I think the religious left, especially Green and Humanitarian movements in the Catholic Church, as well as in a few mainline Protestant denominations, will start playing a much bigger role as dialog breaks free of the recent partisan stalemate and gets moving again. (as it inevitably will)

To often pollsters and pundits forget that, while the majority of Conservatives in America are Christian, the majority of Liberals are too. That's because (surprise surprise) the majority of Americans are still Christians.

Thus the myth that Christians are necessarily conservative never made any sense to me. Further more, the Republican Party's monopoly on Christian politics was bound to crack some day. ...

I think the religious left, especially Green and Humanitarian movements in the Catholic Church, as well as in a few mainline Protestant denominations, will start playing a much bigger role as dialog breaks free of the recent partisan stalemate and gets moving again. (as it inevitably will)

To often pollsters and pundits forget that, while the majority of Conservatives in America are Christian, the majority of Liberals are too. That's because (surprise surprise) the majority of Americans are still Christians.

Thus the myth that Christians are necessarily conservative never made any sense to me. Further more, the Republican Party's monopoly on Christian politics was bound to crack some day. Barak Obama particularly seems to typify the Religious Left. Whether this helps him or hurts him is yet to be seen.

Another thing to consider is what exactly threatens the separation. Voting for Christians values because you yourself are a Christian is not a violation of the separation of church and state. In an election, it is the opinion that is at issue, not why a person holds it.

In the end, how could any religious person vote for anything but their personally held religious values? As a Buddhist, I do it, and I don't think its wrong, and I expect many Christians do the same. Further more, if I had to separate my religious opinions from my voting record, then this would create serious problems. As a Buddhist, I religously oppose the Iraq War, but then under the criticism of religiously motivated acti...

Another thing to consider is what exactly threatens the separation. Voting for Christians values because you yourself are a Christian is not a violation of the separation of church and state. In an election, it is the opinion that is at issue, not why a person holds it.

In the end, how could any religious person vote for anything but their personally held religious values? As a Buddhist, I do it, and I don't think its wrong, and I expect many Christians do the same. Further more, if I had to separate my religious opinions from my voting record, then this would create serious problems. As a Buddhist, I religously oppose the Iraq War, but then under the criticism of religiously motivated activists for combining religion and politics, I would logically have to vote for a pro-war candidate to avoid allowing my religious opinions to dominate my voting. This is obviously absurd.

Instead, the issues with Church and State unique to certain elements of the Christian right are three, as I see them:

1. The first is when, rather than advocating issues on the basis of their religious beliefs, they actually attempt to insert religious practice into the government and its institutions, normally a specifically Christian one. An example of this is school prayer, a religious practice that they want to implement in public schools.

2. The second is when they attempt to insert specific religious beliefs into the law. The words "Under God" in the pledge are an example of this. Although there are certainly many people who do believe we are a nation under God, there are other religions and non-relgious people who do not believe this. Thus, they are disenfranchised when the Abrahamic belief in an over-arching God is inserted into the language used in reference to our state.

2. (continued) Another example of this is when some attempt to place the 10 Commandments in public buildings, especially courts. Many from the Christian right argue that the 10 Commandments are the basis of our law, and thus deserve to be honored. I would take issue with that statement. Although they may have inspired the founding fathers (not all of whom were as Christian as is popularly thought) that is not the same as saying our laws are based on Christian faith.

Further more, there is an semi-unspoken agenda at work here, and that is to proclaim America a Christian nation. As far as I am concerned, putting the 10 Commandments in a court would be the same as putting a cross on top of it...

2. (continued) Another example of this is when some attempt to place the 10 Commandments in public buildings, especially courts. Many from the Christian right argue that the 10 Commandments are the basis of our law, and thus deserve to be honored. I would take issue with that statement. Although they may have inspired the founding fathers (not all of whom were as Christian as is popularly thought) that is not the same as saying our laws are based on Christian faith.

Further more, there is an semi-unspoken agenda at work here, and that is to proclaim America a Christian nation. As far as I am concerned, putting the 10 Commandments in a court would be the same as putting a cross on top of its roof. It says: those who do not believe do not belong. It suggests that it is un-American to not be Christian.

3. The third point is a related one. Fortunately, the 10 Commandments are not actually the basis for our laws. Both say no to murdering and stealing, and bearing false witness is condemned in a court of law, but apparently not on network television. The other 7 about coveting your neighbor's stuff, worshiping idols, keeping the sabbath, honoring Mom and Dad, adultery, blasphemy, and placing no gods before the Judeo-Christian God are emphatically not part of the law, and never have been. That means there's only 25% overlap. Our laws owe more to John Locke than they do to the Gospels or Deuteronomy.

And it should stay that way. The third problem is when they try to introduce laws with no basis outside of religion. A great example of this would be the issue of Gay rights. Laws against homosexuality have no basis beyond certain interpretations of Christian scripture. There is no other logical reason why homosexual relationships should be seen as unequal with heterosexual ones. Thus any law would not be acceptable to those who do not hold these religious beliefs.

The question is: will the religious left follow this same pattern?

In the end, how could any religious person vote for anything but their
personally held religious values? As a Buddhist, I do it, and I don't
think its wrong, and I expect many Christians do the same. Further
more, if I had to separate my religious opinions from my voting record,
then this would create serious problems. As a Buddhist, I religously
oppose the Iraq War, but then under the criticism of religiously
motivated activists for combining religion and politics, I would
logically have to vote for a pro-war candidate to avoid allowing my
religious opinions to dominate my voting. This is obviously absurd.

Well said. Unfortunately, many of those on the militant secularist sid...

In the end, how could any religious person vote for anything but their
personally held religious values? As a Buddhist, I do it, and I don't
think its wrong, and I expect many Christians do the same. Further
more, if I had to separate my religious opinions from my voting record,
then this would create serious problems. As a Buddhist, I religously
oppose the Iraq War, but then under the criticism of religiously
motivated activists for combining religion and politics, I would
logically have to vote for a pro-war candidate to avoid allowing my
religious opinions to dominate my voting. This is obviously absurd.

Well said. Unfortunately, many of those on the militant secularist side of the debate would use those words against you should you seek to participate in the public square, especially if your position on an issue differed from theirs.
The first is when, rather than advocating issues on the basis of their
religious beliefs, they actually attempt to insert religious practice
into the government and its institutions, normally a specifically
Christian one. An example of this is school prayer, a religious
practice that they want to implement in public schools.
This is a tricky one.

The first is when, rather than advocating issues on the basis of their
religious beliefs, they actually attempt to insert religious practice
into the government and its institutions, normally a specifically
Christian one. An example of this is school prayer, a religious
practice that they want to implement in public schools.

This is a tricky one. In most instances this is not an attempt to insert Christian practices into government, but a reaction to secularists attempt to exclude traditional practices. Take prayer in schools, if instead secularists had asked for a moment of silence rather than a ban then Christians you not have felt like they were being denied ...

The first is when, rather than advocating issues on the basis of their
religious beliefs, they actually attempt to insert religious practice
into the government and its institutions, normally a specifically
Christian one. An example of this is school prayer, a religious
practice that they want to implement in public schools.

This is a tricky one. In most instances this is not an attempt to insert Christian practices into government, but a reaction to secularists attempt to exclude traditional practices. Take prayer in schools, if instead secularists had asked for a moment of silence rather than a ban then Christians you not have felt like they were being denied something they had traditionally been given.

There is an overreaction now on the part of Christians to be sure, but when taken with attempts to ban nativity scenes, to change the pledge, to alter our coinage and other trivial issues, it is easy for understand how some view this as a larger assault. So, yes Christians can dwell too often in minutiae, but the same is true of secularists. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Further more, there is an semi-unspoken agenda at work here, and that is to proclaim America a Christian nation.

Not with the majority. This is true of some, but the majority of Christians simply are tired of being told they must unpack their beliefs when entering the public square.

There is also a difference in how a "Christian nation" is defined. While some would indeed like to establish a de facto theocracy, most do not hold this stereotypical view so prominent on the left. Rather, they simply fight against the erasure of Christian heritage from our history. They define the US as a Christian nation not because they favor theocracy, but as a simple recognition that the vast majority of the nation is a Christian people. Most Christians recognize not just the danger to the state implicit in theocracy, but of the much greater danger

If it gains traction, it means the end is near for the extremist groups, which will be good for both church and state.

As usually, I am more pessimistic than you. Unfortunately, extremism is part of the baseness in human nature, it will stay with us regardless. It can, however, be held in check by the balance you rightly predict.

It may be nitpicking, but I would object to the statement that it would, "remind Americans that the majority of Christians are moderate." I realize this was not your implication, but many would interpret this to mean that Christians who hold conservative political views are "unmoderate" or de facto extremists.

Again, I realize the disagreement is t...

If it gains traction, it means the end is near for the extremist groups, which will be good for both church and state.

As usually, I am more pessimistic than you. Unfortunately, extremism is part of the baseness in human nature, it will stay with us regardless. It can, however, be held in check by the balance you rightly predict.

It may be nitpicking, but I would object to the statement that it would, "remind Americans that the majority of Christians are moderate." I realize this was not your implication, but many would interpret this to mean that Christians who hold conservative political views are "unmoderate" or de facto extremists.

Again, I realize the disagreement is trivial, but I like to remind folk that Christianity has no allegiance to any political philosophy, there are only philosophies which are more receptive to it. As I stated earlier, this is also the greatest barrier to the voice of the "religious left." The left today is not as receptive is the right. I hope this does indeed change, because although I would disagree with them on many issues, their input would be valuable.

Oh, very good point. What I meant by that is perhaps a dialog generated between the religious left and right would remind people that most Christians in America, conservative or liberal, are moderate, and that it is only the highly-charged talking heads who dominate the national Christian media that are these extremists.

My essential point is that these extremists have exploited the lack of a religious left to pressure moderate (not necessarily ideologically, but at least dispositionally) and conservative Christians into supporting them by presenting it as an "us versus them" dichotomy.

These extremists (actually, extremists on both sides) have cultivated the myth that the left is secular ...

Oh, very good point. What I meant by that is perhaps a dialog generated between the religious left and right would remind people that most Christians in America, conservative or liberal, are moderate, and that it is only the highly-charged talking heads who dominate the national Christian media that are these extremists.

My essential point is that these extremists have exploited the lack of a religious left to pressure moderate (not necessarily ideologically, but at least dispositionally) and conservative Christians into supporting them by presenting it as an "us versus them" dichotomy.

These extremists (actually, extremists on both sides) have cultivated the myth that the left is secular and the right is religious as a tool to polarize more moderate people into supporting their fringe agendas. The sooner that dichotomy is laid to rest, the better for all of us.