Obam got the endorsement of NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League.

And then he gave his speech claiming that, since not everybody in America is Christian, Christians should shut up when social-issue liberals want to use the government to impose THEIR view on morals on the country.

No wonder he's trying so desparatly to get "Evangelicals" (which, come election time, is a term which includes Catholics and Jews) to stay home election day.

That speech that Dobson is prefacing was made in 2006. And it wasn't about shutting up. He actually says it is impossible to separate your moral center from your politics.

Many Xians are more concerned with cutting down abortions through effective policies rather than just concentrating on "just saying no". They are also concerned with protecting the earth and moving away from the belligerant stance supported by the more conservative religious leaders.

And outside of evengelicals, most Americans are demonstrating more understanding of people of different faiths with a "many roads can lead to Heaven" mindset.

And yes, most will stay home but not because Obama asked them to. But because they they know they can't in good conscious support a man like McCain.

Did you actually read/listen to the speech? It's available, in its entirety on the 'Net. What Obama actually said was that Christians should bring their faith to the government, but they should understand that other people will bring their faith to the government as well. It's why he said:

"And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles."

Everyone's faith is different, both inside Christianity and outside. The text of the speech itself says very explicity that Christians should not only not shut up about their faith, but they should bring it with them to government. So should everyone else. They should not check their faith at the door. They should not check religious language at the door. He directly states that our government's language would be poorer if Lincoln had not used religious words, among other examples.

What he does say is that Christians have to understand that one faith, one denomination, and one interpretation of the Bible is not democratic. It's against the principles of the constitution and it's wrong. (I am using the word "you" in a generic fashion, and not to mean you in particular.) Bring your faith with you, but in order to have an open and productive dialogue, you have to understand that not everyone has your faith. That means that if you are against abortion, you should have arguments for why it's morally wrong than simply "God said so." Likewise, if you are for abortion, you should have arguments for why it's morally right to legalize it that people of faith can agree with. "A woman's right to choose" just doesn't cut it.

Obama's speech was about using faith to bring folks together to hash out their differences and come to some kind of agreement that people can live with, which is a pretty Christian thing to do. Love thy neighbor as you love thyself. Clean the plank out of thine own eye before worrying about the dust mote in thy neighbor's. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles.

I am no longer a Christian and I do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a man. However, had Jesus been what the Bible purports him to have been, then I believe Jesus would agree with Obama on this one. Christian faith should be about bringing people together, not setting people against each other. That doesn't mean mindlessly agreeing with things you know are wrong, but that does mean being a good neighbor and doing our best to get along. As democratic Americans, we're all neighbors.

<link>

If you don't trust the source, then google obama call to renewal keynote address.

You don't really think Donnie will actually listen to the original speech rather than just recite what Dobson and Hannity told him it said, do you?

Donnie's mind snapped closed the second he saw that "D" after Obama's name.

What part of "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values." don't you think I read?

If YOU read the transcript of the speech, you may notice that Obama defended his support of abortion and Gay marriage by pointing out that Leviticus allows for slavery* and Deuteronomy allows for executing a son who attacks his parents**, and claiming that therefore we shouldn't look to the Bible for guidance; and also that therefore only "universal, rather than religion-specific, values" can be codified into laws in a democracy, with his fellow "progressives" defining which values are "universal" and which are "religion-specific".

*Leviticus does allow for debt-slavery, which we still practice when we throw a man into prison for non-payment, but also insists that during the Jubilee Year we should "Proclaim liberty throughout the land, and to the inhabitants thereof," as it says on the Pennsylvania State-house bell (which the abolitionists renamed "The Liberty Bell," as they used Leviticus to say that God demands that we free the slaves.)

**We even still punish a son who attacks his parents.

And if you want to bring up dietary regulations, have you eaten a tomato lately?

"...and also that therefore only "universal, rather than religion-specific, values" can be codified into laws in a democracy, with his fellow "progressives" defining which values are "universal" and which are "religion-specific"."

Are you arguing that it is a bad thing to seek out universal values that can guide democracy? If so, are you arguing that "religion-specific" values are the only correct values to be applied in law? Wouldn't that make you a theocrat, and not a believer in democracy?

Since not everyone, indeed most people, do not share your particular religious morality, a truly democratic society would not impose specific religious or cultural ethical systems on its citizens, but would impose a democratic ethical system - that is, a system based on democratic principles only - such as freedom of belief, universal suffrage, equality before the law, etc. That IS what we all agree on, to live in a democracy under a democratic ethic.

If you contradict that by saying we should live under a Christian ethic, not even, a particular sect of Christian ethic, not Liberation Theology, or Deism, or Catholicism, but a peculiar strain of Nationalist Evangelism, then by definition you want a Theocratic state.

The truth is, "progressives" understand that much - they might have a particular social agenda, but at least their arguments are based on democratic principles, whether you agree with them or not; freedom of choice, nonintervention of the state, etc. You might want to rethink the basis of your own arguments: if they're based on Biblical interpretation, then youre not a believer in Democracy.