Should there be a "Religious Left" movement?

[Pushed To The Left]

Republicans have been manipulating people of faith by using religion to push their political ideas. I'm no expert on religion, but aren't there some progressive ideas that come from religion as well? At the Democratic meetup I go to, they were passing around a page of "Religious Left" messages. I have a hunch that some very religious people might vote for who they perceive to be the more religious candidate. I think that was the reason Stephen Baldwin gave for supporting Bush. Do you think that it would help progressive candidates if they took a religious approach to furthering the progressive cause?

[RPM]

1. would rather that religion not be an issue...

... but if the will make it one, we must win it.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RPM]

64. bite me

the point is that we must wrest the issue away from them; it may not be a fight we want, but we can't allow them to take an issue uncontested.

[We See All]

65. Attn: Blue

Nix old and refocus on Level 4. Acknowledge.

5967H

[VOX]

66. Fix coordinates on We See All.

Send to Boot Hill with extreme prejudice.

Over.

[We See All]

67. Re-engage

Nix old plan, maintaining my 20 and awaiting KrazyKat's approach so I can take out all 9 of his lives.

7h*

[RPM]

68. who is that douchebag

what a funny guy - with his 7 posts and sharp wit

[baba]

2. I think Stephan is the Republican Baldwin.

Not Billy....

[blurp]

3. No there should not be. There needs to be a home for non-believers/skeptic

If the Democratic party adopts some sort of religious stance I won't be voting Democrat.

[arwalden]

4. What He Said!

[seaj11]

6. We'll definitely have a strong third party, then.

Let's leave religion out of politics. That's the basis of the animosity between the Democrats and the Republicans. (Although the boundaries aren't as clearly defined anymore.)

[Cheswick2.0]

7. most people who vote democratic also identify themselves as

religious, mostly Christian. What does that have to do with you voting for democrats?

[mdhunter]

22. I really don't see the two as incompatible

I don't think the strategy would be for the Democratic Party to become openly religious but rather for an openly religious progressive movement to back the Democratic Party.

That's a big difference in my mind, and it only requires the Party to accept the support the religious groups, like they do now anyway.

There is great merit to a progressive religious force within the party. There is a post toward the bottom of this thread titled "joking" that, unfortunately, echoes the feelings of many that religion and liberalism are incompatible. It is only in practice that it seems so in the U.S. In Central and South America the Church has been the most progressive force in all the land. Naturally, they claim it is God's work that they're doing - but who really cares? If we secular atheists want to call it a human rights issue rather than a moral religious issue, that's for us to decide. But, that doesn't mean that the religious people aren't getting things done, or that liberalism, progress, human dignity and religion are somehow mutually exclusive.

I don't believe in God, I think organized religion has done more harm than good in the world, and I think religious dogmatism is the enemy of science, progress, and freedom. But, not all religious groups are dogmatic, not all make whether or not you're gay a central issue in their lives, and not all want to turn a blind eye towards suffering. And those we should welcome, whether or not we believe. If not only because we share common goals, then for the need for something in common with religious people in the center, who want to feel like their faith can have positive expression on the left. And, I think it can without hurting us.

[Ladyhawk]

45. Yeah, what mdhunter said.

I said the same thing, but you said it better. :)

[Ladyhawk]

27. Why can't we have both?

Why do people see this as an either/or position? I certainly don't. There needs to be a place for both skeptics like me and progressive Christians.

It's not so much that I want to see the Democratic Party adopt a religious stance...I want to see those with a religious stance adopt the Democratic Party. A religious left movement full of acceptance, love and respect might go a long way toward mitigating the extremist views of the religious right.

At least, I can hope.

[gorbal]

37. I'm with reply # 3

I think it would be great if their was a religious left movement outside the democratic party. :)

[Telly Savalas]

36. One of the things that distinguishes...

the religious left from the religious right is that they don't feel the need to force their opinions on anyone. If someone's faith dictates that they stand up for social justice, then that person will work alongside agnostics, atheists, and theological apathetics to make the world a better place. A progressive Christian can stand in solidarity with an areligious person without proselytizing them.

Churches provide great vehicles for networking, and if a church is politicized then it becomes a means to make politics a part of the everyday life for folks that would otherwise not give a shit. This organizational structure is what makes the religious right so powerful. Hence if the religious left were to blossom, then they could be an effective substructure for the left's organization.

[TexasBushwhacker]

5. It's Stephen Baldwin that went fundie ...

and frankly, Stephen ain't the brightest bulb on the Baldwin Christmas tree. Alec and Billy have the looks, talent and brains and Daniel and Stephen are basically lucky their last name is Baldwin.

I don't have a problem with a candidate, like John Kerry, speaking about his or her religious beliefs. However, I don't approve of pandering to religious extremists to win votes.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I saw young Stevie-poo on some TeeVee show recently

spouting off about Bush without using his name.

Young Stevie-poo is waaaaaay out there ....... and not a very bright man. I hear he's changing his name to Forrest Baldwin.

[TexasBushwhacker]

20. You should've heard Sam Seder go off on him

on Air America about what a hypocrite Stephen was. He said that he ran into him numerous times in Las Vegas during Baldwin's party days (when Sam was doing stand up) and Stephen usually had a pre-op tranny on his arm. But that was before he found Jeeeeeeezus!

[Ladyhawk]

24. Maybe we can get the Canadians to bomb him... n/t

[ClintonTyree]

8. I never understood how someone could be "undecided".........

so I voted "undecided" this time, just to see what it's like. It's very easy! No thinking involved, just click "undecided". I kind of like it. I've been thinking WAY too much lately, I need a break. From now on I'm "undecided" all the way! ;)

[Radical Activist]

9. There has been one. The civil rights movement,

Christian Socialists. We just forgot to stand for those things.

[Cobalt Violet]

10. Religion and politics is a bad mix .

Imho

[quaker bill]

18. Buzzzzz!!!! wrong answer.

Politics is all about making critical choices. Most of these decisions have bearing on moral issues. Morality is reflected by priorities. Do we spend the money to buy more bombs, or use it to feed the homeless?

Moral perspectives are informed by many things, one of which is religion.

You posit a false dichotomy. For the truly religious, it is not possible to seperate the two. Niether is it even desirable.

[Cobalt Violet]

21. You may disagree with my opinion but do you have to be so ...

Arrogant about it. This thread asked a question, I HONESTLY answered it. My answer is not Wrong.

[Swamp Rat]

46. Bzzzt!

Morality doesn't exist. :D

[quaker bill]

53. Then how do you pick?

Is the war in Iraq "wrong"? If so, then why?

Or is it just a geopolitical mistake?

Would killing the same number of people elsewhere be OK, if it were better thought out? If not, then why?

Does not evolution hold that the less fit should die? Why then support social programs? Could there be a moral judgement involved?

Those who posit a lack of morality simply have not thought things through.

[Swamp Rat]

55. Those who profess morality are suspect.

[ignu]

11. we need more vocal democratic christians, but not christian democrats.

Not believing in majical cloud beings myself, I can't really take a stand. But the Bible reeks of socialism, and over and over again in denounces greed and opulance. We need more christians that will marry the princinples of the left and Christ, but not a democratic politician.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. I voted "yes" but ........

I'm not sure a "religious left" is exactly the answer. Rather, I would like to see us stand for what we stand for. The issue is in framing some things in a way that expresses compatibility with religion.

I think no one can argue that we have been painted by the right as being a party that is, at best, without religion, and at worst, anti-religious. That simply isn't true. While we support the separation of church and state, for example, we are not *against* religion.

I am reasonably sure there are many on our side who are religious. I suspect many of these people are also regular church goers. And I suspect that a good number of them are evangelicals.

That being said, there are some on our side who are outright anti-religious. While the holding of that belief is not wrong, to wear it our sleeves - as we often do - is not helpful.

Neither is it helpful for one of our candidates to pull some stunt that demonstrates his religiosity. I think it is more about how we express our views. If any given candidate is a person who, say, attends church regularly and always has, that's a fine thing to express. But it isn't about stunts. It is about living the expression of tolerance.

Ours is not an atheistic country. That is not to say that there is no place for atheists ... there certainly is, and they're welcome - at least by me. But to be anti-religious is just plain wrong.

We need to be seen as a group that welcomes religion, just as we welcome all the other things we welcome.

Simply by way of example, every year at this time there is the usual story of the banning of the manger in some public place. I understand the issue. I understand the separation church and state. But why do we bother getting bent out of shape because of this essentially harmless expression of the traditional view of *the majority of most communities*? Let it go. It is just there for a short time. It is also clearly different to any thinking person than the permanent installation of the ten commandments in a clearly, legally *secular* court of law.

But as we "ignore" that manger in a public place, we must also be prepared to "ignore" similar displays that are religious but not Christian. We simply cannot be black and white about such things. We're not a black and white sort of people. Everything is a shade of gray. Just apply some ........ common sense.

The only thing of which we can afford to be intolerant is intolerance.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. There already is a religious Left movement and has been since the days

of the civil rights movement.

However, they don't own multimedia empires, so you never hear of them.

[quaker bill]

15. There already is one

But since we don't generally televangelize, or attack abortion clinics, or argue with evolution, or discriminate against homosexuals, or attempt to get tacky monuments with the 10 commandments carved on them installed in public places, we don't get much press.

In so far as the notion of the left being a safe place for secular humanists and atheists to hang out and be free of the religious, I am so sorry. We were here first and we are not going anywhere. As an example, Friends (Quakers, or members of the Religious Society of Friends) have been working for peace, equality, and social justice, for over 350 years.

We were being followed by the FBI before most of you were born. Friends were putting their lives on the line to rid this country of slavery 100 years before the civil war.

All that being said, welcome aboard! To tell you the truth, manning the protest lines nearly on our own during the 1980's was not so much fun. We are thrilled by the additional support for the cause we are seeing these days.

[Ladyhawk]

25. Maybe it's time to get a bit more vocal?

Just a suggestion...

[quaker bill]

32. "Eyes wide open", heard of it?

It is the exhibit of the now +/- 1300 empty boots, along with a number of other things going from city to city around the country.

It is sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee. Quakers know themselves as "Friends" or more precisely members of the "Religious Society of Friends".

We are vocal. Members of our meeting worked to organize the local anti-Iraq war movement along with some members of other faiths and some secular activists.

That being said, yes it is time to be even more vocal. Things are in the works.

http://www.afsc.org/eyes/default.htm

[Ladyhawk]

41. I've always heard good things about Quakers.

I've heard Quakers are a pretty progressive bunch who do good things without shoving religious dogma down people's throats. I've heard they help and then get out of the way.

I distrust the fundies who do good works. I think they have an ulterior motive (psssssst...proselytization).

[quaker bill]

50. An interesting question I have pondered

You are generally correct. Friend's concern for humility and understanding that each of us, at best, only possesses a small fraction of the truth, generally prevents us from "prosletizing", at least in the typical sense. In a religious sense, we do not seek personal credit for doing "god's work". In that we ascribe to very little that might be termed "religious dogma" there is also very little to "shove down people's throats".

All of this tends to cause us to do things in a more or less anonymous way. In fact, most of the grants my Meeting makes are anonymous.

Quakers have not always been this quiet. Liberalism has a long tradition based in moral values which are consistent with the Christian message as we understand it. Perhaps it is time again for Friends and other like minded Christians speak their convictions more freely.

To betray a Quaker perspective, in my work for social justice, I have certainly run into fundies who are as you describe. On the other hand I have certainly run into many who have no ulterior motives. I tend to try to meet people where I find them. This is best facilitated by not bearing stereotypes.

[Ladyhawk]

57. That's hard!

I have found I must bear the "fundy" stereotype in order to protect myself. Proselytizing has an extremely negative effect on me because of where I came from. I do not tolerate it. It causes flashbacks and I get pissed beyond reason. So, I decided awhile back that I have to use the "fundy" stereotype to protect myself.

Case in point: Once while attending a peace vigil in the park, a fundy accosted us and told us that the war in Iraq was OK because they were converting so many to Christianity. This made me want to pop her one. Instead I told her that I had been a Christian for 20-odd years, was now an atheist and proud OF it. She approached me and laid her hands on my forehead. I told her not to touch me, but she held her hands out and started praying out loud for God to reclaim me--in front of EVERYONE.

I just about died of embarrassment as she went on and on. I asked out loud if there was a way we could get the fundy to go away. Others were seated on the grass, so I sat down beside them and looked at some anti-Bush* playing cards.

What should I have known about dealing with fundies? They're fucking crazy and I should have kept my mouth shut.

She said she was preaching at all the local churches. Wonderful. She also said she was on her way to Iraq. I hope she has zero luck infecting the poor Iraqis with her nonsense. They have enough problems what with being bombed and all. :mad: Also, doesn't her mere presence constitute a threat to the troops or anyone defending her? Missionary to Iraq...stupidity itself.

So, I have a right-wing fundy stereotype which I plan to keep myself AWAY from people like my mother and the crazy bitch in the park. I don't have a "religious left" stereotype, really. I've met all flavors.

[Rowdyboy]

16. Most of us on the Christian left have learned to keep our mouths shut

since its apparently our fault that fundamentalists run the country.

[Ladyhawk]

26. Um, no. It's closer to being my fault since I was part...

...of the religious reich.

I would really like to see the religious left get more vocal. The religious right won't listen to an atheist at all. I'm hoping they will listen to the ideas of fellow Christians.

Now is not the time for blame. It's the time to free the minds of fellow citizens.

I'm terribly frustrated because, apparently, I'm terrible at opening minds. Fundamentalist Christians don't respect me. I'm poor, disabled and an atheist...probably one of the first to go to a relocation center if the current trend isn't stopped. I think they would respect a well-off liberal Christian who treated them with respect. Respect is something I can no longer give the religious right, I'm sorry to say. I think I've been wounded too deeply by what was forced upon me. Someone else has to reach them because (apparently) I can't.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. And more's the pity that has happened.

Not to point at anyone, but there is far too much evidence of intolerance on the left. I expect it from the right. I am disappointed when I see it from the left.

[Ladyhawk]

42. I can see being intolerant of the intolerant religious right,

but why should we be intolerant of those who live and let live? I've never had a problem with liberal Christians or liberal Jews. They don't shove their beliefs down your throat. At least, I've never seen them do so. That behavior is a facet of the religious right, who believe that unless you are like them, you're evil.

I've noticed that people on the religious left will share their views, but they don't seem to be avid proselytizers. They're willing to let everyone believe what they believe.

Why can't skeptics and atheists on this board do the same for them?

I can see having opinions and thoughtful discourse, but slamming people for beliefs that do no harm (and probably do some good) is just plain stupid.

That's the conclusion this atheist has come to. This nation is too varied to ever come to one conclusion, so we have to learn to live and let live.

[jellybelly]

17. Joking?

Not possible even if we wanted one. Liberalism and religion are incompatible but if liberals stopped attacking religions that vote repug we could be headed for a good start. Let's attack all religions! Stupid Buddhists with their peace and their Buddha.

[Ian David]

19. Meet the Religious Left

The Interfaith Alliance
http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/pp.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=120694

The United Church of Christ
http://www.ucc.org/

Unitarian Universalist Association
http://www.uua.org/

[Erika]

38. Bushco/Religious Righties do NOT represent Christians

But for some reason they've been able to convince Christians that Christ's Golden Rule no longer has a place in America. Bushco prefers pre-emmptive attacks without proof positive that the country is a real threat to us.

Bushco thinks it's just Christian to cut services to the needy so the wealthy can keep more of their own money. The Bible says the more you are given, the more you should give.

Bushco used Christ for political purposes.

[BrklynLiberal]

58. Sojourners - www.sojo.net- Christians for peace and justice

Sojourners, www.sojo.net, is a Christian ministry whose mission is to proclaim and practice the biblical call to integrate spiritual renewal and social justice.

In response to this call, we offer a vision for faith in public life by:

publishing Sojourners magazine, SojoMail and other resources that address issues of faith, politics, and culture from a biblical perspective;
preaching, teaching, organizing, and public witness;
nurturing community by bringing together people from the various traditions and streams of the church;
hosting an annual program of voluntary service for education, ministry, and discipleship.
In our lives and in our work, we seek to be guided by the biblical principles of justice, mercy, and humility.

History
Sojourners ministries grew out of the Sojourners Community, located in Southern Columbia Heights, an inner-city neighborhood in Washington, D.C. The community began at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in the early 1970s when a handful of students began meeting to discuss the relationship between their faith and political issues, particularly the Vietnam War. In 1971, the group decided to create a publication that would express their convictions and test whether other people of faith had similar beliefs.

Over the years, however, Sojourners went through a variety of transitions. Slowly, the household communities gave way to an intentional community (with a common rule of life). Today, the community context has shifted away from an intentional model; rather we are a committed group of Christians who work together to live a gospel life that integrates spiritual renewal and social justice. However, the principles and values laid out in "Our Life at the Foot of the Mountain," the Sojourners Community Statement of Faith, still fuel our faith and our vision.

>>Read the statement of faith, "Our Life at the Foot of the Mountain"

[janx]

60. Be careful about citing UCC...It upholds strongly the separation

of church and state. Its history is based on that principle. If it appears "leftist," that is only because our country has moved so far to the right. Ironic, isn't it?

UCC is great.

[quaker bill]

28. Sorry!!! wrong answer.

Actually, liberalism at depth is not possible without religion. Sure, you can pass a couple of social programs, but why are they there?

Why does Darwinism only work for you "liberals" on the species level genetic front? Is it not more logical to allow the weak among us to fail? If you follow Nietchze; would it not then be a travesty to saddle the gifted or the strong among us with the burden caring for the less capable? Why shouldn't the economic Darwinism posited by Adam Smith and his "magic hand of the market" be allowed to express itself fully? Shouldn't weak businesses be destroyed by Wal-Mart? If not, then why not?

If you can answer the questions without getting into a discussion of justice or fairness as a basic and unquestionable moral value, I will be surprised. Do so, and you have engaged in religion.

While evolution has absolutely no intent, it is inherently unfair and quite personal. Some individuals live and others die without reproducing. It exists and works only in that the results are very different for each individual.

In opting for a policy that promotes justice or fairness, you are making a decision that is counter-intuitive. It is unscientific to care about your fellow man, that is unless you happen to share a great number of his genes. Check out the math behind Kin and Group selection in any advanced evolutionary biology text. It only works well with siblings and first cousins.

You cannot get to liberalism at depth, with anything so uncompelling as logic or math. Having done it both ways, I can assure you it simply takes more than this.

[OnionPatch]

31. Lots of species

have evolved to be social because it actually is logical to care for your fellow human (or whatever species.) Animals in groups most always fare better. More lookouts, more eyes to find food, safety in numbers, more females to care for children, etc.
So, I think it IS indeed logical.

[quaker bill]

33. Check out the math sometime

It works. But it only works well for those populations that are heavily genetically interrelated.

Then check out the life histories of group or clan social animals. The math predicts the observed result.

It does not predict social programs. You can take my word for it as I have a graduate education in evolutionary biology, or look it up yourself sometime. The logic does not stretch this far. The mathematics are not sustainable far beyond first cousins.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

34. And as our brilliant leader has shown

more human fodder units to fight his oil wars...

[quaker bill]

51. However, this is not nature, it is nurture

Dysfunctional nuture for sure...

[Erika]

39. Troll?

I believe Christ was a liberal. He certainly attacked the religious right status quo conservatives for conducting business in a temple.

I believe he believed in separation of church and state.

[rman]

48. "Liberalism and religion are incompatible" - if you believe the media

-

[nascarblue]

54. Wrong! Jesus Was A Liberal!

Biblical Quotes Supporting the Belief that Jesus Is A Liberal

Peacemaking, not War Making: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Resist
not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. I say unto you, Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and
persecute you;

The Death Penalty: Thou shalt not kill

Crime and Punishment: If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. Do not judge, lest
you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured
to you.

Justice: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the
merciful: for they shall obtain mercy But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your
trespasses.

Corporate Greed and the Religion of Wealth: In the temple courts found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and other
sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle;
he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. Watch out! Be on your guard against
all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. Truly, I say unto you, it will
be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Paying Taxes & Separation of Church & State: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the
things that are God's.

Community: Love your neighbor as yourself. . So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.
If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.


Equality & Social Programs: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed,
because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Public Prayer & Displays of Faith: And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in
the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret…


Strict Enforcement of Religious Laws: If any of you has a son or a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take
hold of it and lift it out? The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

Individuality & Personal Spiritual Experience: Ye are the light of the world.

[Ladyhawk]

23. Can I vote "yes" twice?

I think this is the only way to counter what the religious right has done to Christianity.

I am an atheist and the religious right regards me variously as "deceived," "demon-possessed," "a temptation," "a potential convert," etc. Never am I simply perceived as a person.

[Bluzmann57]

29. A person's faith should be a private matter

It is good to have religious beliefs, and it is good to live one's life according to the ten commandents, or whatever doctrine rules one's faith. Having said that, I do think it's time for the "religous left" to speak up and flex their (our) muscle. The right wing has taken over the "religious" vote and its past time to take it back. This country was founded in part on freedom of religion and its high time to get back to that. After all, it's a big and diverse country and there is room for all people to practice whatever faith they believe. One more thing, Religion should be a part of an enriching and fulfilling life, not a person's entire life. Live your life according to what is right, but allow others to live theirs too.

[progressoid]

30. Yes, but it should take place only in the church.

The radical right has hijacked mainstream Christianity in the US. Most have forgotten (or ignore) that Jesus was a pretty liberal guy.

Obviously there will always be a certain amount of suspension of reason when it comes to religious beliefs (to quote Martin Luther, "To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason."), but there needs to be a lot more study and a lot less acquiescence to the blathering of a few loudmouth preachers.

[Dob Bole]

35. There already is one here:

www.sojo.net

[pearl]

56. Sojourners

Sojourners back in the day was also a community. They always
published this zine but I lived in a sister community in
Houston and had friends at Sojourners.

Bishop Desmond Tutu came and stayed in our community for a few
days.

[burrowowl]

43. Liberation Theology and

Socail Justice type in the RC church, e.g, Dorothy Day, the Berrigan Brothers, all those nun's going to jail for protesting the School of the Americas, the Quakers, etc. have been around for a looong time.

[stackhouse]

44. please help send dr peggy whitson to her iss home.

please help send dr peggy whitson to her iss home. e-mail nasa asking please please send dr peggy whitson to her iss home.

thanks

[rman]

47. There is a religious left movement

But of course it doesn't have backing from big capital, corporate media and government, which is why you don't hear much about it.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

49. Yes, Restore our rights to Freedom FROM Religion please.

[nascarblue]

52. There is quite a bit of disenfranchised Christian blogs out there...

The right seems to be splintering, so I think it's a mistake to even worry about it too much. Mention God alot I guess. If you check out these blogs, there's a bunch of links for Christians and Evangelicals distancing themselves from the maniacs right.

http://evangelicalexpat.blogspot.com
http://www.badchristian.com


Speaking of which, check ot this link to the full 30 min. documentary made back in the late 80's on all the usual suspects...Robertson, Falwell, Robison, it shows them in all their Reagan, Bush Sr. glory....It's an eye opener for sure. Gives you a good perspective on just how they've changed and strengthened their strategies and how sneaky they are these days.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/liberty.wmv

[Ladyhawk]

59. Perhaps it is more a separation of "creed and state."

Can you imagine your kids going to school and after the pledge to the flag, making a pledge to the atheist cause? Meanwhile in Congress, your representatives have a humanist minister direct their thoughts about how religion has ruined the world and that it is best if we keep it out of our governmental institutions.

Does this sound like the old Soviet Union where religiosity was banned? Did it work there? Was it a good thing?

NO.

Marrying atheism with the state would be just as bad as marrying religion to the state.

I'm an atheist and I approved this message.

[rbnyc]

62. If the religious left wants one.

There should be as many movements within the party as do not conflict with basic liberal tenants and are organized by motivated people.

[ChairOne]

63. LOL - that's what this country needs: MORE RELIGION!!!!

sheesh - if these be progressives, America is truly doomed....