Obama's previous general debate

"I'm not running to be the minister of Illinois, I'm running to be its Senator."

Amen. More on Mr. Keyes:

Keyes, who opposes abortion in all cases, said in a September 7, 2004 news conference that Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama because of votes that Obama, a member of the Illinois Senate Judiciary committee and a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, cast in in 2001 against anti-abortion legislation (a package of three bills: SB1093, SB1094, SB1095) sponsored by Republican State Senator Patrick O'Malley, that Obama argued was too broad and was unconstitutional. The anti-abortion legislation, which also included legal rights for fetuses who survive an abortion and are born alive, passed the Republican-controlled Illinois Senate, but failed to pass out of the Democratic-controlled Illinois House Judiciary committee. After the election, Keyes declined to congratulate Obama, explaining that his refusal to congratulate Obama was "not anything personal", but was meant to make a statement against "extend[ing] false congratulations to the triumph of what we have declared to be across the line" of reasonable propriety. He said that Obama's position on moral issues regarding life and the family had crossed that line. "I'm supposed to make a call that represents the congratulations toward the triumph of that which I believe ultimately stands for ... a culture evil enough to destroy the very soul and heart of my country? I cannot do this. And I will not make a false gesture," Keyes said.

Keyes was also criticized for his views on homosexuality. In an interview with Michelangelo Signorile, a gay radio host, Keyes defined homosexuality as centering in the pursuit of pleasure, literally "selfish hedonism". When Signorile asked if Mary Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney's avowed lesbian daughter, fit the description and was therefore a "selfish hedonist", Keyes replied, "Of course she is. That goes by definition." Media sources picked up on the exchange, claiming that Keyes had "trashed", "attacked," and "lashed out at" Mary Cheney, and had called her a "sinner" – provoking condemnation of Keyes by gay Republicans and several GOP leaders. Keyes noted that it was an interviewer, not he, who brought up Mary Cheney's name in the above incident, and he told reporters, "You have tried to personalize the discussion of an issue that I did not personalize. The people asking me the question did so, and if that's inappropriate, blame the media. Do not blame me."

During the campaign, Keyes outlined an alternative to reparations for slavery. His specific suggestion was that, for a period of one or two generations, African-Americans who were descended from slaves would be exempt from the federal income tax (though not from the FICA tax that supports Social Security). Keyes said the experiment "would become a demonstration project for what I believe needs to be done for the whole country, which is to get rid of the income tax." Keyes stated the view that U.S. Senators should be appointed by state legislatures and no longer elected by the people, which would in essence be a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

After the 2004 campaign, his gay daughter Maya Keyes became a consultant for Keyes' Illinois office. However, on January 20, 2005, she participated in a march protesting the second inaurguration of President George W. Bush. Keyes relieved his daughter from her duties and requested that she move out of an apartment funded by Keyes' political organizations in Chicago. Maya Keyes wrote in her online journal that her parents had given her two weeks to move out of the apartment, and had effectively left her "jobless and ... homeless."

Keyes believes the United States should be a theocracy, based on religious law and the Ten Commandments. He's an advocate of the Constitution Restoration Act which would strip the Judicial branch of its power to rule on religious matters and would prohibit judges from citing international law in judgments. In short, he's an extreme right wing nutjob.

Stay classy, sir.

I'm relieved Senator Obama knows how to govern those who don't share his faith. From his excellent 2006 speech on religion in politics:

As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.

Indeed, Mr. Keyes announced towards the end of the campaign that, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.

Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously, to essentially ignore it. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, and his arguments not worth entertaining. And since at the time, I was up 40 points in the polls, it probably wasn't a bad piece of strategic advice.

But what they didn't understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God. He claimed knowledge of certain truths.

Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, he was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.

And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?

Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.

But Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.

Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.

If you care about this sort of thing it is well worth checking out in full, as he goes on to intelligently address this dilemma. See here: Video, Text