This is an interesting sign, but I think the main person in this piece is not telling the whole truth:  "But Harkins insisted that claiming no religion isn’t the same thing as being anti-religion. 'The idea that there’s some antipathy within any quarters of the Democratic Party around faith — I just don’t see that to be true,' he said."  --Either he's lying or he's not aware of realities.  Look, better to admit that the Democratic base is actually riven in part around faith issues, with large numbers esp of younger white voters being not only unaffiliated, but seeing religion as effectively a mask for right-wing policies, while other people, esp older voters and people of color, seeing religion as central to their lives.  This is a major disjunction in the Dem party and it could cause long-term trouble.

There's a relatively lame piece today by Chris Coons, a Senator from Delaware--that lays out the clichés about religion and values and the Democrats.  It's not that I don't believe this; it's just that I wish people would exhibit some actual granular knowledge of some religious tradition, and not use attributions like "the famous Christian edict" when it's not very famous (nor was it by St. Francis of Assisi, either). (I hope it is not an unusual amount of cynicism which made me want to reply: did that moment really "remind" me of that "adage," Senator?  Or is this a cool line that your 23 year old intern snatched off some web page at 2:15 AM for the draft of this piece she was assigned?)

Still, even having said that, and with the implication that this "religious outreach" guy is already captive to the DNC's message, this is still a good sign.  Any sign that religion can be used for more than one side of the US's massively polarized politics will help, however marginally, to de-polarize "religion" itself, and allow it to be seen as more than a tool of one political party.