In Puritan culture, personal beliefs were a much more private matter than in the Ulster-dominated culture of the Appalachians and the South.  In early American forms of both, religious people were thought to have a profound spiritual experience-- a rebirth--- but the Puritans tended to talk about this happening at a private moment or in a one-on-one meeting with a minister.  In Ulster culture, the altar call with your parishioners and perhaps even other denominations' adherents present was more the norm (and still is); the rebirth was public.  The Puritans, not the Ulsterites, have been more likely historically to expect others to conform their behavior to broad-based standards, while people in the South tend to qualify their expectations with possible exceptions.  Over time, our modern-day Puritans, especially credentialed academics, have opted for ethical considerations over religious ones.  The Ulsterites prefer to judge another person’s heart.

 

 

I heartily suggest reading Obama's speech for yourself because he's such a nuanced speaker that any excerpts are certain to fail to convey his entire message.  The context is vital, too, because he was appearing before a convention of progressive Evangelicals, people who are concerned that right-wing extremists have hijacked the definition of Christianity in this country.  That association in the minds of many that Republican ideals are somehow Christian ideals was addressed by Obama in the speech:

 

 

    Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

 

    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.

 

 

 

Those three criticisms constitute the bulk of leftist blog fireworks concerning this speech.  Much of the rest of the online criticism is nitpicking or criticisms about one line taken out of context.  Later on, if conservatives try to say that Obama was dissed by left-wingers-- and I predict we'll hear this sooner or later-- they are basically lying.  There are a few lefty bloggers who are idiots concerning the role of religion in politics, but they're not the bulk of the Democratic Party, by any means.

 

 

 

        "before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.  Then the King will tell those on his right hand,'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in.  I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink?  When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you?  When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'  "The King will answer them,'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

 

    The Democrats are the party of those whom Jesus told us to serve - the poor, the sick, the hungry and the thirsty.  I believe in universal healthcare. I believe in looking after the poor. I believe in helping prisoners rehabilitate. I believe in feeding those who don't have their daily bread.  Like all political parties there are places where the Democratic party and the bible part. But I know that Jesus wanted us to care for the poor, and the sick and the wretched, and I believe that of the two parties in this country, the Democratic party is the one more committed to doing that.

 

Ah, yes, that's more to the point.  Obama should have insisted that his vision of Christianity is closer to Christ's values rather than implying that his values are morally equivalent to the Republicans'.