This is beginning to feel a lot like the last season of the West Wing.

when a man can be taken seriously as a candidate who doesn't beat his chest and profess his believe in Jesus as his personal savior. Maybe we should all just start wearing little crosses on our lapels. Maybe Nancy Pelosi should join Opus Dei and hang a picture of Pope Benedict in her office. Maybe the Supreme Court should formally recognize the Bible as superior to the Constitution. You think I am exaggerating, but actually I find it difficult to exaggerate when I am throwing up. Cross Obama off my list for 2008.

I didn't detect any chest thumping. It doesn't sound hollow to me like W's trite proclamations about faith. Maybe I'm gullible and Obama is a good actor, but so far I don't see any reason to doubt his sincerity or motives. I'm very liberal and I'm not a Christian, but I support any individual who works to help others by acting on his moral or spiritual beliefs. And I certainly don't see anything in the Biblical principles cited by Obama that violates the Constitution.

Before events to too much further, the so called "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party (caveat: beware of those who appropriate that name to themselves and ask if they are truly living up to it)will be sharply critical of Obama in a good many respects. However, take note. The sentiments expressed at the Aids Conference could quite readily and believably have been made by Robert Kennedy or Martin Luther King. TULLIUS

I can't get behind Purcellneil's criticism of Obama. Obama is certainly a strong believer in the Christian faith, as is George W. But the important issue here is what they take from their faith. Obama takes positions that are almost exclusively "liberal" and Bush takes positions that are almost exclusively "conservative" despite the fact that on the surface they are coming from the same faith. It seems apparent that they both use faith to give some metaphysical justification for their ethical sentiments. They both have preexisting notions of rightness and wrongness, and both couch their beliefs in religious terms. If Obama is able to show Ameicans that believing in the Christian faith does not necessarily mean voting for the religious right, then I'm all for him. It is unlikely he will "impose his religious beliefs" or anything like that. He clearly has ideas of his own, and justifies them with Christianity. Despite initial appearences, it has proven to be a remarkably flexible doctrine.

Give Obama a chance. I'm an atheist, and I'm second to none in my impatience with all religion -- including the moderate kind which, in my view, bestows religious materials and ways of thinking with a legitimacy that enables and justifies more extreme and harmful attitudes. But... While I dislike all religion, I recognize that I'm in the minority, and that it will be a long time before a mainstream politician expresses anything close to my view on the subject. In the meantime, my second best choice is the religion of Martin Luther King -- the religion that preaches tolerance and charity. That's what I think Obama is honestly expressing here. Perhaps your problem is that Obama is a political figure, and you're uncomfortable with any political figure expressing personal religious views. I normally agree, but not for church-state reasons -- for sincerity reasons. I often feel like conspicuous displays of religion are obligatory in today's politics, and it makes my skin crawl to see politicians abide by this rule where, it seems, they wouldn't make such displays otherwise. This isn't the problem with Obama -- he doesn't talk about his religion every two seconds. He's not constantly using the word "bless" in order to signal to voters that he's religious. He talks about his own religious views and experience honestly and eloquently at appropriate occasions, and the policy stances he derives from these things are beyond reporach. I find it hard to find fault with this. I agree that a politician shouldn't have to bend over backwards to proclaim his faith. But that's not what Obama's doing. He's just saying what he thinks. He's allowed to do that. What we see here is one manifestation of why Obama is so promsing as a leader -- he truly is a uniter. Moreover, he's a uniter with general convictions of his own that he's not afraid to express. His skill is to express his convictions such that they have maximum appeal. You can believe that we "have a stake in one another" without being religious, but, if you are, that's what Obama's Christianity requires. It's also, by the way, a fundamental ideal of this country. It's also just the right thing to do. Obama makes the argument on all levels. I'm hard pressed to argue with that approach, so long as he's being honest. I think he is, almost startlingly so.

Obama's wide-ranging appeal reminds me of Sunstein's idea of "incompletely theorized agreements" -- that we might find ways to agree on outcomes or courses of action without agreeing on reasons, and that demanding agreement on reasons (i.e. theory) might unnecessarily preclude or obstruct agreement on what we all, more or less, want to do. When Obama talks about his political ideas, he makes an appeal on different dimensions. He says, what I'm saying is what I think it means to be a Christian, to be an American, to be a Democrat, and to be a decent person. The Republican probably won't be convinced by the Democrat argument and an atheist such as myself probably won't be convinced by the Christianity argument. But we don't all have to agree on all the reasons. Moreover, his approach isn't strictly a matter of seeking incompletely theorized agreement. In other words, he doesn't just say, "Well, at least we can all agree on x, even if we can't agree on how we get there." He describes how he gets there -- he gives his theory. It's just that his theory accommodates a lot of emphases -- decency, Christianity, American exepeptionalism, the party of FDR, whatever. Indeed, his willingness to engage on the theoretical level -- on the level of principle -- is one of his most appealing attributes, and it distinguishes him from many of his fellow Democrats. Republicans, these days, seem more willing to make appeals to principle; it's just that their appeals to principle are often narrow and exclusionary. Obama is grounding a Democratic agenda in bigger things without resorting to divisive ideology, and we haven't seen that for a long time. He promises something deeper than incompletely theorized agreement -- that is, completely theorized agreement.

I just read the entire speech, and I think it's a masterpiece. Obama speaks from his heart, his finely honed intelligence, and his clear-eyed view of the incredible scale and depth of human suffering. I believe with him that we are all inextricably related and must work together to alleviate the world's sorrow, suffering, and pain. Frankly, as a speaker, Barak Obama is in a class by himself, as he so clearly demonstrates here and also showed when he addressed the 2004 Democratic convention. Tullius is right--his sentiments at the AIDS converence could easily have been Kennedy's or King's.

God bless you for a very good post.

Actually, I love Obama. I think he will be a great President. I would not only vote for him, I would work for him - if he gets the nomination. However.... I would rather have a candidate who doesn't play the God card. It makes me sick to hear politicians blather on about their religion - especially for political effect. And let's face it, Obama was pandering to the Evangelicals by talking about his faith. Maybe that's what you have to do to get elected in America. But it stinks. And although I am generally enamored of Obama, this little bit of pandering made me sick.

when someone sneezes do you say "God bless you" or just "bless you", how about gesundheit or do you say nothing? It makes me sick that these sneeze police have to throw God up in my face every time I perform a bodily function. But then again, I do say "Satan made me do it" whenever I fart too loud. I understand what you are saying philo wise, but I do doubt it that it makes you "sick."

I'd agree with you if I thought he was just pandering in the way you mean. I don't think he was. Is all talk of religion a crass political calculation? Was MLK or Lincoln pandering when they invoked religion? No, they were just making very appealing arguments.

Goid bless you sir for your blessing.

I meant God.

Thank you Charmastew for your affirmation of the point made above. Do those posters above who object to public statements of moral and spiritual commitment find the following statement objectionable? If so, they should explain why. "I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land." Martin Luther King TULLIUS

and I suppose it is okay with me if preachers talk about God. I don't even mind if a politician talks about God. For example, when Jimmy Carter said he was "born again" I didn't think it was a big deal (although others did). Those were the good old days - when Carter didn't HAVE TO announce his religion in order to be accepted as a candidate for office. You remember those good old days - and maybe you will admit that things are different today. In the good old days, a politician's religion was his own business, and separation of church and state was considered a vital protection of private religious practice. Today, you gotta be a Christian and you better tell us all about your personal relationship with Jesus. Today, separation of church and state is a nuisance for the evangelical types who want to us the power of the state to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. So, yeah, it makes me sick every time a man of Barack Obama's quality bows to the political clout of the American Taliban. In the good old days, people were actually shocked that Carter mentioned his "born again" status. It didn't get him as many votes as it cost him. Seems to me that Barack Obama made a calculation that his confession of faith would work to his benefit. That's pandering, folks.

Cass Sunstein writes: "Obama's speech is noteworthy for at least four reasons. First, he spoke openly and unambiguously about his own religious convictions..." Obviously, I am not the only person who thought the religious angle was important. However, what Sunstein applauds, I lament. As for the Gesundheit question, I am quite comfortable with "Merry Christmas", "God Bless You", "One Nation under God" and swearing on the Bible. I'd just like to reverse the weakening of church-state separation that has marked the past 6 years. As John Danforth has pointed out, the GOP today is a religious party - the political arm of evangelical christianity. That's not good, no matter what you say when your buddy sneezes.

We can all agree that Obama is a great orator, and that the broad policies he advocates are supported by most TNR readers and bloggers. He could be a liberal churchman. But I don't see how that is sufficient for being a candidate who can be elected, and if elected being an effective president. Can someone explain, taking into account the nature of American elections and what goes on day to day in the White House.

So this is what a gathering of godless heathens looks like. Surely such an Ethical Society would find it within reason to extend a degree of generosity to the less enlightened. Here. Try this: Stand and with palms extended in front now spread your arms to the 10 and 2 position. There you go. Feels good, neh? See? You too can become God. A god among gods. God. I can't wait for the future.