Obama is starting to sound more like Bush lol j/k. It is late, good night.

I have withdrawn as an Obama volunteer campaign worker because of this pandering. He should have announced that he was going to close that theocratic idiocy. My choice is to vote for him or not vote at all. What he does next will determine that.

Agki, you are right, he is pandering to a constituency he will never connect with. It's pure pandering and political; he may say he supports it, but there is no way on this green earth that any of the judicial appointees he'd make would support anything akin to it. They would shoot it down so fast your head would spin. BO is nothing but a smooth talking, elitist politician. Say anything the audience in front of you wants to hear whether it's true or not.

If you want to know where Obama (or any other politician) stands on issues, don't listen to a word he says! Look at his voting record--that's where the truth will be.
I agree this is pandering!
So is McCain's trying to attach himself to the religous right, despite many years of voting far differently.
IS there a candidate out there who will be honest about his beliefs and stand by them, even if it costs?

Why Obama really likes Hillary, and still lies a lot. Here's another reason to enjoy cold, delicious watermelon this summer. Scientists at Texas A&M University, say watermelon has the same effect on the human body, that Viagra does. Among other healthful benefits, watermelon contains ingredients that relax the blood vessels, and increase the libido. These include lycopene, beta carotene, and citrulline, which act as natural enhancers to the human body. It's the citrulline in the melon, that can do the trick. Unfortunately, most of the citrulline is found in the watermelon rind, and that's not eaten too often. But scientists are working on a hybrid watermelon, where the fleshy part contains more citrulline.

An Associated Press-Yahoo News Poll finds that people who were surveyed would rather barbecue burgers with Barack Obama than John McCain, by a 52 percent to 45 percent margin. Men are about evenly divided between the two while women prefer Obama by 11 percentage points. Obama is a more popular guest with younger voters while McCain does best with the oldest. Party label means a lot, with three-quarters of Democrats picking Obama and the same number of Republicans picking McCain. Independents are about evenly split. The AP-Yahoo News survey of 1,759 adults (out of over 400,000,000 people in America) was conducted online by Knowledge Networks from June 13-23 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Either way, McCain would make a much better President, than a cook.

Whether or not your are religious, it does make sense to utilize churches in helping communities. Churches are all over the country and are a wonderful medium for helping those with needs, regardless of religious affiliation. Obama used churches help to incorporate many programs when he worked as a community organizer. You cannot be successful in making changes unless you have local contacts in each area to help on a smaller scale. I think it is a good idea, and a lousy reason to otherwise stop supporting Obama.

JenM,

I must respectfully disagree. Churches are the source of more social upheaval and turmoil than they could possibly help. Churches are parasitic on society, and cause theological contention rather than building of bridges. Turning to Churches to help communities only increases their power to spread their intolerance, bigotry, and lies. Churches are no better than elitist social clubs that imbue their members with fanatic passion that helps nobody and hurts millions worldwide. IMHO, what we need is for non-religious philanthropic organizations to step up and provide more human services, and get the Churches out of the lives of the poor and needy, whom they exploit mercilessly.

Wow! No to churches, sounds like you've really had some bad experiences! I'm sorry for you. I'll not try to convince you otherwise; I know I'd be wasting my time.

But the thread hasn't really been about churches, it's been about BO and how he panders. Wouldn't trust him any further than No to churches would trust a church.

Why is Obama "pandering" in this instance? He's a religious person himself (Christian) and so this makes sense that he's supporting this. For him to be pandering he'd have to be throwing his support behind something he doesn't think is right, but it scores points for himself to support it... that isn't the case here is it?

He even did a good thing by saying he'd alter the program, so that it's more inclusive... that anyone getting money in this program must utilize everyone, even if they're not a member of the church getting the money (where as now the churches can turn away people who aren't members... which is unfair).

As JenM pointed out, involving chuches in local charity and public help efforts makes perfect sense. Many churches already like to do things to help in their community, so why not help these churches give the public even more help by giving those churches money to do that? Last time I checked charity and community service was a good thing. So why give Obama flack for supporting a community program like this?

What happened to separation of church and state ... one of the basic pillars of our founding fathers ... one of the basic principals which separates us from the theocracies which are threatening peace in the world. Using faith and religion in a political race is just a way of preaching platitudes, while ignoring the real issues ... a favorite red herring used by Barrack Obama ... and, it sounds like a cheap pandering towards religious Americans, in order to get their votes in November.

Steve, BO is pandering because we all know judges he would appoint would throw out any faith based programs. He's only religious as long as his association with a church does not hurt him politically.

There are a lot of varieties of Christians and some of them just love to criticize other types. My opinion is to go to the horse's mouth, so to speak. So rather than trust what the media says about Mr. Obama's religious views, I went to the website of his church. They have a very different style of "Christianity" than I am familiar with and it is well worth studying as we prepare for a presidential election. We need to know what the church to which this man has been a member for 20 years teaches if we want to understand his point of view. Look for yourself and then judge whether Mr. Obama is "pandering".
And again, check his record for how he actually VOTES on these type of issues.

ALL Church's should be utilized in helping communities and their own member's as well, even the LDS Church, and by the way, it does, after all, that's what Jesus Christ would do, and has done, in the past, and today as well, that ole "hogwash" of "it's not that we don't HAVE TO help you, it's that we just don't want to", is not a Christ like saying, as I, being a LDS Member for the past 50 years, has heard many a time before in the past, in our own Ward, as well as other non-LDS Church's as well. That's why people give monies to them each week, in Church, and also, the man power is there in those Church's as well to get the job done - "for free." I just hope and pray more people will utilize churches in helping communities, their member's, the family, the elderly, the disabled and the sick, than other's as well. That's what it is all about.

First off Obamaism is NOT a Mormon. He don't know what he's talking about than. Willingness of Members to Serve Properly

Everything that is done in the Church, the leading, the teaching, the calling, the ordaining, the praying, the singing, the preparation of the sacrament, the counseling, and everything else is done by ordinary members, the weak things of the world. We see in the Christian churches their struggle to fill the need for clergy. We do not have that problem in the LDS Church. Once the gospel is preached and the Church is organized, there is an inexhaustible supply of faithful brothers and sisters who have that testimony and are willing to answer the call to serve. They commit themselves to the work of the Lord and live the standards required of them.

Obama doesn't ignore the "real issues", he covers them all and in quite a bit of detail... I suggest you visit his website and see for yourself.

Obama isn't all flowery words and no substance. People base this opinion of him on his public talks on the campaign trail... but they forget a key detail, rallys aren't for giving long detailed policy outlines (that would be boring and dull). The purpose of campaign rallys are to excite people, to motivate them to come check out what you're all about (on their own time, not during your speach) and hopefully then vote for you.

About seperation of church and state... many people misunderstand it. It doesn't mean the government and it's workers are supposed to avoid every aspect of religion like the plague or leave this key part of themselves at home and never utilize it in their decision making. All it means is they aren't to declare any certain one official for everyone in the country.

What issues are important to you aren't to another, so who is to determine what the "real issues" are? And religion is one for many.

Obama left that church a month or two ago and is no longer a member of it. But just because he's currently not tied to a specific church that doesn't mean he isn't still Christian. Being "Christian" isn't about what church you belong to, it's about what you believe (a belief in Christ and what He taught).

You say you went to that church's website to see what Obama believes. Well that's their beliefs and not necessarily his, not all of them anyhow. Just because a person is a member of a certain church (whatever it might be) doesn't mean they agree with everything the church teaches to the letter... the member might have their own person ideas and spin on various parts.

If you want to know what Obama believes you need to go to him, not the media or someone else. He says he's Chrisitan and that should be good enough for people. Just because a person is a poltitician doesn't mean we should automatically not trust them.

Now if you want a panderer, a sneaky true "politician" in the dirty sense... go to Huckabee. Now THERE is someone who used religion as an election tool.

Didn't Bush suggest the exact same thing and was criticized by the liberals?

Liberals, nothing but shameless Hypocrites.

I guess anything to get a vote.

Steve makes some good points. Thanks, Steve.

I must admit, I was impressed with Obama when he left his Church because the leader was a fanatic racist and a horrible example of a Christian. It takes a lot of nerve to go against religious leaders. Everybody is so infatuated with their religious leaders that they turn off their own minds and become passive sponges-just absorbing all their religious leaders tell them without question. At least Obama had the guts and the nerve to oppose his religious leader and say that he was wrong! I cannot imagine any LDS person doing that, least of all Mitt Romney! That is why LDS have such a (deserved) reputation for being mindless drones. I respect Obama.

Brave for leaving his church and pastor? It took him forever to denounce his pastor. All he gave was a ton of excuses and speech when responding about Rev Wright's sermons. He didn't reject him until the Rev embarrassed him and hurt him politically. He didn't leave his church until a priest did a guest sermon and embarrassed him more. He said he left his church because of the media attention it is getting and he didn't want to be a burden to the church.

I don't why you are trying to reinvent history. This only happened a couple months ago and got enough coverage that everyone knows why Obama left. It wasn't because he thought the leader was a horrible, fanatic and racist. Go back and read his reasons for leaving the church.

If Obama was brave he wouldn't have waited until he was hurt politically to respond to his pastor and church. After being there for 20 years he knew good and well what his church represents.

To Re Keith,

Please use a name so we can refer to your comment without confusion.

I understand what you are saying. It is the same argument used against the Church and its "revelations" on polygamy and lifting the ban on priesthood for blacks. Only when it became politically and socially expedient did the LDS Church change these fundamental doctrines and policies.

So if an LDS person can still give the LDS Church leaders the benefit of the doubt, certainly they cannot begrudge me the privilege of giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. The bottom line is he left a Church that had clear racist doctrines. It is much harder to leave a Church than it is to maintain the status quo and coast along with everybody else. If it wasn't, I dare say the actual membership of the LDS Church would be closer to 5 million rather than (on paper) 13 million.

I can't believe anybody would vote for Obama. What is this country coming to? Educate yourselves.

For a good many people the idea of leaving a church they've grown up in or been a member of for decades is a very hard thing to do, if not out right unimaginable. Perhaps that is why it took Obama so long.

I'm sure you (and others here) know and love someone in your life who may have some pretty wacky ideas and offensive things they might spew... but do you shut them out of your lives? Probably not in most cases, you just ignore them for the most part... or ignore their comments/ideas (because other than those things they're fairly decent people). So how can any of us in this situation begrudge Obama for sticking by that pastor (Wright) until recently?

Regardless whether or not you support Obama, his example should force all of us to stop and consider how much power we have given over to our religious leaders. Do we just sit passively in the pews taking in everything they say without questioning and thinking things through for ourselves? Are we willing to consider the possibility that they are wrong on some issues or topics? Or are we blindly following along because it is too much trouble to think things through for ourselves? And if we do see abuses of power, or immoral or unethical behavior or teachings, are we willing to step up and say something so that such things do not continue in our Churches?