"It's a little odd that Christians would target secularism as the bane of American values. Polling done in recent years shows a large majority of Americans describe themselves as Christian (roughly 75%, according to recent polls)."

It's "odd?" Have you turned on your television lately? Have you looked at recent court cases? Do you have kids in public schools? We are not exactly swimming in a bastion of Christian values. A very vocal minority (who have the support of most major media outlets) are pushing a secular agenda very hard. Don't act suprised that Christians are now going to push back.

Daniel's Political Musings

Well, judges are pretty well-educated, as a rule. Given the, er, traditional liberal hold on academia (discussion of which is out of scope for this comment, I'd figure) it stands to reason that even the conservative ones might be actually more moderate.

More to the point, I thought that the job of the federal courts was to interpret the Constitution, a role spelt out in every RL discussion of the federal judiciary I remember.

...Meanwhile, the Constitution is clear on the idea that IT is the source of the law of the land, NOT the Torah or the Pauline Letters.

You mean, federal judges actually do their jobs? Omigosh, somebody call the papers, we have a story here.

Fercryinoutloud, it's McCarthyism all over again. And Christians are going to push back?!

Gah. The conservatives spent a generation making political hay out of the fact that the liberals wanted to legislate physical well-being.

Now the conservatives are trying to legislate spiritual well-being in their own image, because in so doing they can tap a pool of easily-manipulated voters.

And I am officially digusted.

James Wolcott posted an appropriate reminder last Sunday...

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

"I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise. They have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving: it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe."

--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/04/sunday_sermonet.php

And another reminder from Thom Hartmann (you guys will love him!) that Thomas Jefferson was also a vehement defender of a secular America...

"...Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the most outspoken of the Founders who saw religious leaders seizing political power by claiming religion as the basis of American law to be a naked threat to American democracy.

One of his most well known quotes is carved into the stone of the awe-inspiring Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny imposed upon the mind of man."

Modern religious leaders who aspire to political power often cite it as proof that Jefferson was a Bible-thumping Christian.

What's missing from the Jefferson memorial (and almost all who cite the quote), however, is the context of that statement, the letter and circumstance from which it came.

When Jefferson was Vice President, just two months before the election of 1800 in which he would become President, he wrote to his good friend, the physician Benjamin Rush, who started out as an orthodox Christian and ended up, later in his life, a Deist and Unitarian. Here, in a most surprising context, we find the true basis of one of Jefferson's most famous quotes:

"DEAR SIR, - ... I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten," Jefferson wrote, noting that he knew to discuss the topic would add fuel to the fires of electoral politics swirling all around him. "I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum [the angry poets] who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened.

"The delusion ...on the [First Amendment] clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists.

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they [the preachers] believe that any portion of power confided to me [such as being elected President], will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough too in their opinion."..."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0303-30.htm

Do not forget that former Sen. Danforth, who is also an ordained clergyman, had an OP ED in the NY Times not too long ago. This would be the former Republican Senator who gave the homily at Reagan's funeral--not exactly a secular leftist!

Here is part of what he said:

The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.

When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement.

The idea that the Bible will now be bastardized to not only promote the views of the Evangelical Right but also to dictate public policy and national law is a terrifying idea for me. For so many people, this would mean the deterioration and roll back of the rights and civil liberties that so many fought to gain. We are already seeing the affects of the "Evangelical Revolution" in such legislation as the "partial-birth" abortion ban and the proposed amendment outlawing equal marriage rights, among others.
The Bible is not a weapon. As a practicing Catholic I am ashamed by the actions of these people. It is abominable to use the Scripture as an excuse to hate and to marginalize others. I too am truely disgusted.

I think that it is not the fact that the left is showing "little or no tolerance for religous beliefs" but more to the fact that they are getting sick of people like Frist and DeLay pushing their religous beliefs on others.

The fact that you practice a religion of choice in this nation is a right you have. Pushing your religion on other's is not. If it was, then we would start to outlaw religions based on what was popular.

It goes back to the core belief that our constitution was written in a way that ensured a seperation between government and religion.

In particular, the words of DeLay during the whole ordeal whether or not to let Teri Schavio die was disheartening. Whether he likes it or not, words have implications. You are free to say what you want, until you insight violence. That is where the fine line is drawn in terms of freedom of speech.

Also DeLay's comments about "activist judges" in which he had a fit because none of the judges involved in the case would agree to an injunction. This is an argument that could be made just as well in terms of judges that lean conservative.

Just to clarify something that was stated about Mormons and Catholics being part of the "new American Taliban". Mormons are very socially conservative and I have no doubt generally are on board with the social gospel according to Firth & DeLay, but polls show consistently that American Catholics are politically split despite the Church's official, conservative dogma. There are Christians who tolerate a secular society and then there are those who would impose their particular sectarian beliefs on others.

Anyhoo, the founders were acutely aware of the problems of religious intolerance as offical policy. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, but only antedates it by less than a decade. Thus, it quickly became apparent to them that a majority could be tyrannical.

They irony I see in the conservative's well-organized attack against "liberals" based on religion, is that we liberals are the actual defenders of freedom of religion. If you are jewish or mainline protestant and don't believe tha life begins at concpetion- we aren't trying to mandate that everyone share our beliefs. We aren't trying to mandate that children be forced to make pledges to images in schools. We aren't trying to force children to pray to a false god. We are trying to allow people to practice their religion without shoving it down the throats of all Americans. What happens when someone asks the president if Jews are going to hell? Or when legislation is proposed to outlaw divorce?

There is a long tradition of minority groups (evangelical protestant christians in this case) using democratic processes to undermine the very minority protections that are tenets of democracy. Just think, when Hitler rose to power he only gained less than 20% of the vote, but was able to use the power of the state to consolidate power. Iran's theocrats took power under the guise of elections. Plus, those who claim special authority derived from a higher law, have no need for democracy and do have a special particularistic motivation for action. So no, I'm not hostile to religion, but I am hostile to people who trademark "Christian" and attach a anti-democratic agenda to it. As a Christian and as an American, I have an obligation to be alert to threats to both.

There is an axiom for victory in every conflict, "Divide and conquer." For progressives to make any headway in the religious wars we have to assert with confidence, "Not all Christians are alike!" Frankly, the Mormons refer to themselves as Christians but a third of their Bible is not accepted by the rest of Christianity. The various denomination that have a liturgical life, or believe in apostolic succession do not recognize the non-demonational congregations. And those non-denominations, for all their proud declarations of not being of any denomination would more accurately be referred to an anti-denomination.

Finally, and this is the MOST important thing for everyone to remember. The right did not take half the country, just half the voters. The silent citizens cannot be counted for us or against us. Let's stop referring to this country be evenly divided. Only the vote was split evenly.

Peter said:

"So no, I'm not hostile to religion, but I am hostile to people who trademark "Christian" and attach a anti-democratic agenda to it. As a Christian and as an American, I have an obligation to be alert to threats to both."

Peter, I couldn't agree with you more. It doesn't matter to me what religion you are (or if your religous at all), but more to the point you can equate religion as pro or anti democratic.

The same type of ridiculous argument was being made in terms of the war in Iraq. "If you were opposed to the war, then you were not supportive of the troops."

While people are permitted their own opinions, I do believe you have to call them on the carpet for making such an argument

<h2>Ps-For clarification, I previously posted as davidpdx in this thread. I'll try to post under my name. Sorry for the confusion.</h2>