Recently, Barrack Obama attended the annual convention for the United Church of Christ. He commented on his use of faith regarding politics and how the "Christian right " has used hot button issues to divide us rather than bring us together.

I don't want to beat a dead horse... well, actually I do. For years now we have been told by those on the left to leave our morals out of politics. That we can't shove our faith down other peoples throats and that morality is subjective therefore, it can not be legislated. The popular pro-choice t-shirt that reads "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" comes to mind. Anyway, for years we have argued that our faith  makes us who we are and that our decisions regarding politics will reflect so.

I am certain that people of other religions are influenced by their faith as well, but the question of who's faith is right or wrong should be irrelevant. We live in a representative republic and we can only hope that a greater number of voters feel the same way about issues as we do.   

So if morality is subjective, at least as it relates to religion. How then does the left embrace any presidential candidate that chooses to apply his or her morality in creating policy. If they are accepting that issues should be addressed using the tenets of any one faith or religion, they should have no problem discussing "hot button issues" that are born out of someone else's interpretation of scripture.

If Obama believes that Biblical principles challenge us to implement more social programs, that is his argument to make. If a voter feels compelled by his argument, they will vote for him. So why then is the "Christian right" lampooned  for using  it's own conclusions of how Biblical principles should help shape policy.

If we are finally at a place in this country where people are willing to debate the validity of Biblical principles being used as the foundation of policy, then I would say we've made progress. Obama also said that "faith got hijacked" (nice terrorism analogy) by those on the right and then continued to make the case for social programs based on Biblical principles. So are voters simply to accept his version of morality or do we actually get to debate "WWJD". No need to answer, the media already has.

Obama also said that "so called religious leaders" have us all convinced that religious Americans are only concerned with a few issues such as abortion, gay marriage, intelligent design and school prayer (wow! such petty things). He doesn't address wether or not we should apply scripture in regards to these issues. Does he intend for us to continue to support these petty issues and simply adopt his Biblical interpretation regarding other problems? Or, do we assume that he believes we are wrong on these particular "hot Buttons". If so, this would mean he has read the scriptures and believes that we have incorrectly interpreted the Word of God, which he his entitled to believe. However the thought had occurred to me, all this new Jesus talk is starting sound more like a church debate over Biblical doctrine, which first requires one to actually confirm or deny their belief in the written word of God in it's entirety. I'm not sure the left is wanting that discussion just yet. At least not as long as the top three democratic presidential candidates profess to be Christians.

The truth is, the Bible has some pretty tough literature for most people to swallow and contrary to popular belief Christ actually said he will bring division. The scriptures' context is irrelevant in the sense that those on the left such as Obama, simply act as if faith is just supposed to bring us all together and that should be enough. Translation for homeschooled redneck Christians is as follows, (We abandon any convictions that we have and pick up his beliefs so that we could all be warm, happy and united). Man I'm gettin dizzy.

Anyway, I welcome Obama and those on the left to this radical new concept of merging faith and politics. I think it's always a good thing if politicians are openly willing to talk about their religion and how it affects their policies. I guess this all means we the people can get back to deciding how to apply our own personal faith and morality in the voting booth and feeling good about it as well. Let the debate begin. Good grief! It's about time.

Jeremy Randolph