Just about everyone commented on the significance of the Sojourners/CNN presidential forum on faith, values and poverty.

Jesse Lava, at Faithful Democrats summarizes each candidates statements. In addition, he adds,

Substantively speaking, two big things happened tonight. First, we had an expanded debate on faith and values — one focused on center-left issues like poverty but bold enough to include the hot-buttons of abortion and gay rights. Second, we got a glimpse into the way these candidates’ values shape who they are as public servants.

On the other hand, Andrew Sullivan didn't like it. And the more Pastor Dan o' Street Prophets thinks about it -- and reads our exciting LIVE exchange -- the more he doesn't like it either:

This isn't to say that Democratic candidates should never discuss religion or their own personal beliefs. But let's be realistic here. Conservative Christians feel like they've been played for fools by a generation of Republican leaders. Why should they rush into being fooled by a new generation of Democrats?

Jenna, at Auburn Media writes:

. . .rather than the usual political posturing, faith talk opens the door to different possibilities for common ground. Take Clinton’s response to the issue of abortion--she lamented that pro-life and pro-choice camps have not been able to find enough common ground to collectively work to reduce the number of abortions. Faith talk allows for a plea for better solutions, perhaps simply because there is the underlying notion of shared community.

Frameshop takes up the discussion about faith and abortion: In other words:

If we really believe in "safe, legal and rare" are we willing to commit to "safe, legal and never"? I applaud Reverent Hunter for asking this question because it really pushes the debate to the deliberative issue that should be raised at every dinner table, water cooler and carpool in America: Is abortion a social ill? It is not.

Centrist Good Will Hinton wishes this question had been asked: "What do you say to people in your party who argue that religion doesn't belong in politics, that it is divisive, regressive, and/or irrational?"

Xpatriated Texan calls it "Fluff and Pomp-enstance" and says: "the candidates should have simply been given fifteen minutes to set their own faith agenda."

The Rev. Anne Howard o' the Beatitudes Society writes:

At first, I thought Soledad O'Brien's questions were simplistic-unto-silly, e.g. "what's your worst sin"--the kind of thing designed to make cute headlines for CNN. But then I heard in her questions and in her voice, the real curiosity of a seeker; these are the kinds of questions I've heard time and time again as a pastor: "What is sin, exactly?" or "How do you pray?" or "What happens when you pray?" or "When bad things happen to you, does faith help?" or "Is it OK to be mad at God?"

In other news. . .

City of Brass points out a story entitled "I'm a Danish Muslim." He adds:

This is a woman of courage and conviction; a true Danish patriot and the personification of the sort of assimilation without surrender of identity that Tariq Ramadan preaches to European muslims (and a model for muslims in the West in general).

The Rev. Chuck Currie writes about religious leaders addressing the Senate on global warming.

JSpot askes: Who cleans your home?

The Rev Deb:

. . .the House DEMOCRATIC leadership has just INCREASED funding for ineffective, moralistic abstinence-only-until-marriage funding. They have developed a "compromise" about the bodies and futures of America's young people. This, despite, their own Congressionally mandated study, released a few months ago, that these programs don't work to help young people abstain.

Mainstream Baptist notes the Pews report on the dying of the American Dream. He adds that

unless things change, the next generation is going to have a lower standard of living than this one. It used to be that parents wanted their kids to have it better than they did. This generation appears content to live well at their children's expense