A mystery is developing, arising from on obscured and contentious factual assertions. Looks like a job for heric

This appears to be a reference to a speech by Obama June, 2006 at a conference sponsored by progressive evangelicals. He apparently said (again paraphrased):


"Obama's three points were presented as 'some truths' or 'ground rules' fostering civility and effective political compromise in the public arena of a democracy.

1. Leaders must understand and appreciate the critically important role that the separation of church and state 'has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice.'

2. When the religiously motivated attempt to influence public policy they must be prepared to argue from universal, rational values and insights that are open to debate. Obama's point is quite clear and very specific – '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.'

3. Harmonious interactions between religiously motivated public political activity and the multiple realities of democratic pluralism require what Obama calls a 'sense of proportion.' He argues that not every public citing of God is a breach in the divide between church and state. His advice is a cautionary word to those who react with indignant outrage at the use of school property by voluntary student prayer groups or the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance phrase 'under God.' The coercive impact of such events and phrases Obama suggests need to be seen in context and proportion.