Reply #15: I don't disagree with that at all, I applaud it

[PurityOfEssence]

He doesn't raise the issue of religion or actively seek out support based on his personal belief, yet when questioned about it, he frankly explains its place in his life and thoughts and brings up the issues of separation of church and state and his feeling that imposition of his religion on others is wrong in politics.

I think this is brave, nuanced and more than anything else, polite and reverent toward others. There is a gentleness and sincerity about this that rings deeply, deeply true, and this is typical of statements from him on many issues: I trust this guy.

I also trust and like Obama, although the religion maneuvering sticks in my craw, the ties to Medicine Incorporated are quite troubling and his proclivity for making off-the-cuff statements on very grave issues like war and nuclear war are dangerous. It seems that he's learned his lesson on the last issue, and that will serve him well. The active pursuit of the religion issue is dangerous and simply irritates one of my very deep personal prejudices.

Senator Clinton I wouldn't trust halfway to the door under an armed guard, don't like what few policies I can discern she'd stick by and simply don't like her.

The quote you use is one I use, which is from beliefnet. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton being asked by an extremely faith-oriented forum like this about religion and taking the bull by the horns and bringing up the term "separation of church and state"? Yes, the subject is Obama, and perhaps he'd do something like that too, but he raises the issue over and over and over and over again, and that disturbs me. I don't want it to be ingrained in our subconsiouses that religion is necessary in the political forum or even appropriate, and he is part of the problem.