, and as incorporated by the 14th amdnt, state

legislatures.

The president can rave about jesus all he wants. It's disgusting and profoundly anti-American, but it's not unconstitutional

[LanternWaste]

106. I'm afraid I must be rather dumb myself...

I'm afraid I must be rather dumb myself because it appears you want any and all candidates not merely to stay on the correct side of the line re: separation of church and state, but to also refrain from mentioning, or even actively implying their religion (or lack or religion) as it applies to themselves or their worldview. If that is indeed the case, it appears as extreme as an absolute theocratic state.

Am I reading your posts correctly?

[Goblinmonger]

110. That's not it at all

That would be the militant atheist strawman that many create, but it is not a real position.

I could give a shit about someone's religion. I do wish that atheists running for office could be as open about their lack of faith as Christians are about their faith when running, but that is another issue--well, not really, I guess.

My problem comes with the pandering to religious groups. We saw how badly that went with Bush. If Bush uses any religious terminology, DU has a field day. Obama does it and there is no problem. I don't trust the creeping theocracy regardless of who is pushing it. I generally like Obama, but his recent religious undertones are worrying me because they seem to be him courting the vote which is going to be precipitated on some form of payback later on. I hope I'm wrong. Jimmy Carter didn't bother me at all. Clinton was religious and didn't bother me at all. Obama is making rumbling that are reminiscent of Bushes rumbling to the religious right and that scares me.

[jenmito]

50. I'm an atheist and I like what Obama stands for.

WHATEVER led him to be FOR gay rights, women's rights, affirmative action, I'm all for it.

[beam me up scottie]

25. No, we get it. He's hardly the first politician to claim he's an Instrument of God.

He's doing the same thing right wing christian pubs do when they make a big show out of signing bills restricting abortion rights or legislating discrimination against GLBT people in churches.

He's pandering to the very people who won't hesitate to bestow second class citizenship on those of us who aren't part of their elite group.

[mark414]

32. obama does not use his faith to discriminate and repress

he's in favor of gay rights, he's pro choice, he's against the don't ask don't tell policy...need i continue?

i'm an atheist and i'm not kneejerk enough to call this what it most definitely is not - pandering

crazy religious nuts can vote for obama all they want, but that's not going to make him turn into some raging gay hater or "pro-life" bible thumper - he is what he is and he'll always be that way


this 'kingdom' he refers to is one that all liberals, leftists and Democrats have been working for for years...peace health happiness equality and prosperity for all. what's so terrible about that?

[CTLawGuy]

45. bull

if he is really a fundie, then why is he a dem and not a repug?

[maximusveritas]

34. Good point and I think the full context of the comments would bare that out

The blogpost in the OP takes his comments way too literally.

[Odin2005]

31. Geez, I'm an Atheist and I have no problem with the comment.

Another disgusting attack on Obama? what else is new?

[maximusveritas]

37. Same here

I can understand how people would be upset if they heard it out of context and took it ultra-literally as the blogger in the OP did. But when you really think about it, it's just a nod to the social Christianity tradition that I think we would do well to rediscover.

[calteacherguy]

38. I agree this attack is completely without merit. nt

[DrFunkenstein]

39. Who Does He Think He Is? Martin Luther King Jr.?

What's all of this "brotherhood of man" garbage? A bunch of Christian nonsense!

Love thy neighbor? What am I, my brother's keeper?

Clearly Obama is trying to change our system of representative democracy in a monarchical theocracy. He's out with me. Along with my senses, I suppose.

[Goblinmonger]

49. When did MLK run for office?

I missed that. Was his "I have a dream" a rally for votes.

Oh, wait, he had NOTHING to do with the government. He was a private citizen running for no office, so his religousity has no bearing.

[jefferson_dem]

56. The point is that MLK used his faith tradition to promote civil rights and social justice.

Would you propose elected officials not attend church also? Does that violate the little line of separation in your mind? What if they are found reading the Bible? To the lions with them?

[Goblinmonger]

59. Way to demean the 1st Amendment

"little line" indeed.

MLK and Obama are not applicable comparisons here. That is what I am pointing out.

Yeah, I'm against officials being religious. Stop whining. THey are pretty much ALL theists. The problem I have is when candidates are going out of their way to get votes by pandering to those that would willingly take away rights from people because of the religion they believe in. That pandering is going to lead to those that get that official elected having power in the government, ala Bush. If THAT doesn't scare you, I'm sorry.

[jefferson_dem]

63. I wasn't demeaning the First Amendment.

I was demeaning the little line "in your mind."

It's obvious why you claim to have so much trouble with religious bigots. You are "they" are mirror images.

[Goblinmonger]

65. Way to spread the O'Reilly meme

I'm surprised you didn't pull out the "militant atheist" bullshit.

I'll slink to the back of the bus and shut up if that would make you happy. I apologize for speaking out against your boy and for trying to make sure that this country remains a secular government. My bad.

[jefferson_dem]

68. O'Reilly meme ... followed by referring to Obama as my "boy" LOL!

That's ok. We'll leave it be.

Fight on, brother...

[Goblinmonger]

72. Yeah, it was a racial thing. That's it.

I get a little sick of listening to the evil atheist chestnut over and over and over and over and over and over...ad nauseum.

[jefferson_dem]

73. It's cool.

Seriously, I hear you on the "evil atheist" deal. Probably more than you know.

:toast:

[AntiFascist]

41. For Christ's sake!

enough with trying to appease the Religious Wrong. He shouldn't be mentioning kingdoms anyway with all this talk about tyranny and fascism.

[jenmito]

52. If he was trying to appease them, he'd be anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-affirmative action,

anti-EVERYTHING libs. are.

[AntiFascist]

99. Yes but this sounds like a veiled appeal to Dominionists...

or those who believe that "God's Kingdom" will come crashing down to Earth once the Rapture occurs, or something to that effect.

[mtnsnake]

58. Lots of our Dems are going overboard w/the religious spiel lately.

They ought to keep religion private, and they ought to learn to stop answering pesky media peoples' questions about their private beliefs. It's all coming off as one big suck-up move, anyway, whenever someone like Obama or Pelosi flaunts their religious beliefs. For all I care, the Republicans can own the votes of the anti-abortionist religious right wing nuts from now to kingdom come.

[Chuck in Las Vegas]

71. At least Obama's not a Born-Again Idiot like W

I actually wanted to post to the thread where you were commenting on my letter which was read on CNN the other day (imploring Jesus to save us from his followers) but it’s already been archived. This thread works, too.

Here is my issue with Christians in politics... Consider that back in the bad old days of the Cold War, a lot of people advocated Détente – "Let's just leave one another alone." But in the minds of the true-believing Marxists the advance of Communism was inevitable (as per their Holy Scripture) and so anything that stood in the way was seen not as simple self-defense on the part of the Free World but was - in the Communist mind - a very real form of aggression. It's a crazy way to think, very Orwellian. It's impossible to talk to such people.

On to the present... Along with most Americans, I am happy to let the Christians do pretty much anything that it may please them to do: Home schooling, tax deductions for their churches, parental notification when their daughters get knocked up, and so on. I draw the line where they want to forbid life-saving medical treatment for their minor children and where they wanted (at least until 1967) to forbid blacks and whites to marry one another, and there are some assorted other issues, but still I think this attitude can fairly be described as Détente.

But that’s not nearly good enough for the Christians, at least not for the troublesome sub-set that Andrew Sullivan terms "Christianists." No way.

They feel that God Himself requires them to interfere with all the rest of our private lives in the name of purifying the society. And if they fail, well then the God of Jerry Falwell will withhold His Divine protection from America and the safety of the Christian families will be imperiled. Once again, simply defending our civil rights, our constitutionally protected freedoms, gets transformed into an Orwellian form of aggression. And once again we are faced with having to figure out how to deal with crazy people.

All of this smug arrogance – "we know what's best for the rest of you and you will obey or ELSE" - takes place against a backdrop of some really appalling hypocrisy on the part of the leaders of the faithful, from Jimmy Swaggart to the new scandal at Oral Roberts University.

And they keep on electing to high political office idiots with few qualifications other than that they promise to oppose abortion.

It’s so easy to "play" the Christians. Even homosexuals like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard can fool them easily. If all that prayer is good for anything it ought to be a good opportunity for Him to steer the Christians away from hypocrites and other scoundrels, but apparently prayer is no good even for that.

Christians are wrecking the country in the name of God.

Back in the good old days, Christians seemed content to stay at home and torture their gay children (together with others displaying an independent streak) until they were either driven to suicide or else ran away to live on the streets. That is quite enough damage in the name of God. They should stop trying to drive all the rest of us to similar extremes of despair.

Keep your theocratic leanings at home and at a safe distance from government!

[trotsky]

78. I mentioned this in another thread - there is a VERY SIMPLE "test" here.

Just put those words in the mouth of a Republican candidate speaking in a church.

"I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

If it would be inappropriate, or make us cringe if a right-winger says it, then it should be equally off-limits for our candidates.

The political reality here is that Obama is struggling to keep up with the Clinton juggernaut. He & his campaign are too good to go negative, and so I think he's playing up the religious angle because it's what supposedly sets him apart. (Though all the Dem candidates are Christian, are they not?)

What I hear lots of liberal Christians saying is that we whiny atheists (and other non-Christians) need to get over it, that Obama would never abolish the Constitution and set up a theocracy. I understand that and I don't think he would either. But the more he plays up his religion, the more uncomfortable it makes me - just as it would if any Republican candidate did it. I call that consistency.

[jenmito]

79. If the Republican who used those words was pro-gay rights, pro-choice, against this war,

pro-affirmative action, pro-everything all other RWers are against, I would vote for him because he wouldn't BE a Repub.

[trotsky]

80. See, you're missing the point.

If it's inappropriate for a Republican to wed his politics to his faith like that, why is it OK for a Democrat?

The answer you've given is basically, "Because I agree with him."

[jenmito]

81. No I'm not. If a Repub. said that and held his positions, I'd vote for him.

It's the positions I agree with. Not the person.

[trotsky]

82. Yep, you still are.

You're A-OK with melding religion and politics as long as it's YOUR politics.

[jenmito]

83. I'm an atheist who believes in gay rights, pro-choice, etc. etc....

I don't care if a candidate is religious as long as he is equally tolerant on NON-religious people and holds positions which are consistent with libs., religious and non-religious alike.

[jefferson_dem]

85. The paranoia among some posters here is really what's frightening.

Obama delivers a positive, progressive faith-based message and some start wailing as if he's calling for a theocracy and inquisition of non-believers.

You have it right. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the responsible public expression of a faith commitment...even by political leaders. Believe me...if the Constitutional line is indeed crossed, i'll be among the first to step up and raise HELL about it.

[jenmito]

86. It sure is...

And no matter how often we point out that his positions are 180 degrees from those on the right, they keep comparing him to them.

[trotsky]

88. Here's a small clue. It's because...

it's NOT ABOUT HIS POSITIONS.

[jenmito]

91. IT SHOULD BE! Who cares about his religious beliefs if he's a liberal who supports what WE support?

You seriously can't see a difference between him and the religious right?

[trotsky]

87. That's bullshit.

I called it with my first post.

Do you think it's possible to be a bit uncomfortable about Obama's religious statements? Or are there only two black-and-white positions - you're either OK with Obama or you "start wailing as if he's calling for a theocracy and inquisition of non-believers"?

[jefferson_dem]

92. Absolutely, silly. People may be a "bit uncomfortable" about all sorts of shit.

I didn't say everyone must agree with Obama's message and mission. Geesh.

If you read through this thread, you'll see the real "black-and-white" (dare I say "dogmatic") types are the self-professed critics of Obama and all things religious.

[trotsky]

94. Okey dokey.

Obviously no point in continuing this.

[jefferson_dem]

97. Buh bye...

And thanks for not answering the question about who you support.

Just so you know, some of the other candidates have also expressed a personal faith commitment.

:hi:

[jefferson_dem]

84. Who do you support for president this election cycle, if I may ask?

Thanks.

[Raster]

89. Thank you!

[incapsulated]

93. And if Martin Luther King said it

It would also make you cringe with fear?

It's context and who is speaking.

Religion has never been considered something off limits for those in public life. It is very much a part of this country's history.

Religious extremism is not and although they have gained ground in a recent fundamentalist movement, I never heard of them being members in any numbers in our party or churches that welcome our candidates, have you?

[trotsky]

95. Did MLK run for office?

Was he pandering for votes?

And no one on this thread is proposing that religion be "off limits". Honestly the strawmen are thick tonight.

[incapsulated]

96. Plenty here have, plenty

This is an ongoing argument here.

And MLK had about a million times more real political power than Obama.

[yellowcanine]

100. "Kingdom on Earth" is standard social Gospel language - a liberal Christian concept, not a right

wing Christian idea. It is based on the Sermon on the Mount. In other words, Christians should work at creating socially just societies rather than telling oppressed peoples to wait for heaven.

I don't see a problem with Obama using such language. Reacting to this language in this way demonstrates some religious misunderstanding, imo.

[ripple]

101. Thanks for providing context. Great post. n/t

[redqueen]

102. Are people really getting worked up over this?

Jesus Tapdancing Christ... *sigh*

[The Count]

104. Good ol' separation of church and state...I don't want a Kingdom! Not for a horse,

not for the afterlife, not even with me on the throne.

[SaveElmer]

105. Though I have no sympathy for cries of "phony criticism"

Being leveled at Obama...as I am a supporter of the candidate most subject to that phenomenon around here..

I have to say, that this does strike me as phony criticism. If by emphasizing this people mean to imply that Obama is some kind of right wing religious fanatic, just look at the denomination he is a member of...

Like most of the bogus criticism of Hillary, this too is ridiculous...

[Didereaux]

107. Did this a week ago...where y'all been? ............

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/

[Dob Bole]

108. Yes, Obama REALLY wants to become king....

oh, brother.

Christians already believe that God is in control, even when we have bad rulers. "Building a Kingdom" is a metaphor.

[Goblinmonger]

112. A metaphor for what?

what about those of us that have absolutely no interest in building that christ-based kingdom? What do we do while our president is building that kingdom?

[zulchzulu]

109. This pathetic cherrypicking of a quote out of context brought to you by...

[Karmadillo]

115. Here's some context.

The OP doesn't seem to be cherry-picking at all.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDs1G4KcPg0QdpjieZ3p9oj2j_CgD8SA6CJG0

At an evangelical church in Greenville, S.C., Obama said he seeks to be an "instrument of God" and expressed confidence "we can create a kingdom right here on Earth."

That prompted Gaddy, of the Interfaith Alliance, to criticize the candidate in a conference call with reporters. Gaddy cautioned against any presidential candidate talking about building such a kingdom while "in an evangelical church in which that terminology has a very specific, indisputable definition that is exclusive rather than inclusive."

more...

[Perry Logan]

116. What a screw-up. Imagine the chatter if Hillary had said that.

[jefferson_dem]

117. I'm sure she would...

if she had the credibility to deliver the message, and thought it would win her votes.