In Palmetto State, Obama pitches faith through psalms and Bible verses

CHARLESTON, S.C. — One of the most striking aspects of Barack Obama's pitch in the Palmetto State, where roughly half the Democratic voters are black, is that it isn't dominated by the issue of race. It's about faith.

Through the psalms and verses of the Bible, Obama is seeking to connect with South Carolinians at a deeper place than the color of their skin, a place where belief in modern miracles may linger, including the election of the first African-American president.

There is a simple, if unspoken, plea at the heart of his campaign: that black voters take a leap of faith and stand by his candidacy. "Yes, we can," is his campaign signature call.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-12-obama-faith_N.htm#uslPageReturn

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/

That will help him in the primary, for sure.

Everything here was hope and change, not Bible verses and Psalms.

Unless you read the article that you linked, where Senator Obama speaks of those very things.

Because there was not a big faith-based push here and no, the speeches were *not* laced with Psalms.

voters who get the psalms or the ones who don't.

:shrug:

Was he baptised? When?

http://tucc.org/about.htm

This is Obama's church.


On Obama's spiritual journey:

<a href="http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2006/10/barack_obamas_s.html">Discussions of faith are rarely heavy-handed within the confines of the Senate. No one is quizzed on his or her religious affiliation; I have rarely heard God's name invoked during debate on the floor. Beyond the Senate's genteel confines, though, any discussion of religion and its role in politics can turn a bit less civil. Take my Republican opponent in 2004, Alan Keyes, who deployed a novel argument for attracting voters in the waning days of the campaign. "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama," Mr. Keyes proclaimed, "because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved." Already disadvantaged by a late start and a lack of funds, Mr. Keyes had, during the course of a mere three months, managed to offend just about everybody. In that sense, he was an ideal opponent; all I had to do was keep my mouth shut and start planning my swearing-in ceremony. And yet, as the campaign progressed, I found him getting under my skin. For he claimed to speak for my religion--and although I might not like what came out of his mouth, I had to admit that some of his views had many adherents within the Christian church. His argument went something like this: America was founded on the twin principles of God-given liberty and Christian faith. Successive liberal administrations had hijacked the federal government to serve a godless materialism and had thereby steadily chipped away at individual liberty and traditional values. The answer to American renewal was simple: Restore religion generally--and Christianity in particular--to its rightful place at the center of our public and private lives and align the law with religious precepts. In other words, Alan Keyes presented the essential vision of the religious right in this country, shorn of all compromise. Within its own terms, it was entirely coherent, and provided Mr. Keyes with the certainty and fluency of an Old Testament prophet. And while I found it simple enough to dispose of his constitutional and policy arguments, his readings of Scripture put me on the defensive. Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, Mr. Keyes would say, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination. Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but he supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life. What could I say? That a literal reading of the Bible was folly? Unwilling to go there, I answered with the usual liberal response in such debates--that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my religious views on another, that I was running to be a U.S. senator from Illinois and not the minister of Illinois. But even as I answered, I was mindful of Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation--that I remained steeped in doubt, that my faith was adulterated, that I was not a true Christian. In a sense, my dilemma with Mr. Keyes mirrors the broader dilemma that liberalism has faced in answering the religious right. Liberalism teaches us to be tolerant of other people's religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs don't cause anyone harm or impinge on another's right to believe differently. To the extent that religious communities are content to keep to themselves and faith is neatly confined as a matter of individual conscience, such tolerance is not tested. But religion is rarely practiced in isolation; organized religion, at least, is a very public affair. The faithful may feel compelled by their religion to actively evangelize wherever they can. They may feel that a secular state promotes values that directly offend their beliefs. They may want the larger society to validate and reinforce their views. And when the religiously motivated assert themselves politically to achieve these aims, liberals get nervous. Those of us in public office may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that--regardless of our personal beliefs--constitutional principles tie our hands on issues like abortion or school prayer. Such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when the opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and so avoid joining a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.</a>

obama has learned well to push the replay/reprint emotions/emotional buttons and that should be scary to the nation as a whole.

When Martin Luther King Jr did that, it was really scary.

obama is disguising his play for power in the rubrics of religion ... and look what all of the mileage it has gotten the bushboy ... and the torn america it has created.

maxine waters is a player for fairness and equality. obama is not.
barbara jordan was a player for fairness and equality. obama is not.
shirley chilsom was a player for fairness and equality. obama is not.
sheila jackson-lee is a player for fairness and equality. obama is not.
carrie meeks was a player for fairness and equality. obama is not.

obama, like bush, says what is convenient to him at the time.

He was very serious. So is Senator Obama.

Over the top religious stuff turns off a lot of Dem voters, we had 8 years of an idiot who felt he was being called by god, and we all know how that turned out. Any of that religious stuff makes me run for the door with politicians.

However, it seems to me Obama is just changing his tune to suit the crowd, i don't believe any of his bull about being a change politician, he'll say anything to whatever crowd he's speaking too. It's be another pitch in the next state.

:banghead:

:nodding:

:*

In fact, I just made use of it lol!

I HATE that politics has been overrun with religious pandering. Granted, it's probably
going to help him in SC, the state where the fundies were going to set up their own dominionist
govt. (I'll have to look for the link).

Still, it makes me want to :puke:

another bible thumping idiot - hey Barack I'm voting for my President not my Preacher - it is really hard to decide who is the bigger pander bear Clinton or Obama which is why I'm voting for Edwards in the primary....

But maybe in SC - isn't that the state where all those good Christians want to move to and then secede from the nation - I say have at it.....

Goddess, I just cannot vote for this guy. I just can't!

his clinging to the religious right and their hate and homophobia has turned me off. For good.

pocket of religion.

what's he going to do in Nevada? Shoot craps with Hillary?

black churches and audiences--and they both were revered by AA voters.

Just kidding---I know what you mean, but that abbreviation always makes me pause because I automatically think of the 12-step group.

This pandering of most of the candidates to the con-artist con-servative "churches" really makes me ill. I really am not interested in which imaginary friend a candidate wishes to confide in, but when the grandstanding reaches the levels of pandering during this campaign year, one wonders who is going to make an intervention.

As I told one person who was going on and on at me about why we MUST have a "conservative Christian" in the White House and how Christianity MUST be put "back" into the public school system..."Don't you think it sets a rather hypocritical example for children who may create an imaginary friend to witness you publicly brandishing your own? How can you, in good conscience, prevent a child who creates faith in their own imaginary friend from developing that relationship, yet insist on imposing your own? Isn't this really a matter of attempting to abridge freedom of religion, especially for children? Or are you merely content enough to demand that all candidates pay homage to your religion alone while ignoring the rights of others and refusing to accept any criticism of that religion?

:kick:

Can anyone name a viable candidate in this election cycle who refuses to talk up their religion in anyway?

I was worried for a while that he might be...you know...a heathen.

NOW, I can vote for him.

Blechh...I'm sick of it.

I'm so sick of politicians playing the Jeezus card. How corny.

Sure, they are not saying "vote for me" directly, but, come on, actively campaigning for office and then making a speech (sermon?) at the church.