Redstate

aspect of the religious right, they have a problem with the obvious desire of that group to push that religion on the entire nation.

I believe that the Federal Marriage Amendment would infringe on the rights of Gays and a theoretical Human Life Amendment would seriously infringe the rights of women.  I refuse to accept that my religion or faith is less valid or worse than yours.  The success of our democracy is that our laws accomodate different faiths or lack of faith.  If I feel that, as a liberal Presbyterian, the government is assaulting my faith by passing laws or constitutional amendments that are in line with a conservative evagenlical protestant or Roman Catholic theology I will vote for people who will maintain the status quo, which after all does not infringe on your right to worship as you see fit, marry who you choose, and not have an abortion.

See his column in the Washington Post: when columnists cry "jihad."

If I feel that, as a liberal Presbyterian, the government is assaulting my faith by passing laws or constitutional amendments that are in line with a conservative evagenlical protestant or Roman Catholic theology...

If you accept all faiths as equally valid, how can government pass laws that are an "assault" on your faith when those laws do not negatively impact your church or force you to change your personal belief, but rather determine the public policy of our nation towards abortion and marriage?  

And what of those whose support for such policies are not motivated by faith, but by secular morality (as is my case on the abortion issue)?  

Are all policies that are supported by people of faith who worship and believe differently than you an "assault" on your beliefs?

Your belief appears to be that all faiths are equal, but some are more equal than others.

. . . comments like that are just a cheap shot.

Take marriage, for example. Either marriage will consist of one man, one woman, or it will be opened to include other sexual arrangements. Are Christians "pushing their religion" on the rest of the nation just because they resist that change?

I would say my beef is with social conservatism in general.  It so happens that the "religious right" provides ground troops for social conservatism, so I must oppose them vociferously.  Here's the catch - I could fight the tax-cut and spend mentality and that's fair game.  I oppose the religious right and I'm intolerant of religion.  The weapons the religious right uses, of faith and salvation and damnation, provides little means for compromise, which is the heart of government.  How can the religious right seek compromise if their vision of the American polity is written in scripture, sanctified by a higher power, and more or less the absolute truth in their eyes?  How can I negotiate with them if my principles are based on what they see as nefarious secular humanism, relativism, liberalism, pick-your-ism?

Religion is being tarnished by politics.  The entry into political activity will be fought with political weapons.  If I'm a traitor and a secularist evolutionist, than I see no reason to withhold caustic fire against the accusers.  You cannot advance a religous agenda and expect people to just lay down because you say it's in the bible.  You cannot protect your views by hiding under a priestly robe from honest disagreement.  Particularly when the religious right disrespects other faiths, calls people unchristian or "against people of faith" and generally makes itself out to be the arbiter of God's will.

references 'religion' not God.

The Founders were wise enough to suspect the motives and actions of organised religions not God, but those who would agitate by invoking the name of God.

A very wise bunch indeed, to have accurately predicted the rise of the religious right or the religious left or the religious center and to have come up with a way to keep the government secular whilst recognizing God.

I refuse to accept that my religion or faith is less valid or worse than yours.

So are all religious doctrines equivalent? It seems that you think so here, but when you talk about the assault on your faith by laws which (allegedly) embody other religious doctrines, the implication is that it's your faith is the more valid one.

The bigger question is this: why should your religious views on abortion & gay marriage be enshrined in law as opposed to the religious views of others? (Ignoring for the sake of argument the secular arguments against abortion and gay marriage.)

On abortion, many people dislike abortion-on-demand.  Furthermore, many legal scholars (and laymen) find Roe to be a bad legal decision even divorced from a moral standpoint.

On marriage, a vast majority agree with the traditional definition of marriage.  Although I disagree with that majority, who is trying to "force their view" on the entire nation there.

The underlying point is that when someone pursues a policy and they are religious, many liberals won't even listen to the argument.  It's considered unreasonable and wrong prime facie.  However, when a liberal policy is pursued (even when it forces something on the whole nation such as banning prayer in school, changing the definition of marriage, allowing the unborn to be killed, requiring higher gas mileage, raising taxes, etc), it is given a respectful hearing.  Maybe it is accepted; maybe it is rejected.

Where is your example of the religious right pushing their religion on the whole nation.  I really hope you take the time to read the whole Taranto piece.  The last two paragraphs directly address the hyperbolic claim that the religious right wants or could establish a "theocracy" in America.

Yeah, don't you hate it when the religious left defends civil rights and the religious right defends the right to life or when the religious radicals (who were Republicans then) defended emancipation.  Those religious views really have a way of screwing up our politics.

Religion is being tarnished by politics.  The entry into political activity will be fought with political weapons.  If I'm a traitor and a secularist evolutionist, than I see no reason to withhold caustic fire against the accusers.

You seem to think that religion affecting politics is a new development. You are aware, aren't you, that religion has always been important to political thought and action?

Religion has been used for political purposes, and there have been times of similar heightened religious politics, but it seems like religion IS politics for this particular movement.  Different, in my mind, from previous movements.

of Howard Dean, in no particular order:

1. Halliburton!
   
   
2. Religious Right!

MachoNachos

Where in my writing or in Taranto's do you see this:

If I'm a traitor and a secularist evolutionist, than I see no reason to withhold caustic fire against the accusers.  You cannot advance a religous agenda and expect people to just lay down because you say it's in the bible.

Our argument is that the religious right should be involved in debates on gay marriage, abortion and other issues.  That the democratic process allows you to voice your opinion, run your candidates, and propose your legislation.  However, the judiciary has taken away the legislature's rights to negotiate on many of these issues.  Couple that with the new filibustering of judicial nominees and one can see why religious activists who have played by the rules are so frustrated.  Run against their policies in 2006 just as you did in 2004.  I even agree with y'all on some of those policies.  But the "theocrats" argument and the looking-down-the-nose "What's the Matter with Kansas" mentality is one to be wary of.  It may not be un-Christian but it borders on intolerant and elitist.  Note that my emphasis in the final paragraph was on respect, not agreement.  It seems that the left is becoming more intolerant and contemptuous of many people of faith.  I don't like the intolerant wing of the Republican party and most particularly the continuing homophobic aspects, but the intolerant wing of the Democratic party is just as noxious in my mind.

both relied on religious reasoning more than the current President or many of his followers.

your point from Doverspa's in comment #9 (in this thread).

You seem to expect religious people to not be motivated by their religion. I don't think that's fair or realistic.

I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal-moderate, but this is exactly what turns me off from the Democrat party.  The fact that someone's views re: abortion and marriage can be derived from their faith doesn't bother me...even if it is their only argument!

Plus, I honestly don't see how the agenda of the "radical right" will affect me at all.

I haven't done much soul-searching on the two topics, simply because I don't see myself in either an abortion or gay marriage situation.  Slightly off-topic--I think I'm pro-choice and pro-civil union, but living in MA, I'm completely putoff by the SSC's decision re: gay marriage.  Probably set back the gay agenda more than helped it...

That religious groups are motivated to fight for causes is just fine, attempting to de-secularize the government is not!

We still eagerly await your first substantive point.

I don't recall Lincoln or MLK dividing the world into believers who subscribed to their policies and infidels who did not.  Because I am a liberal, I am practically excommunicate from the modern religious right.  I am literally going to hell.  I don't recall MLK using rhetoric that way.

Yours.

And you know it.

I know the relatively low value of everything I say. I suspect you're not there yet.

I just don't care either.

for pointing out the obvious to those otherwise unlikely to grasp it, but we of the social right have no problems with the secular aspect of the modern left and its philosophies; we have problems with the manifest desire of members of that group to impose it upon us, even to the point of altering the meanings of social institutions important to us, and, if certain philosophers favoured on the left are to be taken more seriously than their work warrants (eg., Rawls) compelling changes in our own doctrines.  

Try to come up with an argument, as opposed to the tired "dread theocratic menace to the sweet mystery of life" meme.

Is equally venemous on both sides, and I don't think it matters who fired the first shot.  The religious right has every right to be involved in the political process.  I have every right to question their motivation, their rationale, their commitment, their bias.  That doesn't mean I disrespect their religion, but it does mean I don't accept their religion, which can be taken as a sign of disrespect.

What I see in the Taranto piece is whining about religion being attacked.  My point is that when you engage in cultural body blows you can't expect the other side to play nice with your faith.  You are castigating them, expect the return.

I think "What's the Matter with Kansas" is spot on for this specific reason: the religious right has been up and running for years, for what?  Peanuts, that's what.  Republicans have controlled Congress for a decade, the presidency for 5 years, and nothing has happened.  The religious right is getting played, big time.  I do not mean to be offensive, although I am sure I am, but it seems the ground troops get used to advance agendas they may only tangetially agree with, if at all, and get little in return.  If this is offensive, it is no more so than Republican accusations of a plantation mentality toward African-Americans.

Doverspa, I think we agree about obnoxiousness on so many levels.  Unfortunately, we're trapped in the system that forces us to support our loons in the hopes we get what we want from the process.

Is it really?  I look at the rhetoric and what the self-described "people of faith" think about my views, my positions, my politicians, and somehow I don't think so.  Thomas, according to your own rhetoric at one point (and yes, I know I've made too much of this) my current position on abortion aids and abets a holocaust.  Call me crazy, but if you're right, I'm toast.

And neither does my Church. Nor, indeed, do most Christian denominations.

If it makes you feel better, I'm pretty sure I'm Hellbound.

I think you are somewhat right that we're in a system that forces us to ally with some whom we disagree with.

I wish to respond to one point in your comment.  "Republicans have controlled Congress for a decade, the presidency for 5 years, and nothing has happened."  This is why the judicial nominee showdown is key.  The majority has been hobbled by accusations that their actions were a proxy for the nefarious "religious right."  I'm trying to point out that many moderates agree with the "religious right" on some issues (although rarely on all).  Judicial nominations matter to the "religious right," but they also are a matter of fairness to many moderates.  Religious advocates have been patient in their battle and have won many elections on their issues.  They deserve to be able to pursue their goals through democratic means.  I may oppose them in some of the those efforts, but I'll do it with a respect for their decision-making process and their faith.  If Democratic leaders took that path, I truly believe they would split the Republicans party.  As with many things recently, we're just fortunate that Democrats prefer the Party of No strategy instead.

If a handful of judges provides the 30 pieces of silver here, the religious right isn't worth the cloth on their clerical collars or the paper in their bible.  If, as you say, moderates also agree on judicial nominations, then it probably isn't an attack on people of faith, but merely an exercise in political oneupsmanship.  That's where the religious right goes wrong, e.g. disagreeing with MLK wasn't an attack on people of faith.

Being subject to harsh criticism for what you believe in is a part of pursuing your goals through democratic means.  See -ism, liberal.

And I think you will see Democrats moving right on cultural issues.  I think you see it now.  Look at Casey in PA.  Look at Harry Reid.  Inch right, bash the hard right, split the seam.  That's just politics.  But when doing that becomes unchristian, it changes the dynamics of the contest into something verging on critical mass.

Look, if Bush feels free to "not negotiate with himself" regarding proposals by the ruling administration and majority Congressional delegation, I see no reason why the outgunned and vulnerable opposition has any obligation to pony up ideas to either be co-opted or clobbered.  Keep the powder dry, wait for the whites of their eyes.

Democrats prefer the strategery of allowing Republicans to split the Republican party, seems to be working just fine!

isn't the issue, they are welcome to do so as long as the reasoning behind the governmental changes or action is not religious.  

Polipundit has a GREAT post today, how all those who say Christians are trying to "impose their beliefs" are actually imposing their beliefs, and that saying that actually means that some should be allowed to impose their beliefs, and some (basically Christians, who I guess many non-Christians by this logic, and it is logical, deem inferior).

Nothing more needs to be added.

Yes, one can't help but admire the recent impressive string of Democrat wins at the polls.

MachoNachos

MLK Jr's main argument was that all men are created equal which derived from his faith as it did the Founder's faith.  He believed that we were equal before God and should be equal before the law.  Trying to divorce the religious reasoning from the secular is futile.

Applying this to an issue of the day: abortion.  One can argue that we are unsure when life begins.  It can be argued secularly that we should err on the side of protecting life when it conflicts with liberty (as we do in the case of murder).  That others argue this same thing and are religiously active does not mean the issue should be shelved under the "religious right" label and dismissed without consideration.

Why are liberals so worried about letting elected officials represent the voters?  Why do they rely so heavily on the unelected judiciary to overrule the people?

he never mentions an instance of anyone saying that the "religious right" is not free to hold their religious ideas, just attacks on the efforts of members of that group to push it onto those who don't want it.

Expressing religion is fine in public and private, but creating policies that press religion onto those who want to avoid it is not

I hope that is the Dem strategy becuase it will also create a semi-permanent minority.

We all know the judicial battle is a preface to a Supreme Court nominee.  And since these decisions have been taken away from the voters, we both know that new Justices are the only way to return the issues to the voters.  The religious right isn't backwards and stupid (not withstanding the left's criticisms).  They know that the courts must be changed to allow democracy to have a say.  This is no little bone.  And liberals know it too.  Let's not play dumb.

doesn't just stop there, nor is it limited exclusively to abortion.  The rhetoric you pick on is in large part counterbattery to claims of a heathen, unchristian left.  Although I have never once laid claim to secular humanism, I am one in the eyes of many posters here on RedState.  It's much like the evolution debate - once you start wrestling with religion in the public sphere, you by default almost become one, or at least become an opposition set of principles.  Religion paints the opposition as an opposition faith.

The judiciary protects the minority, and it enforces the rules about not allowing church to become state, or state church.  Elected officials primarily represent the people who vote for them, otherwise they find themselves unelected.  This is fine, it is the system, but judges are the unelected check to the pressures of majoritarianism.

Is the next one.

Constitutional amendment would do it too - and more cleanly, I might add.  But that's too high a hurdle.

If this is the opening salvo I hate to see what round two brings.

of a constitutional rights way than a religious way, at least by those who can influence policy.  And all the aspects of it you mentioned above are what most people debate about I think.  And the reason liberals are "afraid to let officials represent voters" is that those in power now seek to make changes that would directly and unconditionally affect 100% of the population, even though 49% might disagree with the policies

was laboring under the misconception that the judiciary was there to enforce the law without fear or favor. You know there is always the outside chance that a law abiding majority might need protection from a minority of extremists, like Michael Needow and the ACLU.

That is the role of the judiciary.  Which means popularity or lack thereof is not a component.  Judges do not need to seek the favor of anyone.  Congressmen and Presidents do.  And the judges do protect the majority from the minority as well - just nobody gets quite as hot about it.

to have 100% of the population affected though 51% disagree?

Aren't you living in the wrong country or something?

Isn't the position of the anit-judicial filibuster crowd, 'every nominee deserves and up or down vote if they have majority support'?

I am being faceitious here, because I never thought that was their position, even though they claim it is.

I always knew that the issue was really about religious conservatives wanting to nominate Judges, specifically Supreme Court Justices, who will make rulings that they agree with. The Dem's practice of filibustering judicial nominees is getting in the way of that and now they want to take that ability away from the Dems.

Religious conservatives aren't stupid and neither is the rest of the American public.  It isn't hard to see through the 'everyone deserves an up or down vote' veil. People will realize what the underlying agenda is and IMO they won't like that the Repubs are pushing that agenda.

again compels me to believe that if something "seems to be working", that would indicate that it one should be able to point to current success at some/any level - rather than a hopeful wish that might better be expressed as "we sure hope it will work in the future."

MachoNachos

Cause and effect.

That you fail to understand the basic difference between the present and future tenses. Or perhaps, more accurately, you are deluded into believing that your fondest wishes for the future have already come true.

MachoNachos

The President has the right to nominate judges and receive an up-or-down vote on them.  This President was elected with full knowledge that he is pro-life and with full scare tactics from liberal groups that argued his re-election could overturn Roe.  He still has the right to nominate his judges and have an up-or-down vote.

If the nominees are "out of the mainstream" then convince 6 Republicans to vote against them.  If you can't do that, then maybe it is the Dems who are "out of the mainstream" and not the nominees.

"So why do I find myself rooting for the "religious right"? I suppose it is because I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism--all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right."

George Grant, Coral Ridge Ministries:

"Christians have ... a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ--to have dominion in civil structures. ... Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. ... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land--of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."

National Reform Association, mission statement:

"Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government.  Jesus Christ is, therefore, the Ruler of Nations, and should be explicitly confessed as such in any constitutional documents. The civil ruler is to be a servant of God, he derives his authority from God and he is duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God.  The civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices must therefore be conformed to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments."

Jerry Falwell, knucklehead:

"[T]hese perverted homosexuals.absolutely hate everything that you and I and most decent, God-fearing citizens stand for.Make no mistake. These deviants seek no less than total control and influence in society, politics, our schools and in our exercise of free speech and religious freedom..If we do not act now, homosexuals will own America!"

Does it seem odd that someone who is put off by "self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism" would seek shelter in the arms of people like this?

Is not good enough either way, for lifetime appointments.

That seems silly. It's no less silly for approving.

Abide by the rules of the Senate or nuke em!

I'm waiting.

Both positions are not mutually exclusive.  

I just don't believe the Republicans hold both positions.  As you have pointed out elsewhere on Redstate a large majority of Americans believe that each nominee deserves an up or down vote. I believe that as well.  If I thought for a second that this was really about up or down votes I would be on the side of the Repubs on this issue.

No one has yet to reconcile for me the supposed 'up or down' vote position of the Republicans with the fact that sixty of Clinton's nominees did not receive an up or down vote.

That is why I think the American public won't believe the Republicans want to kill the judicial filibuster out of fairness.  I don't think they will buy into the majority support corollary to the Republican 'up or down vote' position either.

This is really just a game of Chicken between the Republicans and the Democrats.  At this point I don't see how Frist can swerve first without getting the Religious right up in arms.  I think Gengisdon earlier point is spot on. If the Republicans don't come through on judicial filibusters for the Religious Conservative branch of their party that branch is going to ask why it has done so much work to help put Republicans in office.  

Barring another terrorist attack, I think what happens with the judicial filibuster is going to be the tipping point for the next election.  Frist better handle this right or he is going to be put into the position of defending the agenda of Religious Conservatives for the next year and a half.

actually act to overturn a Senate rule which contravenes 200+ years of precedent and the logic of the separation of powers.

and has served them well in the past but is considered superfluous in the exigencies of the moment.

you are forgetting the fact that it has never been used in this fashion.  Hence it never served them at all.  In fact, they rejected the option of using the filibuster for Clinton's appointments and confirmed such poor choices as Ruth Bader Ginsberg despite disagreeing with their viewpoints.

that all faiths are equally valid or true.  What I am complaining about is the implication that because I hold liberal views on abortion and Gay marriage (and that I am generally politically liberal) that I am less "christian" or "unchristian".  I believe my views are wholly consistent with Christianity and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or abortion under any circumstances would be an assault on those beliefs because it would deny existing or potential rights.  On the other hand the lack of such  amendments does not deny rights to the religious right.  You have the right to believe what ever you want and to convince me of the rightness of your views.  What you don't have is the right is to codify a religious dogma as the law of the land.

They're not making me say the Pledge!  Secret Service!  Someone!  Protect me!  Please please please I don't want to die!  I'm too young to die!

What you don't have is the right is to codify a religious dogma as the law of the land.

So why do you have the right to have your religious dogma (e.g. that the fetus is not a human being) codified as the law of the land?

imposing policies.  Name one issue that the 49% are proponents of that both personally affect individuals who oppose it and eliminate all options for those individuals.

I am every bit as disgusted by the intolerance and anti-Christian bigotry of the Left as anyone else here. But that does mean I am going join in celebrating the same phenomenon on the other side of the aisle. I remain convinced that the best policy is for religion and politics to keep each other at arms length and not interfere with one another. Religion and politics are about very different things and history shows that nations which allow them to become intertwined suffer for it. At a minimum, in the corruption of the institutions of religion by worldy concerns, and at the worst, in society-shattering struggles between opposing creeds. By all means religious people will vote their consciences, as they should. But can they not do so as individuial citizens rather than as members of a special interest group and without screaming about it?

I believe my views are wholly consistent with Christianity and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or abortion under any circumstances would be an assault on those beliefs because it would deny existing or potential rights...

What you don't have is the right is to codify a religious dogma as the law of the land.

I can't believe you actually wrote this repetitive comment without realizing how your statements continue to conflict. You're clearly one of those people who's very tolerant...except when it comes to all those things of which you are intolerant.

Using the shell of "created rights" doesn't stand up on any close inspection (as MLK Jr. pointed out repeatedly, a law is just or unjust). What you're really saying is: any law based on religious beliefs inconsistent with yours is an "assault" on your faith that "codif[ies] religious dogma as the law of the land."

Assuming that you actually mean what you say, your position is idiocy at best and bigotry at worst, driving anyone who takes their faith seriously in informing their worldview out of politics entirely. Your argument is also an insult to anyone who believes that a law you disagree with (in this case, laws against the right to a dead baby) is a just law for reasons other than faith, a position you don't respond to at all because it's inconvenient for your skewed view of the world.

your church and tell them to start marrying homosexuals or else.  They just want to give equal rights to citizens in the eyes of the government.  

Likewise most people don't want to push religion out of school, they just don't want an overt presence that can't be avoided by those who wish to.  Who's imposing on whom in these situations?

you are perfectly happy with having a minority impose policies so long as you agree with the policies. And you are unhappy with an elected majority imposing policies you don't like. All of which makes you the winner of a Sore-Loserman t-shirt but it imparts neither nobility nor superior morality.

Imposes upon everyone. If I had my 'druthers, I'd sooner take 15% of my income and put it a nice, solid IRA. However, because of a policy dispute settled before my parents were even born, you could accurately say that I have no choice whatsoever in the matter.

That's just the nature of policy. Whenever any issue is decided upon by the government, some people are going to have their choices to do things they would like to do removed (such as my choice to drive over 70mph has been removed in Arkansas and Tennessee).

In the discussion over abortion, the exact same principle must apply. The decision must be made between the government's interest in protecting the unborn versus the individual's interest in terminating the unborn. If the public policy choice is made in either direction, (even the pro-choice direction), a significant subset of the population's choice is legally removed in the matter. You could ask about 40 million people whether anyone is affected by a nationwide pro-choice policy today, had they escaped the womb to tell the story.

MachoNachos

That the other side is screaming a lot louder about religion in politics than the churchgoing middle class.

The voters get to decide whose philosophy is more valid, regardless of whether it's informed by faith or not. The statements of several commenters on this thread clearly show that they're only uncomfortable with that variety of faith that does not lead to the same conclusions they hold dear.

As for your statement that "history shows that nations which allow [religion and politics] to become intertwined suffer for it."

That's a completely false reading of human history and Western Civilization. You really have to cherrypick examples if you want to back that one up.

to votes alone.  It never has.  Having a majority, particularly a slim and hard-fought one, does not mean you can do anything you want with government.  It didn't mean that when Democrats had the whip, it doesn't mean it for you now.  Surely you agree that there is some degree of protection for minority interests beyond that which a slim majority decides to grant?  Who provides that protection?

Or you wouldn't make a comment like this. He's got a lot more in common with John McCain than he does with Jerry Falwell.

MachoNachos

In Lincoln's case, his "religious" reasoning led him to abolish a practice that is explicitly endorsed by the Bible.  It's a good thing for every black American today that Lincoln did not practice the kind of strict literalism seen in modern conservative evangelicals.

The rights of the losers in elections are protected by the law. Their interests are up for grabs.

You can only deny my claim that mixing religion and politics is bad if you are not using the history of Christendom (or Islam, or China or India, or Japan...) The record of ecclesial corruption, of worldy scoundrels hiding under clerical robes, of jihads, inquisitions, progroms, religious wars, etc. etc. is so profound throughout history you will not need to "cherry-pick" at all. The cherries lies strewn all about your feet, at least a foot deep, and they are foul and rotten fruit indeed.

Name any century in European history AD alone and I can come up with examples of the above.

Some definition of marriage will eventually prevail in this country. Right now a definition prevails (in most places) that is perfectly satisfactory to about 75% of the population. A narrow faction opposes this definition, and is prepared to impose their definiton on everyone else.

As it happens, there is a legitimate way to effect such an imposition: legislation, either in the state assemblies or in Congress. But since such legislation is in most places quite out of the question, the faction opts for usurpation through the courts, which have no legitimate power of legislation.

The proper definition for this is tyranny.

Is not about political positions being informed by faith.  It's about advancing political positions behind the shield of the church and enjoying the luxury of casting those who disagree as unbelievers.  I'm totally comfortable with differing beliefs - I wouldn't have stuck around here this long if I wasn't - but that doesn't mean I can't fight them.  I'm not against "people of faith."  I don't think the left as a whole really is.

Another problem is the whole neutrality/secularism debate.  Probably for another thread, but conservative Christianity seems to define neutrality as openly hostile to their belief, and I don't quite know how to appropriately respond.  To me, the concept that neutrality is not neutral, and must be overthrown in favor of something else, is why I start worrying about minority positions.  Neutrality would seem to protect everyone, but you guys honestly don't think so.

that having religion is politics is not having religion in politics: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim the Greater, Kim the Lesser, Murat/Robespierre, etc.

Technically he's not one of them.  He's just rooting for them.

He's not the pot calling the kettle black, he's just rooting for the pot because the kettle's black.  Makes much more sense now.

to your issue:

Probably for another thread, but conservative Christianity seems to define neutrality as openly hostile to their belief, and I don't quite know how to appropriately respond.  To me, the concept that neutrality is not neutral, and must be overthrown in favor of something else, is why I start worrying about minority positions.

for instance, Matthew 12:30, "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters," doesn't, at first blush, seem to place a high premium on neutrality.

That's right: aggressively secular nations have fared so well. Jacobin France: model of sane goverance. Leninist Russia: perfect paradise. And so on.

You mistake human corruption for some uniquely wicked religious corruption.

I am basically a libertarian who has typically leaned Republican in the past (I also call myself a "fiscal conservative"). Something I've noticed a lot of in the recent 4 years is many Republicans blaming a lot of society's ills on the judicial branch, claiming judges are "activist" for things like Roe vs. Wade, limiting the use of religious phrases in government institutions, and allowing gay marriage.

I find this to be quite scary. As someone who has held these Republican-leaning ideals for almost 8 years now, I have never felt the judicial branch is overstepping it's bounds. In fact, on the most recent public outcry of "activist judges", gay marriage, all I've seen is the judges strictly interpreting the constitutions of various states when the legislatures fail to act in a timely manner. It began in Massachusetts, where the state's constitution did not define marriage as between only one man and one woman, but simply said "two people" or somesuch. It seemed to me that those state judges were not activist, but simply doing their job and strictly interpreting the letter of the law, the same thing many Republicans are crying that they are not doing.

I am not trying to start a flame war here. This is a serious inquiry as to why the "religious right" feels that the judicial branch has failed to support the rule of law.

Is it because they feel judges must also take into account tradition in addition to the letter of the law when deciding cases?

Or because judges must also take into account the Christian faith of the founding fathers and most of the population during the time this country was born?

Thank you for any insight, since this issue really confuses me.

Is the key word there.  Very different from neutral, or passive.

Check out my argument here, if you are really interested in this question. You'll note that it relies not one whit on theology.

I'm just wondering if he happens to see all those things he claims to despise in the very movement for which he's "rooting".  

I shouldn't have implied he was a radical.  I don't consider myself radical-- but I'm sure if I stuck up for Wade Churchill, on the basis that some of his critics were raving lunatics, you all would surely point out the inconsistency there. :)

between being "aggresively secular" (which in the examples you described actually meant aggressively anti-religious) and being a de facto (or de jure) confessional state wherein the interests and ukases of one favored religion take precedence. Apart from a very few egregious failures , our own nation managed for a very long time to maintain that happy balance. Over the last generation a band of (I know no other word) fanatics has ruined that balance.

This thread might not be directed at you then.  It is directed at the growing tendency of Democratic leaders to look down on religious voters and think of them as "backwards."  As I pointed out earlier it is more about respect than agreement.

As for neutrality, I think that has to do with how you define it.  Nevertheless, it is a major underlying point and one where a majority of Middle America and the MSM disagree strongly.  Is a moment of silence at school neutral?  Should a valedictorian be able to thank God for his/her success?  Should sports teams (even ones that are 100% of the same religion) pray before a game?  Should we have a Christmas holiday?  Should we have a gospel choir? What is the "neutral" position on these issues?

I think leftism has defined neutral as secular.  There should be no God in school and that is neutral.  I would assert that as an endorsement of secularism.  We can debate whether that is right or wrong, but taking 8-10 hours out of a child's day and banishing God is taking a stance; it is not neutral.

I think there is an accepted "neutral" in the MSM that is rejected by a large minority in the country.  That minority was ignored for a long time and is now being heard.  Whether I agree with them or not, I think they should have a say in policies and politics.

That technically, traditional marriage (one man, one woman) has historically been the law of the land in all 50 states. This is true at all levels, for statutes and state constitutions.  And at the national level, overwhelming congressional majorities (over 3/4s in both the Senate and House) - joined President Clinton in supporting a federal definition of marriage by enacting DOMA in 1996.

In Massachusetts, the Goodridge decision held that the long-held statutes defining marriage were inconsistent with the state constitution, which didn't have anything about the matter.  The Massachusetts Supreme Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas to hold that the everyday meaning of the word "marriage" is "arbitrary and capricious."

In my ideal world, those special interest group you mention and their intolerant counterparts on the other side would both be sidelined.  I have gone out of my way to criticize Falwell and, most recently, Robertson.  You might note that you're quote unelected special interest groups.  If the Republican leadership ever took these positions, I'd be on the outside looking in.  But these aren't the party positions.  And I can agree with these groups on some issues including specifically that nominees deserve an up-or-down vote, that abortion and gay marriage should be decided by voters not judges, and that religious people should be respected.  I'm sure I disagree with these groups on much more.  But I seek no shelter from these people.

neutral or passive. Unfortunately the Left is neither. The original Establishment Clause allowed states to establish their own religions without federal interferrence (North Carolina retains its well into the 19th century). That was neutrality.

I wonder which state you have more in common with.

Re: I think there is an accepted "neutral" in the MSM that is rejected by a large minority in the country.  That minority was ignored for a long time and is now being heard.  Whether I agree with them or not, I think they should have a say in policies and politics.

But why does this minority feel itself aggrieved? What is the source of its complaint? These people are free, absolutely free, to go to the church of their choice whenever they please and to worship in the manner they see as fitting. They may obtain religious literature and other materials in a myriad different outlets--the free market will serve them there as it serves everyone else. They can believe anything they please and even if that belief is absurd no one will suffer no legal disadvantage for it. They can enter a voting booth and pull whatever lever they please for whatever reason: the secret ballot insures them of that right. If they dislike the public schools for their children they can educate them in church schools, or even at home.

In short I cannot see any legitimate reason any of these folks have for any complaint or grievance. They are free to believe and worship as they believe fitting--what's the problem?

I suspect of course that the problem is an illegitimate grievance: they are not free to compel others to believe and worship as they do. And they feel they only validate their own belief by compelling it of others as well.

America, as it was, befoer all these latter day Savonarolas got revved up.

I, too, am turned off by the far left's complete rejection of religion. I look at European politics and am horrified by the complete demonization of religion in it. It's political suicide in many places over there to make any mention of God or other religious notion.

But I also look at the far right and am equally turned off by their desire to impose Christian ideals on everyone based on "tradition" and the fact the Republican party has regained majority power in the government.

The separation of church and state is not to limit the role of religion, but instead to keep religion safe from the corruption of the government and the backlash of different religions. It's a very wise position to keep.

Now, the separation of church and state does not mean the separation of religion and politics. It's fine, and in fact honorable, for politicians to be guided by their religion. Publically taking pride in their religion is a noble action.

If I ever get into politics, I would want the freedom to do the same. The biggest difference in my case is that I'm not Christian, I'm Buddhist. But I have no animosity towards the Christian faith, and am happy to see other people turn to Christianity for happiness and guidance.

My biggest hope is that all politicians of faith (Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, whatever) and secularism in America try to not impose their own personal beliefs on everyone else. As long as it isn't a matter of life and death (I can see how abortion and the death penalty can be real issues, so I'm not talking about them), keep the government out of it and let individuals decide for themselves.

To use a a phrase I've heard many fiscal conservative Republicans use in the past: "let the free market decide!".

Thanks, Augustine. Would you (or any other reader) happen to know of any neautral (well, as neautral as possible on this issue) sources that have a complete analysis of the Massachusetts situation? Covering the differences between the statutes and the state consitution, how the federal laws affected it, etc.? I'd really like to read up on this, but really don't have the time to page through multiple sites or web searches.

Take the two points separately . . .

First gay marriage.

If there is a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage it does not change the status of "traditional marriage" one iota.  What it does is preclude same sex couples from getting married.  It stops states from allowing same sex marriages (traditionally marital laws are a province of the states) if they wish.  No Church is going to be forced to perform a same sex marriage.  Churches today are free to marry or refuse to marry whomever they wish and often perform same sex marriages (even if they are not legally recognized).  Your marriage, or mine will not be threatened because the couple who owns the antique shop down the street is able to file their income tax jointly.

As for abortion, this is how I see it.  Your Church (I assume you are Roman Catholic) tells you human life begins at conception.  My church isn't quite sure.  Between your certainty of human life beginning at conception and viability there is an area where there is a lot of debate as to whether the fetus is a person and what rights if any the fetus possesses and how they balance with those of the mother.  These are not questions that can be answered scientifically, but are theological, moral, and philosophical.  A secular government should tread lightly in these areas and accomodate individual freedom not the most rigid view.

You say that religious people can take their children out of public schools and either homeschool or privately educate them.   So religious parents have to pay extra for a religious-based education while secular parents get a free secular-based education.  How is that neutral?  Why is thanking your parents and teachers in a valedictorian speech okay but thanking God is not permissible?  How is that neutral?

My personal solution is to allow full school choice to all parents.  You can send you child to a very religious or very secular school (or anything in between) and the government gives that school X amount of dollars.  AZ was close to doing that but the Dem Governor vetoed it because they can't have all those children leaving public, secular schools you know.

My point is that there are some legitimate grievences out there.  I don't agree all the time, but just because an issue is religious based doesn't mean it is automatically a theocratic demand.

I had a much higher opinion of you prior to this thread.

Re: Why is thanking your parents and teachers in a valedictorian speech okay but thanking God is not permissible?  How is that neutral?

I would happen to agree that many of the ACLU's anti-religious cases are about making mountains out of molehills. Nothing at wrong with "Under God" in the Pledge or acknowledging God in a public speech. I was not defending that degree of nitpickery, which I think is asinine. I am OK with America having a sort of vague, generic "civil religion".

As for the schools, though, there is no solution save neutrality. Yes, it costs people more to take their kids out of public schools.  But if we allow, say, the Baptists to dominate the public schools then everyone who is not a Baptist (and does not want their kid proselytized by Baptists) will have to incur that expense. No, neutrality is best here. And he govrenment does not owe anyone a religious education! If parents want that for their kids they should spend their own money on it.

I'm sorry your opinion of me has suffered. A good thing you did not know my card-carrying GOP father (he died back in `91). He hated the Religious Right far worse than I do, and used to say in the 80s "Reagan needs to kick those Holy Joes out of the party! They'll be the ruin of this country!" (Actually, the words were a bit coarser than that). Contrary to facile belief hereabouts, there are sources of opposition to the RR that are not grounded in the Democrat party, or any form of liberalism.

The definition of marriage is something we can allow to vary individually (because each marriage is unique to itself and no marriage, by its existence, limits or threatens another marriage).

The definition of personhood is not something that can vary individually. This is something that the governbment must settle with a common definition over all of society, else it is impossible for the government to fulfill its role.

Several states had established churches.  Now that the 1st Amendment applies to the states, that would no longer be possible - is that not still neutrality?