"Although I totally support separation of state from the imposition of any particular religious tradition or belief in God, I also know that liberals have not only separated separated church from state but also separated spiritual wisdom, caring, and love from state." - Michael Lerner ( of Tikkun ), from  "Hostile Takeover: Theocracy in America" ( available at Tikkun website )

"Today there are new fundamentalists in the land. These are the "secular fundamentalists" many of whom attack all political figures who dare to speak from their religious convictions. From the Anti-Defamation League, to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, to the ACLU and some of the political left's most religion-fearing publications, a cry of alarm has gone up in response to anyone who has the audacity to be religious in public. These secular skeptics often display an amazing lapse of historical memory when they suggest that religious language in politics is contrary to the American "ideal". The truth is just the opposite....

Secular fundamentalists make a fundamental mistake. They believe that the separation of church and state ought to mean the separation of faith from public life.....

The secular fundamentalists tell us that religion should be restricted to one's church and family. No talk of faith, they seem to be saying, ought to be allowed to seep into the public arena for fear of violating the First Amendment or alienating the nonreligious." - Jim Wallis [ from  "God's Politics", pages 68-70 ]

During the 1980's and 1990's, I, and many like me, adopted the position expressed here:  Religion belongs in church; it has no place in politics.  For me, at least, that position was hypocritical; there is little separation in my own mind between my religion and my politics, and if there were, I would have to think seriously about changing one or the other.  (I am a Unitarian-Universalist, if that makes my views on this easier to understand.)  For me and all of those like me, that position was a mistake.  It was precisely our silence about our religious values that allowed the Religious Right to create the impression that all people with progressive views were irreligious or anti-religious and that, since we did not talk about our values (at least not in explicit "values" terms), that we in fact had no values at all.

BTW, I do not recall (and I am old enough and was involved enough at the time that I should recall if it happened) that Martin Luther King ever received any significant criticism from liberals or leftists because of the explicit religious imagery that he often used to support his call for racial equality.  He was not immune from criticism; near the end of his life, many on the left had rejected his insistence on nonviolence, but I do not recall a similar rejection of his use of religious language.  Perhaps Dr. King has shown us how the line can be drawn.

UU's supported the civil rights movement, as they had earlier supported the abolitionist movement, at least in part BECAUSE of their religion.  I don't see anything wrong in acknowledging that.

by Theovanna on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 12:12:53 AM EST
Parent

Suspect one of the most harmful effects of the irreligious right takeover is that people are afraid to be who they are. I'm suspicious of polls that cite the vast proportion of the population who claim they are "Christian" or believe in God. A lot of them, including church attendees, haven't given much thought to what they believe or why - they've simply inherited an identification and beliefs or they like the comfort of a community. Others, with no affiliation, are afraid to be honest (what we call a "social desirability" response).

Pandering may work, at least for a time, but sooner or later people who pander are seen as inauthentic and untrustworthy. It frightens me to see progressives fall into this trap. Things like values and ethics need to be discussed but they don't have to be attached to religion. One need look no further than the current administration to see that religiosity doesn't guarantee morality. (And I think Jim Wallace has every right to do his thing but the Democrats should stop using him as a 'consultant'. I fear he's running for the "Dobson of the Left" seat.)

by Psyche on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 04:32:30 PM EST
Parent

However, Mrs. Ridenour is well connected to the hard Christian right and has written explicitly about her belief that 1963 Supreme Court decision removing Bibles from public schools was responsible for the social ferment of the 1960's and the rise of various forms of social pathology in America ( increases in murder, divorce rates etc. ) .

In other words, Ridenour seems to believe that the Bible is the anchor of American morality - and it is likely that her program is envisioned simply as the first stage in the incremental reintroduction of Biblically-based education.

I wonder if Howard Dean knows anything about that ?

by Bruce Wilson on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 12:50:14 PM EST
Parent