I think my only disagreement with you is that I believe there's a difference between having an individual politician (even the president) who believes in God mention God in a speech or national address and having an official opening prayer for Congress. There are some people who believe that politicians should not mention there personal religious beliefs at all, as if their religion was some sort of slightly embarrassing hobby that didn't affect any other aspect of their lives.

I believe that all official governmental endorsements of religion are wrong (school-led prayers, "In God We Trust" on coins, "under God" in the Pledge, etc.). But I recognize that any politician publicly embracing that position would be committing political suicide.

the reason you get absolutists is because

which is that we can have separation of church and state while still permitting the occasional invocation of God's name.

this statement is a contradiction.

"Absolutists" (I'm probably one of them) recognize that w/o a clean separation, you go down the path of arguing about where the boundary is.

The reason why your point is incorrect is because those of us who are secularists have no role in the party or in politics in general.

Name an elected Democratic politician who is an atheist/secularist.

Name a significant Democratic party figure who is an atheist/secularist.

There aren't any, or there are very few and I haven't heard of them, or none of them are outspoken.  Yes, there are some Democrats (like me) who have a low opinion of "faith" and think it has no place in politics. But none of us actually have any influence or power, so Obama's point is moot at best.

On the other hand, it does help Republicans who want to falsely paint Democrats as a bunch of God-haters -- "see, even Barack Obama thinks Democrats are hostile to religion", as well as those who wish to marginalize the non-religious. They don't need any help - atheists are already the most distrusted minority.

Obama is wrong about this for the same reason that Dean was wrong about this. When asked about Democrats vis-a-vis "values voters", the answer should be something like:

"No, Democrats don't hate religious people. Most Democrats are religious themselves, just like most Republicans are religious. But non-religious - Democrat, Republican or independent - love their country just as much as Christians or Jews or anyone else and deserve as much a role in society and public life as any other minority group. Atheists aren't the psychotic amoral hedonists some of the religious right would have you believe. They love their families and love their neighbors, work and play and put their pants on one leg at a time just like any other American."

That's fine.  But how come, when Obama points out that many Democrats feel exactly as you do, his comments are dismissed as a stereotypical "Democrats hate religion" insult?

He is not pointint out that many democrats / seculars feel this way.  He is not in fact pointing out that many democrats feel that its inappropriate for the words "under god" to be there because of the history of our nation, and the history of how the words were inserted into the pledge to begin with...

Instead he is disparaging and dismissing anyone with that belief when he says: It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'"

The problem with that sentiment is that it ignores the fact that many students in a school setting will in fact feel pressure to recite the words "Under God" or risk being the stand-outs or the weirdos who dont believe in god in the eyes of their peers.  Most students will feel the pressure to fall in line and be like others -- and this in fact over the years will indoctrinate some people's kids.  You may not consider that a big deal, but if someone is trying to raise their child an atheist or some other non-God believing religion it IS a big deal...  And for Senator Obama to sit there and assert that because its not a big deal to him, a Christian and a man of deep faith, is the height of insensitivity to those who are different.  It's ignorant and its not right.

Maybe those students wont feel brainwashed, but their parents who are older and know better, might in fact feel that the schools are in a small way indoctrinating their children against their will.  That is a big deal to some people and it clearly becomes a co-ersive event -- in the same way that a mandatory prayer in which non-believers could sit out if they choose would be.

Well, my stance is that "under God" should not be in the Pledge.  Barack Obama is quite clearly taking exactly the opposite stance, that I am wrong for insisting that religion be left out of the public arena.  He knows what he's doing.  He's trying to marginalize my viewpoint in order to make himself look better. I'm not saying that he says I "hate religion", but he's definitely trying to look "cool" and "more tolerant", rather than arguing for what I think should be a core position of the Democratic party in the coming decades.  I also think this breed of politician is killing the Democratic party.  All of these self-interested, short-sighted politicians who are more interested in pandering to what they think the Center is are actual Useful Idiots in the real struggle to define The Center.  If the Democratic Party is ever to restore dignity to the United States, the very fist step that needs to be taken is for Democrats to actually believe in the ideals of their own party.  These constant, tiny betrayals make all of us look weak and disorganized.    

my bad.

And by the way, besides the important civic arguments against this kind of claptrap, there are some very solid RELIGIOUS arguments against it too.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

-- Matthew 6:5-6 (NIV)

And the original argument for separation of church and state:

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

--Matthew 22:21

BONUS ROUND: Here's a religious argument against posting the Ten Commandments in government bulidings!

What well-known religious text advises against this sort of thing?  None other than the Ten Commandments themselves!  Specifically, the first and second Commandments (or first, second, and third Commandments, if you accept the revisionist Protestant reading):

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.  You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

--Deuteronomy 5:8-11 (NIV)

The core teachings of Christianity, as laid out by Jesus, are heavily focused on attacking hypocrisy, especially religious hypocrisy.  It's always amazing to me how so many Christians seem to utterly and completely miss this point.  All you have to do is read the Gospels to get it.  But human beings of all stripes have an immense talent for overlooking the obvious.

Well, yeah... but to be fair the pledge hasn't been around for 180 years... SO one could argue we did fine with out one for 100 plus years.  I say scrap the whole thing... Loyalty oaths suck and divide us and keep us fromt he important issues.  We are arguing about this instead of focusing BIG PICTURE.  

I think you fail to recognize that providing governance to a community is an extension (albeit a huge extension) of our families

That's quite a leap from family to community.  

Look, there are plenty of things that I wouldn't want my family to do or take part in, the I don't think should be outlawed for the community at large.

Just like Catholics can be against abortion personally and morally, but don't feel the need to pass laws banning it and understand that for others it should be allowed (see Durbin, Dick)

In that respect the "community" is not like my family at all.  My community is much more heterogenous and therefore I must remember that what is good for me, is not necessarily good for members of my community....

It is those people...the ones who believe that laws should be passed based on their own beliefs without taking into account wide ranges of morals and values within a community and respect for the minority beliefs of the community that should be ignored and marginalized and dismissed.

As an elected official, you represent and protect everyone in your domain, not just those who are like minded or those who share your world view.

Obama was looking to give a little bit of depth to our party, not betray it.

Maybe so, but by using GOP frames and belittling the seculars, it matters not whether he intended to betray, only whether he did in fact betray.  In this case, I felt betrayed.

In a land of tolerance and diversity, there needs to be a place for those that believe in God

What land are you talking about?  The more I re-read this post, the more delusional it sounds.

You do understand that this is the same country whose President once said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."  

This country not only has "a place" for people of faith, but that people of faith weild an enormous amount of influence and that it needs to be reigned in.

Why don't you show me, specifically, where people of faith are marginalized.  And explain to me how it would work to not leave your faith at the door when you are a politician in a secular country?  If you don't "leave your faith at the door", then how will any politician not vote to ban anything that is counter to their faith?

You are pulling the same crap that the religious right plays.  Playing the victim.  "A place for people of faith", please.  How many atheists have been elected?  What are the chances of an atheist being elected to public office?

This is the problem.  Religious people pretend that their religion is under attack any time people  who don't believe in their fairy tales don't want to live their lives by the faithful's standards.  It's the religious folks who get all worked up when people rightfully say "wait a minute....our tax dollars should not be used to fund a nativity scene in front of city hall".

Please...spare us the victimized comments.  No one attacks anyone for having faith....but your faith should not dictate law that others will live under.  Law should be dictated by fairness and tolerence and respect for the different values of individuals and to maximize liberty for all people, not to restrict behavior which some religions will find morally questionable.

I'm not talking about left-leaning Christians, or right-leaning Christians for that matter. Obviously anyone we might recapture from the Republicans isn't on the left or the right. I'm talking about Christians who voted for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton but aren't voting for Democrats now. I'm talking about Republican gains among Catholics, for example. And I don't see any facts in your response to bluenc that are relevant to this issue.