The Lutheran Zephyr

No Fan of Homeowners Associations

I've lived in communities ruthlessly controlled by Homeowners Associations (HOAs) for the past few years . . . and I can't move out soon enough.  Their silly rules barring certain color paints, the display of political yard signs, or the presence of trucks with lettering and ladders - ie, blue-collar contractors - are unfair and contradict our nation's greatest intentions and values (yes, I've lived in communities with these rules).  In fact, many HOAs barred the flying of flags - yes, including American flags!  Congress thankfully intervened on that score.

Today's Washington Post features an article about a man who painted a Hindu religious symbol on his driveway for his son's coming-of-age celebration.  The HOA wants him to remove this painting, even though the man's immediate neighbors couldn't care less about the artwork (in fact, it's quite beautiful).  Somehow, I doubt that the HOA would be as concerned with a painting of a creche at Christmas time or cross at Good Friday . . .

Either way, I believe that HOA's should be minimalist in their rules and regulations - concerning trash, presence of junk on front lawns, noise levels, etc..  But regulating vehicles, speech (religious or political or any other kind), and paint color is a bit rediculous, and unAmerican, if you ask me.

Ten Commandments in the Park?

On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard arguments in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum.  In the case, the Summum religion has asked the Pleasant Grove City Council to accept a monument of their Seven Aphorism to be placed in a public park alongside a monument of the Ten Commandments, donated over a quarter-century ago by a private organization.  The city refused, and the case went to court.  For news coverage of the case, visit the many news links posted at Blog from the Capital, or read Nina Totenberg's report at NPR.  Transcript of the oral arguments available from the Supreme Court website (document opens as a pdf).  It is a very interesting case, and I encourage you to read up on it.

My three regular readers know that I am an adamant advocate for the separation of church and state.  I see no reason for monuments of either the Ten Commandments or the Seven Aphorisms or of any other religious teachings to be placed in a tax-payer funded public park (accuse me of being a small government, fiscal conservative on this issue if you like!).  Surely this town has private, religious organizations that would gladly erect religious symbols on their property and in their places of worship.  Why should the tax-payer funded public park display a series of religious teachings, including "I am the Lord your God.  You shall have no other Gods before me"?  Unlike the "golden rule" given by Jesus (but lacking any explicit God language), the Ten Commandments are clearly and unabiguously religious in nature.  Tax-payer dollars shouldn't go to the purchase, display, or maintenance of religious monuments.

But this is much more than a tax-payer issue.  As I've said elsewhere, I believe that the church is at greater risk than the state when we violate the separation of church and state.  The erection of religious monuments in public parks on one hand smacks of a faith-based and triumphalistic marking of one's territory, as if to say, "we Christians are the majority, this is our place, we can do what we want, the rest of you will just have to deal with it."  This kind of pride can only poison the church and our proclamation of the Gospel.

Furthermore, there's a false sense of security in monuments - whether on public or private ground.  We can build all the monuments we want, but that doesn't guarantee faithfulness to what the monument enshrines.  In fact, erecting a monument is often the cheap and easy thing to do.

(For example, in Cuzco, Peru, once the thriving capital of the Inca people, a monument to Peru's indiginous peoples stands.  But in this Andean nation it is the descendants of the Inca who remain disproportionately in poverty, struggling with illiteracy and suffering with shorter life expectancies.  But . . . but the government dominated by the descendants of European conquistadores erected a monument!  Why bother do anything else?)

Finally, I do not want the church to expect the government to help us carry out our God-given, faith-based mission.  The mission of faith is the responsibility of people of faith, not the responsibility of government or of the broader, secular society.  It seems unreasonable for people of faith to ask the government to help them in their ministry of proclaiming religious teachings by accepting, displaying, and maintaining a religious monument in a public park.  This is also why I oppose prayer in school - teaching children the discipline of prayer is the responsibility of parents and communities of faith, not that of a tax-payer funded public school system.  This is why I am also uncomfortable with civic displays of religoius piety - invocations at political rallies or prayers at city council meetings - for it supports the notion that we're a "Christian nation" or that our faith is supported by the government and political leaders.  That kind of complacency inhibits our prophetic mission to speak truth to power.

Well I could go on, but I won't.  You three regular readers already know where I'm coming from, and probably haven't read this far anyway . . . ;-)

"Barack Obama is a strong, Christian family man"

So said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, at a rally in the southern part of this state (scroll down to the bottom of this Washington Post blog posting).

"Barack Obama is a strong, Christian family man."

My question: How is Obama's faith relevant to his candidacy for the presidency?

My next question: Isn't this identity politics at its worst?

The answer to the second question helps us understand the first.  This is all about identity politics.  Barack Obama - an intellectual, Harvard-educated black man - has a difficult time relating to Joe Six Pack, who is white, and has probably never been to Cambridge, MA.  Part of the political game is about identifying with voters.  Obama needs to relate.

Bowing to political expediency, then, Obama needs to be explicit about his faith, because for many voters faith might be the only part of his persona that appeals to them.  And for many voters personal appeal is just as or more important than policy proposals.  Sad.  But Christian faith makes a personal connection to many voters.  Personal connection yields votes in November.  Votes in November yields power on Innaugeration Day.  Christian faith - in part, anyway - leads to political power.  What would Jesus say about that?

[I'm not arguing that Obama's faith is a political creation.  By all accounts, Barack Obama is a deeply committed man of faith.  But politics has called for him - and his surrogates - to be explicit about his faith on the campaign trail and but faith to work for political ends.]

But this creates another problem.  His "Christian family man" approach to campaigning in Ohio's appalachian region (see also his "Committed Chrisitan" flyer from the Kentucky primary) reinforces - rather than challenges - the notion that
A) we live in a Christian nation (a nation of Christians is not a "Christian nation");
B) we need Christian politicians to lead this Christian nation. 
This faith-based identity politics is a direct affront to our Constitution, creating a de-facto unConstitutional faith-based requirement for the presidency.

And it is a direct affront to Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians in our country.  The more our candidates perpetuate - rather than challenge, rather than change (to use Obama's word) - the faith-based mypoia of national identity, the harder we make it for religious minorities - or for Christians who do not want to play the faith-based game of identity politics - to claim their rightful place in the American democracy.

Oh, and don't get me started about the ways in which Christian faith gets distorted by politics.  In fact, I fear more for the church than the state when the two get intertwined, but I don't think that either is served the injection of religion into politics.  I've said that before, in many different ways, in my posts on Church & State issues.

Praying at Political/Civic Functions

Reflecting on a offered prayer at the Democratic National Convention that attempted to be inclusive of various perspectives of the Divine, Debra Bendis has some brief comments and questions about the nature of prayer at public events over at Theolog, the blog of The Christian Century.  She asks:

Can we honor the tradition of prayer in public forums without abandoning Christianity? Or, alternatively, can we offer Christian prayer in public forums without being obnoxious?

I'm not sure that we can answer her questions affirmatively.  But it is not so much for the reasons she posits (she seems more concerned about the ecumenical/interfaith aspect of such a prayer).  You regular readers know that I have a wicked separation of church and state streak running through me.  As I commented over on her post, it seems that prayer is an act of faith for people of faith.  What business, then, does an act of faith have at a civic event intended to speak to and be for all people of the community, regardless of faith? 

For what it's worth, I've previously outlined my take on what the relationship of prayer to civic events/causes should be in the post, Praising God, Honoring Country (with the follow-up post More Thoughts on God & Country).

Getting Out the God Vote (Lord have mercy upon us!)

Today's Washington Post Online reports on a Southern Baptist prayer campaign and get-out-the-vote effort designed to get more Christians to the polls and more "godly Christians" elected to office.  Read the full article here.  From the article:

The daily prayers include requests for God's guidance in voting, for the election of more "godly Christians," for God to "help churches find ways to help Christians get to the polls" and for public officials to be protected "from the attacks of Satan." . . .
 
"Our vision statement is an American society that affirms and practices Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority," [The Rev. Richard Land, Director of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission] said. "America will be better off if people who are voting are seeking God's guidance."

A few brief critiques.  As my three loyal readers know, I'm an avid advocate for the separation of church and state.  The problem I see with this campaign is not that it involves Christians praying for government leaders - that's something we Lutherans do every week in our Prayers of the Church - but that it seeks to help Christians vote and to elect "godly Christians" to office.  Their whole campaign is predicated upon the wrong belief that if the government is chosen and run by Christians, our nation will be better off.  Its a move toward theocracy, and its (unintentional?) consequence is to devalue the role of non-Christians in society and in government.  In a pluralist society, in a theological anthropology that acknowledges the sinfulness of humans (even the sinfulness of "godly Christians"), and in a faith perspective that teaches Christians to honor and love our neighbor, a narrow Christian-focused prayer and voting campaign is very dangerous.

We Lutherans are inheritors of a Two Kingdoms theology that teaches that God works both in the Kingdom of the World and in the Kingdom of God.  Luther (ineloquently, to our modern ears) stated that he would rather be governed by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian.  That is, the faith of the leader is much less relevant than the leader's ability to govern with integrity and wisdom. 

Of course, the idea that Christians would promote a "Christian" government is alien to the New Testament.  Since its earliest days and for more than three hundred years, Christianity was a minority religion that suffered alienation (at best) and persecution (at worst).  It is a religion whose central defining moment is the brutal state-sponsored execution of a rejected religious leader.  Martyrdom was a common experience for the early Christians.

Yet in the midst of such pressure, the early Christians taught respect for the (non-Christian) governing authorities.  "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God" (Romans 13:1). Peter tells us in 1 Peter 2:17 to "honor the emperor."  And of course Jesus taught that we should give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's (Matthew 21:22).  These passages promote a respectful approach toward a government in which Christians neither have nor seek a privileged place.  This stands in contrast to the faith-based, power-grab kind of divisive religious politics that too many on the Right practice today.

Another critique of this prayer/voting campaign: do Jews ever speak of "Judeo-Christian" values?  I've only ever heard Christians (conservative Christians, at that) use this term, and I wonder if it represents an attempt by majority Christians to claim a broader mandate for their narrow social agenda.  By using the term "Judeo-Christian" conservative Christians imply that their social agenda is in keeping with the Jewish people today and with the Jewish tradition spanning several thousand years.  This seems terribly arrogant, if not worse.

Saddleback Faithful Cheer McCain's Messianic Complex

Saturday's Saddleback Forum on the Presidency featured a troubling exchange between Rick Warren, John McCain, and the audience in response to a question about whether evil exists and how we should deal with it (transcript available via CNN here).  Here's the question and answer that bothered me:

WARREN: How about the issue of evil. I asked this of your rival, in the previous debate. Does evil exist and, if so, should [we] ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it or defeat it?

MCCAIN: Defeat it. A couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that. And I know how to do that. I will get that done. (APPLAUSE). No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of American -- innocent American lives.

Of course, evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcended challenge of the 21st century -- radical Islamic extremism.

Not long ago in Baghdad, al Qaeda took two young women who were mentally disabled, and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace and, by remote control, detonated those suicide vests. If that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is. And we're going to defeat this evil. And the central battleground according to David Petraeus and Osama bin Laden is the battle, is Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and Iraq and we are winning and succeeding and our troops will come home with honor and with victory and not in defeat. And that's what's happening.

And we have -- and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us al Qaeda continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America. My friends, we must face this challenge. We can face this challenge. And we must totally defeat it, and we're in a long struggle. But when I'm around, the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform, I have no doubt, none.

A few observations.  When asked about evil, Senator McCain limited his answer to a discussion of Al Qaeda.  For John McCain, Evil = Al Qaeda.  He offered a rhetorically powerful image of two mentally disabled women being used unwittingly as suicide bombers, the kind of story that would cause anyone to cringe with disgust.  But his answer was narrow.  Unlike his opponent (whose response I'll examine below), he did not name crime or genocide or other evils - domestic or international - in his answer.  What we got from McCain was a myopic focus, a naively narrow definition of evil - a definition rooted in a US-centric worldview, a definition limited by a narrow set of US foreign policy goals.  Evil surely is broader than any one particular enemy that our country faces.

But more, I was disturbed by his bellicose declaration, "If I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that. And I know how to do that. I will get that done."  Go to the gates of hell?  Is McCain setting himself up as some kind of supernatural power, a Messiah capable of rooting out evil in this world and the next?  For we Christians proclaim in our Apostles' Creed:

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended into hell.

Only Jesus can go to the gates of hell.  Only God can root out evil.  By limiting his definition of evil to Al Qaeda, and casting himself as the one who could get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (thus, by positioning himself as The One who can root out evil), he puts himself in the position of Messiah.

That's a problem.  But not nearly as much as a problem as the crowd at Saddleback who erupted in applause following McCain's answer.  Sitting in a church, they cheered on the would-be Messiah as he promised to go to the gates of hell to root out an evil defined in nationalistic terms.  Shouldn't the faithful be concerned about the unrealistic and inappropriate - and possibly even heretical - claims he made?  But instead, they applaud.

Perhaps John McCain was just showing some over-the-top, rhetorical flash.  Perhaps.  But in a church setting with church folks in the pews/seats, I am disturbed that someone would cast himself as a Messiah . . . and that the faithful would respond with such enthusiasm.

OK, let's look at Obama's response.

WARREN: OK, we've got one last time -- I've got a bunch more, but let me ask you one about evil. Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?

OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.

Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil's been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.

WARREN: In the name of good.

OBAMA: In the name of good, and I think, you know, one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good.

WARREN: OK. All right.

In contrast to McCain's bellicose response - Evil = Al Qaeda, the remedy for which is more war - Senator Obama offers a much more nuanced, a much broader, a much more theologically articulate understanding of evil.  Evil exists, according to Obama, overseas and at home, on our streets and in our homes, in unjust wars and even hidden in our own well-intentioned response to injustice. 

Ask yourself this question - is evil limited to Al Qaeda?  Of course not.  Evil is much more expansive than a single terrorist enemy.  Obama understands this.  McCain does not.  Obama knows that are all sinners, that all capable of evil - even we in this country.  But for McCain, the world is a bit simpler, a bit more black-and-white - we're the poor victims of an overseas evil, period.

Obama also appropriately places the task of ridding the world of evil in God's hands: "We are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task."  (Note: no applause from the Saddleback faithful in response to this theologically correct answer.  They cheer on McCain, the would-be macho Messiah, but they simply sit politely and quietly as Obama gives God the glory).  McCain offered fighting words, whereas Obama offered words of faith.

Politically, McCain probably came out on top in this event.  He played to the fears and anxieties of the American people, and that scores political points.  Obama was more articulate and appropriate - at least on his answer to the question of evil - than his opponent.  But I come away from this event most disturbed by the gleeful response of the Saddleback faithful to McCain's militaristic, Messianic promise to root out evil from the gates of hell. 

War is nothing to be cheered, and Messiah-complexes are nothing we should embrace.  The faithful ought to know that.  At the Saddleback Forum on the Presidency, it was not any one candidate but the faithful that fared the worst, and I fear that our nation and our Christian faith suffered by the unfortunate alignment of God and governance, of piety and politics on display that evening.

- - - - -

Read a wonderful critique of the Saddleback Forum over at Progressive Involvement: Luther: I'd rather be governed by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian.  The author is a Lutheran pastor and democratic party activist, and his blog is well worth reading.

UPDATE: Another good critique can be found here, at Blog from the Capital, a wonderful church/state blog from the American Baptist tradition.

Jesus to deliver keynote at Democratic Convention

Well, not exactly.  But Jesus will be invoked ad nauseum on the political stage in Denver next week.  From today's Washington Post:

The campaign also announced Saturday that the upcoming Democratic National Convention would have a strong religious flavor, with "faith caucus meetings" to discuss religious voters' concerns and daily invocations and benedictions from national faith leaders. The list includes Joel Hunter, a prominent Republican pastor from an evangelical Florida church; a Greek Orthodox archbishop; a Roman Catholic nun from Cleveland; and a Colorado couple who are both Methodist ministers.

Topics of the faith caucus meetings include "How an Obama Administration Will Engage People of Faith"; "Moral Values Issues Abroad"; and "Getting Out the Faith Vote."

- from Key Constituency Is At Play At Candidates' Faith Forum

It's a political convention, for goodness sakes!  Can't they keep to politics and refrain from using my God, my church, my holy book as political props?  When politicians of either party begin using faith for political leverage, I get very worried.  And in this 2008 race, Obama and the Democrats have far exceeded the Republican's penchant for blending God and governance (see here and here and here and here).  Shame on them.

Purpose Driven Politics

First we had the Compassion Forum (about which I blogged and complained here).  And now we have Rick Warren's Civil Forum on the Presidency, a conversation with the candidates at his Saddleback Church Saturday night. 

I'm bothered by these religious/political forums, because I fear that they lend credence to the idea that we need to have a religious, a faithful, a Christian president in the United States, as if faith were a prerequisite for the presidency (try finding that in the Constitution!).  Furthermore, Christians are hardly unified on how they feel about a variety of religious - let alone political - issues.  But by their nature these forums present a rather narrow understanding of the Christian faith, and they paint Christianity's political concerns with a misleadingly broad - and blunt - brush. 

Rick Warren promises to ask the candidates about their relationship to Jesus Christ.  From an ABC News report on the upcoming Saddleback event:

[Warren] said the key for many evangelicals is the candidates' "relationship to Jesus Christ ... I'm going to give them a chance to explain themselves."

Huh?  The key for these voters is the candidates' "relationship to Jesus Christ"?  What about their fealty to the US Constitution?  What about their concern for the kinds of things Jesus is concerned about: the poor, the outsider, the widow, the hungry?  Anyone can give lipservice to a "relationship to Jesus Christ" for millions of voters watching on television . . . it's kinda hard (and pretty darn inappropriate) to question the candidates' claim to faith.  But we can and should question and evaluate the candidates' commitment to issues.

And that's what these presidential debates and forums should be about - issues.  Issues of the economy, the environment, international affairs, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, taxation, education . . . that is, let's have discussions about policy, not piety; about governance, not God.

We Lutherans are inheritors of a Two Kingdoms tradition that recognizes the God-blessed function of  government, a function that does not need crosses or Christian banners to be considered blessed.  A government that governs well - maintains order, restrains evil, provides for the common good - is blessed and holy regardless of the faith of the people holding office.  What we need are people in government who can govern well, not necessarily those who can give the correct answers on a religious litmus test. 

So as Christians, let us ask our candidates questions about good governance, let us ask questions about who would be the best steward of the mechanism of government.  These are questions that people of many faiths - or of no faith - can and should ask when deciding on a political candidate. 

And let us not be complicit in using Jesus as a campaign prop.

Some of my recent posts on Church/State issues:
Matthew 25 Network's Obamessiah Complex
Faith, Politics, and Obama
Why I Don't Like the National Day of Prayer
Clinton's Troubling Politics of Choosing Church
Christian Prayers in Government Chambers: Music to the Devil's Ears
Too Much Religion in this Race
Civil Governance & the Church

Or for all of my Church/State posts, click on my new Church/State category link.

UPDATE: Saturday's Washington Post includes an AP article on the forum: McCain and Obama Face Questions About Their Faith.  The article simply presents the challenges each candidate faces in the forum, but doesn't raise any questions about the forum itself.  That's too bad. 

UPDATE #2: An earlier article by Reuters published on Thursday by the Post, Obama, McCain Aim for Faith Vote at Forum is equally lacking in any critique of the forum.

Also, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a press release critical of the forum.  An excerpt: 

“Campaign 2008 is starting to feel like a Sunday school Bible drill,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “We’re electing a president, not a national pastor. I don’t see what good it will do for the American people to again hear the candidates spout pious platitudes about their favorite Bible verses or how devout they are.

“Candidates should appeal to the voters based on their qualifications for office and their stands on the issues, not their religious beliefs,” Lynn said. “This event continues the campaign spiral into religious matters. Americans want to hear the candidates’ views on important issues such as constitutional rights, public education, the Iraq War and the economy.”

. . .

“Why should one of these important events be orchestrated entirely by only one pastor who comes out of one narrow segment of our diverse country?” Lynn asked.

Matthew 25 Network's Obamessiah Complex

I am a Christian.  I go to church every Sunday.  I believe that God's Kingdom is breaking into the world today, and that justice is a primary calling of all Christians.  I also like Senator Obama.  I've given money to his campaign, and will volunteer for his campaign this fall.  With that profile, I'm supposed to like the Matthew 25 Network, the Christian political action committee organized to support Barack Obama in the November election.

But I don't.  I won't be joining the Matthew 25 Network's Facebook group, nor will I send this group my money.  I like Obama, and I like the call to action that Matthew 25:35-40 represents, but I wouldn't conflate the two.

I find the above poster disturbing, showing Senator Obama's profile positioned alongside the words of Jesus - as if those words and the symbol of Barack Obama are one in the same.  Obamamania is morphing into an Obamessiah complex.

I'm tired and can't write much right now - I leave on an eleven-day church trip to El Salvador in 36 hours - but I agree with pastorricky99 who commented on Matthew 25 Network's YouTube page:

Why can't Matthew25 use this as an opportunity to encourage social action and gospel truth and challenge candidates to respond appropriately? As it stands, this organization appears to be a full scale endorsement of Obama, and not an organization that will challenge the next president to be the one who exemplifies Matthew 25:35-36.

The uncritical embrace of Senator Obama - placing Jesus' words into his mouth, claiming that as President Barack Obama would stand for Matthew 25:35-36, the "proudly endorse" language - is all a bit much.  This is not an anti-poverty organization - it is a political action committee using religious texts to endorse a political candidate.  And that crosses a line.  That bothers me.

Another few thoughts: I am sure that there are many Christians - from the left and right - who stand for the truths of Matthew 25:35-36.  But what is the role of government in this (faithful Christians can disagree on this issue)?  Matthew 25:35-36 makes no claim to Caesar, but to the Christian.  And what will the Matthew 25 Network do when President Obama has to cut funding to anti-poverty programs?  Will they care?  Will they even be there?  Or will his halo turn into Devil's horns?

Senator Obama is already on a pedestal.  We need not put him on a cloud with a halo over his head.  Obamamania is bad enough.  This Obamessiah Complex is beyond belief.

Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.

Faith, Politics, and Obama

I could write a missive about this issue, but I won't (I'm too busy preparing for my Approval for Ordination interview, which will take place on Friday).  But during one of my breaks from interview preparation I stumbled upon this disturbing piece of literature from the Obama campaign (hat tip to Blog from the Capital for the link):

Oh, boy do I get worried when politicians use their faith to promote their politics - whether from the Republicans or the Democrats, this kind of comingling of faith and politics bothers me.  I care not that Obama is a "Committed Christian" and more that he could be a good President.  And last I checked, being a "committed Christian" is not in the job description for the Presidency of the United States.

Much more to say on this issue, but I've got to run.

** UPDATE **

The Trail, The Washington Post's political blog, examined this flyer in Obama Emphasizes Faith in Kentucky a few hours after my post.  Check it out, and add The Trail to your feedreader.