Two posts (from wsj.com, where my post was originally printed) that typify the coming debate in the evangelical community:

My Dad is a Southern Baptist Minister and my mother is also highly conservative. They are dedicated and excited Obama supporters. You don’t get much more evangelical than they are and you won’t find people who live much more biblically than they do so my answer is YES HE CAN. Oh, they voted for Bush too, just in case you are doubting their “conservativeness.” Comment by Seth - May 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm

On the other hand...

I am an Evangelical Christian. Sen. Obama is the epitome of a preacher looking for a flock with itching ears. And he’s finding them. Rev. Wright was most correct when he said about Obama: he has to do what politicians do. Meaning: Obama has to lie to get elected. Obama will nominate Federal judges who are opposed to Christian morality and its influence in society. Obama will raise taxes to fund the next “great society” (that really worked in the 60’s, didn’t it?). He will be the modern day Robin Hood by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. So, it is flawed logic to think that Obama would be a friend to Evangelical Christians and very hard-working Americans everywhere.

Comment by KaraokeKing - May 7, 2008 at 6:41 am

Reprinted from the Wall Street Journal Online

If Bill Clinton was the first white to be a black president, could Barack Obama be the first non-evangelical to be an evangelical president?

Huh? — you might be grunting.

If Sen. Obama can’t even win moderate white Catholics –- and he lost them again yesterday in Indiana -– then how on earth could he win evangelicals, the most reliable, conservative base of the Republican Party? He’s pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, and his connection to Rev. Jeremiah Wright has many moderate religious voters worried.

And yet, if he’s the nominee, Obama has a real chance at winning substantial evangelical support.

First, evangelicals are in a period of de-alignment from the Republican Party. The leading evangelical pollster George Barna found that only 29% of “born again” Christians now say they support Republicans, compared with 62% in 2004. That doesn’t mean they’ll flock to Democrats -– they could end up voting Republican just as much ever -– but large numbers are up for grabs.

Second, Sen. Obama has been working harder for their support than any other Democrat in recent memory. In his book “The Audacity of Hope”, instead of describing the religious right as a grotesque, right-wing power grab (as many on the left do), Sen. Obama said that its rise stemmed from Christians “feeling mocked and under attack.” Far from casting them as bigots, he declared that “most evangelicals are more tolerant than the media would have us believe.”

Sen. Obama has ripped Democrats for their failure to tap into the moral and even religious underpinnings of their views. “If we progressives shed some of our own biases, we might recognize the values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of the country,” he wrote.

Third, he sounds evangelical. In an interview with the leading evangelical publication Christianity Today, he said, “I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful.”

This is a far cry from Howard Dean who as a candidate in 2004 talked about Job being his favorite book in the New Testament.

Finally, Sen. Obama’s race may actually be a plus with some evangelicals. Lauren Winner, a popular young evangelical author and assistant professor of divinity at Duke University, predicts that evangelicals will go for Sen. Obama “in droves” not only because Sen. Obama seems to embody “good values” but also because the black church “strikes white Christians as ‘real religion,’ ‘real Christianity’ in a way that Clinton’s Methodism or McCain’s Episcopalianism do not.”

Let me now offer up the contrary evidence. In a poll of Ohio voters, Sen. Clinton beat Sen. Obama among evangelicals. My Beliefnet colleague Dan Gilgoff (a.k.a. Mr. God-o-meter) is skeptical. In Indiana, Sen. Clinton beat Sen. Obama among weekly churchgoers 52% to 48%, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright no doubt hurting among whites.

But I suspect that evangelicals will split according to age, income and class lines, just as other groups did. In fact, in an online survey on Beliefnet.com of evangelicals, Sen. Obama’s favorable ratings for evangelicals 45 and older was 42% while his favorable ratings for those younger than that was 64.4%

I’m certainly not saying this will be easy. The majority of evangelicals are conservative and will likely still vote Republican. But given that evangelicals make up a quarter of the electorate and a third of President Bush’s winning coalition, if Sen. Obama can at least get what Bill Clinton got in 1996 (32% of white evangelicals) instead of what Sen. John Kerry did in 2004 (22%) that could make the difference between victory and defeat.

Based on Indiana and North Carolina, we can now further clarify Sen. Obama’s weakness. He doesn’t have a big problem with whites. He has a problem with older whites. Consider this: in North Carolina, Sen. Obama beat Sen. Clinton among 17- to 29-year-old whites 57%-41%. Among those 30 to 44 years old, Sen. Clinton was ahead 52%-45%.

In Indiana, Sen. Obama won the young white vote (ages 17 to 29) by 62%-38% and those between 30 and 44, by 56%-44%.

But it was among the older whites that Sen. Clinton trounced Sen. Obama, winning the over-60 set 69%-29% in North Carolina and 64%-34% in Indiana.

What’s more, younger folks made up a bigger portion of the electorate: 22% of the voters in Pennsylvania were under 40. By contrast, 34% of the voters in Indiana were under 40, and 27% were in North Carolina

Reprinted from Wall Street Journal Online

Sen. Obama made major headway Tuesday among Catholics. He lost Catholics 70%-30% in Pennsylvania, but narrowed the gap to 59%-41% in Indiana and 51%-48% in North Carolina, exit polls showed.

Richard Land recalls the inspiration of hearing President Reagan's prayer day declaration. I have mixed feelings, to be honest, about National Prayer Day. I agree with the spirit: Americans should periodically pause and consider its tremendous blessings and express profound gratitude to God (or if you don’t believe God had anything to do with it, at least express thanks to all who have fought for freedom in the past few centuries).

But having spent a couple of years now looking at the Founding Fathers and religion, my views have shifted. I now fear that while public prayer is supposed to ennoble politicians, it may just politicize, and therefore taint, prayer. Instead of uplifting politics, it downgrades religion.

The Founders were divided on this. Washington and Adams both issued prayer proclamations that went considerably farther than what Reagan (and Harry Truman) had done.

But Jefferson and Madison stopped the practice. Jefferson seemed worried about prayer proclamations violating the First Amendment. Madison did, too, but added another argument: it wasn't good for religion. By offering prayer in a political context (including asking for prayers related to specific policy goals) Madison said prayer proclamations had politicized a solemn act "to the scandal of religion as well as the increase of party animosities."

In describing why he resisted prayer proclamations, Madison said, "They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion," he wrote. If Americans want to band together to pray, he said, they should do so but to bring about such prayer or gathering through the political process was "doubly wrong." Madison reported that he had received many private letters urging him to follow the pattern of Adams and Washington, prompting him to fear that Americans "have lost sight of the quality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution.”

We see evidence of that today. While Washington's prayer proclamations were non-denominational (as have the statements of modern presidents), the organizers of the National Prayer Day have a very clear evangelical mission. "In accordance with Biblical truth, the National Day of Task Force" seeks to promote freedom of worship, pluralism AND to "Foster unity within the Christian Church: and "Publicize and preserve America's Christian heritage."

This likely would have made Madison uncomfortable. On a few occasions – for instance, during the war of 1812 – even he did issue proclamations which, sure enough, were deemed political. When he asked for prayers that God would “animate their patriotism” and “bestow a blessing on their arms,” Federalists who opposed the war felt Madison had invoked God in support of an unjustified conflict. But Madison’s approach differed from that of Washington and Adams in one way. Rather than calling the nation to prayer, he designated particular days on which different religions could devise prayers of their own – if they wished – "according to their own faith and forms."

If we are to have an officially sanctioned National Prayer Day, it should follow in this spirit. An ill-conceived prayer day makes people connect prayer with politics -- instead of with God and gratitude.

Deal,

You said that while officials of the church expressed "concern" about the Iraq war, you weren’t aware that the Church opposed the Iraq war. I know you're making a distinction between the official church rulings and the mere pronouncements of the Pope, a distinction that is not always clear to many people outside (or inside) the church. I'd love for you or David to elaborate on what the difference is.

Certainly, I was led to believe by the liberal media that the Pope's views on the Iraq war went beyond mere "concern."

Vatican Strongly Opposes Iraq War

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

But in some of the Vatican's strongest language against a possible war, its foreign minister Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said a unilateral military strike would be a "crime against peace" with no justification on grounds of self-defense.

Pope says Iraq war threatens humanity

"When war, like the one now in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is even more urgent for us to proclaim, with a firm and decisive voice, that only peace is the way of building a more just and caring society," he said.

The Pope, in a speech to employees of Catholic television station Telepace, added: "Violence and weapons can never resolve the problems of man."

Pope urges world to avoid Iraq war

Monday, 13 January, 2003, 15:29

Without naming countries, the pope said efforts for peace were urgently needed "in the Middle East, to extinguish the ominous smouldering of a conflict which, with the joint efforts of all, can be avoided."

His remarks echoed recent comments about Iraq by top Vatican officials, who have reiterated Catholic teaching that "preventative" war is not justifiable, The Associated Press said.

Pope condemns war in Iraq

Pope John Paul II has expressed renewed opposition to the possibility of war in Iraq, saying the use of military force had to be the "very last option".

In a New Year address to Vatican diplomats, the Pope said war was "always a defeat for humanity", and called instead for more diplomacy and dialogue. "War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations," he said.

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says The Vatican clearly does not consider that America's planned offensive to topple Saddam Hussein meets the conditions of a "just war" laid down by the Roman Catholic Church.

Deal, in addressing specifically my question of why such comments didn’t have more influence on you and other conservative Catholic, you said, "I suppose one reason that Catholics didn't turn against the war once negative comments were heard from members of the curia and the Holy Father, was that they didn't feel any obligation to do so."

I understand why, as a technical theological matter, you would say this. But as a moral matter, I'm puzzled. Why did you not find the Pope persuasive? It was obviously something he thought about and prayed over tremendously. He was not merely giving an off the cuff soundbite; he was saying he thought the administration's approach to the war contradicted the essence of Christ's teachings. Why did you find the Pope so profoundly unpersuasive on this issue when you found him deeply persuasive on other issues?

Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal Online.

No voter wants to appear bigoted, so when asked directly if someone’s race would affect their vote, almost everyone says no. Pollsters have therefore searched for more indirect measures. I noticed two particularly interesting attempts.

The March Pew Research Center poll asked voters whether it is “all right for whites and blacks to date each other.” Nearly three-quarters of college-educated Democrats said they “completely agreed.” But among those without college – Sen. Clinton’s base – 44% completely agreed.

A new Newsweek poll found that “downscale” whites don’t view Sen. Obama as elitist, yet 45% said he would “fit in well with people in your local community” compared with 53% for Clinton.

Reprinted from the Wall Street Journal Online

Sen. Obama tanked with Catholics in Pennsylvania, and losing Catholics nationally would be a definite burden to carry into the general election. I found one glint of a silver lining for Sen. Obama: despite his struggles, he has shown himself able to win in heavily Catholic states.

There are 12 states in which white Catholics make up at least 25% of the population. Sen. Obama has won six (Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Vermont); Sen. Clinton has won six (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island).

Reprinted from the Wall Street Journal Online

Superdelegates and pundits have spent much of the last week assessing whether Barack Obama’s skin color makes him unelectable.

Well, here’s another awkward question: Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton been able to win men?

Consider this stunning fact: Sen. Obama has beaten Sen. Clinton among men in 23 of the 29 primaries for which we have exit polls. Even in big electoral states that Sen. Obama famously lost — such as Pennsylvania, California, Texas, New Jersey — Sen. Obama carried more men.

Now, one could flip this and say it’s more a sign of Sen. Clinton’s strength among women than her weakness among men. While Sen. Obama has energized the young, Sen. Clinton has brought more women to the polls. In eight contests, a remarkable 60% of the voters were women, and she’s done especially well among working class women. Newsweek’s cover story on Sen. Obama’s Bubba Gap might be slightly off: Sen. Obama’s biggest problem is with Bubba’s wife or girlfriend. (Bubbette? Marge? Danica?).

On balance, though, the gender gap has so far played more to Sen. Obama’s advantage. He has more delegates in part because he’s done better among women (winning the women’s vote in 12 states) than she has among men.

And the role of the gender gap will likely increase, not decrease, in the general election. In a March Pew poll, 26% of general-election voters said “men are better leaders than women,” and those voters are 26 percentage points less likely to support Sen. Clinton. In the Democratic primaries, a huge percentage of the electorate has been women. Yet in the 2004 general election, only 54% of the voters were women. To counteract this latent bit of sexism, Sen. Clinton would need to win women handily while increasing their turnout dramatically compared to the last election.

Deal, you raise an interesting point about Catholics and the war. It could indeed be a wild card. But here's the thing: in 2004, Catholics supported the Iraq war (along with the rest of the public) despite opposition from the Vatican. If the Vatican didn't seem to influence Catholics views on the war, why would it matter now?

By the way, the Church's opposition to the war in 2004 cause you to oppose the war?

Steve