There’s one major difference between Huckabee and Obama that you right wing conservative nutjobs are overlooking.

Huckabee is a right wing conservative nutjob, and Obama is a passionate voice for the less fortunate in our society.

How dare you lay these criticisms of our Messiah!

Oh man, you had me going for a second. I read your name and then the first line and assumed it was some other Joe wandering on to the site. LOL

There’s an actual difference between Huckabee and Obama’s use of the cross. Obama has had to deny repeated “accusations” that’s he secretly a Muslim. How does he show people he’s actually Christian without crossing the line of bringing religion into politics?

Adrian-

Is there anything you won’t swallow if it comes from the Left? When some Republicans used crosses in the 2004 Republican Convention, I loudly and clearly denounced it. And I come from the side which is pretty comfortable with mixing religion and politics.

Your principles necessitate a strict separation of church and state. And yet you rush to Obama’s defense.

So rumors about Obama’s Muslim background justify injecting religion into politics? And the ONLY way he could establish his Christian bona fides was to produce this blatant piece of religio-political propaganda? As SNL might put it — Really?

If not church and state separation, do you have ANY political values which rank higher than political expediency?

Adrian, Obama did show us his Christian beliefs by attending a separatist church with liberation theology.

Whether that’s worse than accusations of being a Muslim, I couldn’t tell…

Actions speak louder than words. Unfortunately, this doesn’t hold true for Democrats. You see, with Democrats, actions can be explained away and words are all that matter.

Yeah, uh, I’d have to say Joe nailed it . . . if Obama wants to show Christian bona fides, he’d have to start by trying some bona fide Christianity. Wright’s stuff ain’t the right stuff; not even close. I mean, ain’t much of a whiff of Jesus in Marx, and switching the labels don’t make it so.

Wow, that wasn’t quite the reaction I expected.

Obama’s use of Christian symbols and rhetoric isn’t much different from politicians on the Right. As an atheist in favor of separation of church and state I think both are pretty silly. But the problem of him being “smeared” as a Muslim still exists, and Obama was not the one that ‘injected’ this question (obviously). Obama needs some way of reaching the people who still persist in the belief that he’s Muslim and that that’s a bad thing, so how does he reach them other than going around proclaiming that he’s a Christian?

Adrian-

“Wow, that wasn’t quite the reaction I expected.”

Was it overly? Sorry if it came across as brusque. I just react strongly to the persistent double standards on the Left — appeals to racial solidarity, mockery of the looks of conservative (or dissenting liberal) women, and overt mixing of religion and politics are all permissible if they come from people with the correct politics.

“Obama needs some way of reaching the people who still persist in the belief that he’s Muslim and that that’s a bad thing, so how does he reach them other than going around proclaiming that he’s a Christian?”

Do the ends justify the means?

I have seen very few, if any, Republican ads which are this nakedly religious. And the key difference is, of course, that those Republicans believe such ads are permissible. Obama and the Left do not.

As for Obama’s need, yes, of course he had to address religion. He was called a Muslim, and it’s perfectly alright to assert his Christianity.

Likewise, when George Bush ‘41 was called a “wimp” during the 1992 campaign, he needed to respond to the charge. He played up his war record in response. On the other hand, he didn’t bludgeon someone into unconsciousness on national TV in order to prove his toughness.

Obama violated his own principles (and one of the foundational tenets of the Left) with this pandering appeal. Yes, he needed to address the issue. But he should have done so in a way that didn’t violate his own principles.

Let me close with a question:

Do you honestly believe that this cross-based literature was done EXCLUSIVELY to defuse Muslim rumors, or was it in large measure an attempt to shore up weak political support in Kentucky through religious identity politics?

Adrian, what proof do we have that Obama really isn’t a Muslim? Excuse me for a second while I put on my conspiracy theorist hat…

Obama has told us that he isn’t a Muslim, and his supporters have told us he isn’t a Muslim. But we know that Obama’s supporters will stop at nothing to see to it that the American public doesn’t learn his true, Chicago rooted nature.

I don’t know if he’s a Muslim or not, and it doesn’t really bother me because I’m much more worried about his policies.

Joe - I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

J. -

“Obama violated his own principles”

Most of the SECULAR left believes in the separation of church and state. Plenty of others on the left don’t. The left is just as fragmented as the right on lots of stuff, religion being one of them. Obama is not hard and fast on separation: http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Church_and_State

“Do you honestly believe that this cross-based literature was done EXCLUSIVELY to defuse Muslim rumors, or was it in large measure an attempt to shore up weak political support in Kentucky through religious identity politics?”

I don’t think you can separate them. Some people in Kentucky won’t vote for Obama because they think he is Muslim - that is the religious identity politics. The Obama campaign plays up his Christianity in response.

“it’s perfectly alright to assert his Christianity”

Well that’s exactly what he is doing. I also think it’s impossible to assert your Christianity without coming off as pandering.

Adrian - I’ve got some kool-aid to sell you. Unless you’re all stocked up!

I don’t object to Obama asserting his religiosity, or that his religion is not Islam. And I’m pouring the Kool-Aid off my new bridge before someone gets hurt. I now have some fresh fish for you. . . .

What I object to is Obama calling his religion “Christianity.” That claim is the one Christians need to be challenging.

Just like we needed to be challenging Romney’s claim to believe in Christ.

pgepps -

I have to call BS on your last comment. You seem to imply that Mormon’s aren’t Christians. If, however, you were just speaking of Romney himself, then ignore my statement.

Let me know which you meant before I address it further.

I stand by the language. I’ll rephrase to suit your needs, if you like.

Liberation theology, of the sort espoused by Wright and which Obama “found” in his church, does not proclaim the Gospel of Christ.

Mormonism, the faith professed by Romney, does not proclaim the Gospel of Christ.

I make no judgment on the possibility any given person is a believer.

Christians should definitely be saying for the good of the churches, and for the health of their evangelism, “this is not Christian” about false Christs.

Adrian-

I agree that his -rhetoric- during the campaign has been full of fluffy, feel-good words about religion. He’s managed to say nice things about both separation and inclusion of religion in politics.

His ACTIONS, however, speak louder. This is a man with a 100% approval rating from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He’s a -moderate- on the issue?

Setting aside Obama for a moment, can you address the rest of the Left? Where is the aggrieved sense of outrage so many of them showed when Huckabee had a SUBLIMINAL cross behind him?

“Most of the SECULAR left believes in the separation of church and state.”

From what you said, you’re on the secular left. Are you an exception to that? Or do the ends justify the means on this issue?