It's good to see a conservative evangelical write this:

Dobson paraphrased this as "unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe in." But that's not what Obama was saying at all. Rather, he was arguing that in a pluralistic nation like ours, politics depends on people of faith being able to persuade others based on common and accessible ground and appeals to reason -- which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn't mean one's faith shouldn't inform the question of abortion -- or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln's argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren't sufficient in a pluralistic nation.

Pete is right: Obama has moved far more to the position of the Christianists than the Christianists have moved to his. And that gives Obama a great opportunity electorally. I say this with reluctance. Obama's comfort with religious politics, and his connection of the Gospels with the redistributionist state, are far closer to the Bush-Gerson position than my more secular preference. But this is very clever politics and Dobson has taken the bait.

This is one of the more fascinating aspects of this race: Obama is a more appealing candidate to moderate Christianists than McCain is. And if Obama can break through the propaganda and reach the under-40s among evangelicals, we're talking about a landslide.

(Photo: Jeff Haynes/Getty.)

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.