Very interesting (if long) read, about the place of religion in politics.
I especially like the end part where he talks about abortion and how not all people who are prolife are anti-women...I also like when he talks about how your views must appeal to a broader base and not just your own religious group, even if they are based on religious beliefs. some very intellegent and nuanced arguments here.
He (still) has my vote. And I live in PA, which in this primary may be a state that might actually make a difference for once! (unilke every previous primary I've been in)
ETA: Here's a quote:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
This may be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of the possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.