Because, you know, he’s answering the question

Chris Bowers jumps on the claims that Obama is triangulating by taking everything he says and turning it into some sort of major speech instead of a decent answer in a town hall–but again, the quote is clipped.

We’re now in a packed room at Eastern Illinois University. A woman stands up and tosses Obama what I assume she thinks is a bit of red meat. What, she asks, does the senator think of the pervasiveness of religion in public discourse these days? Obama doesn’t take the bait.

“No one would say that Dr. King should leave his moral vision at the door before getting involved in public-policy debate,” he answers. “He says, `All God’s children.’ `Black man and white man, Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic.’ He was speaking religiously. So we have to remember that not every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy.

Chris criticizes Obama’s response because no one suggested it was threatening theocracy, but there is a simple point here–Bill Clinton’s language was no less religious than George Bush’s. In fact, one of Clinton’s speechwriter’s pointed this out while doing a book on Presidential religious rhetoric. So the premise of the question rests upon the notion that religious discourse has become far greater—which isn’t true from anything I know. I take issue with how Bush uses religion, but the amount of discourse hasn’t changed much if at all.

Chris also leaves off the paragraphs in the story that follow:

“On the other hand,” he continues, “religious folks need to understand that separation of church and state isn’t there just to protect the state from religion, but religion from the state.” He points out that, historically speaking, the most ardent American supporters of the separation between church and state were Evangelicals—and Jefferson and Franklin. “Who were Deists, by the way,” he adds, “but challenged all kinds of aspects of Christianity. They didn’t even necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ, which is not something that gets talked about a lot.”

Back in the car, he elaborates on the kinds of themes he tries to communicate to his constituents. “To me, the issue is not are you centrist or are you liberal,” he says. “The issue to me is, Is what you’re proposing going to work? Can you build a working coalition to make the lives of people better? And if it can work, you should support it whether it’s centrist, conservative, or liberal.”

What’s interesting about the complaints about Obama supposedly triangulating is that each example is taken from speeches or venues that are not soundbite based, but actually thoughtful statements and points in a larger context of a speech. The questioner at this venue suggested by the very premise of the question that religious rhetoric is increasing and there is too much, but the response isn’t one of attacking the woman, but putting religious rhetoric in context of history and then moving from rhetoric to problems of religious entanglement with government–one in which he strongly supports the separation of church and state.