Meanwhile Rob Boston at The Wall of Separation (the blog of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) weighs-in with some well-informed reasons why the phrase separation of church and state is better than what Vanderslice proposes. And Jesse Lava, of FaithfulDemocrats.org (and a close associate of Vanderslice) surprises by joining me on a key point -- while excoriating me on another. Boston notes that:

Vanderslice said she advises candidates to instead refer to the "establishment and free exercise clauses of the Constitution." Fair enough - but her approach is still problematic.

To begin with, the Vanderslice view gives away too much to the Religious Right. For years, these groups have argued that separation of church and state is not really in the Constitution, even though the term was used by early political leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as well as their allies in the religious community. None of those early leaders believed that church-state separation excluded religion from public life. Instead of abandoning the phrase, perhaps candidates should do a better job explaining what it means and why it is crucial to the American way of life.

The phrase came into being precisely because it is a useful way of summarizing the religion clauses of the First Amendment. To be frank, most people don't know what "Establishment Clause" means, and to many, "free exercise" sounds like a special offer at the local gym. The phrase "separation of church and state" sums up in these concepts in a familiar and user-friendly way.

It would be a mistake to abandon the term. Polls show that most Americans support church-state separation. Only the extreme Religious Right groups want to tear down that wall.

Meanwhile, Lava characterizes my first post in the Vanderslice Affair (along with those of two others) as "borderline-vicious." A few paragraphs later, he drops the softening "borderline" and refers to our "vicious attacks." I have been called many things in my public life, but I have never before been called vicious; not even borderline.

What is most remarkable about Lava's post, however, is that he makes no effort to support this characterization; nor does he bother to actually address any of my points -- grumping instead about "the liberal blogs," while mischaracterizing others' criticisms and knocking down strawmen. Among Lava's strawmen is a series of nasty, hot-headed anti-religious comments made in response to a Daily Kos diary on the Vanderslice Affair. Rather than address the substantive points of the writers he denounces, he holds up a few nasty remarks made by anonymous cowards -- as if these had anything to do with any of our criticisms of Vanderslice.

But I can forgive the ad hominem attacks, the intellectual dishonesty, and the absence of any real argument -- because Jesse Lava and I have found the sweet joy of common ground on another important matter. He says

"True, no elected Democrat at the national level would be politically suicidal enough to say such things."

This is what I and many others have been saying for a long time.

Jim Wallis and Barack Obama have claimed that there are "secularist" Democrats and liberals who are oppressing "people of faith" in public life. But they have yet to name a single person who has ever behaved in the ways that they complain about. I agreed that there are nasty commenters on blogs who are antireligious bigots. (At Talk to Action, people who make comments of that nature are deleted and banned.)  So yes, Jesse Lava and I agree that there are bigots and boors who are rude to religious people on the internet --  people who have no actual influence in public life; and are not to be confused with Democratic or liberal leaders.

Lava's statement is signficant in light of the hoo ha that erupted last summer, when Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) gave a major speech at a conference hosted by Jim Wallis. It was much discussed in the media and the blogosphere. I wrote at the time:

"There is much in Obama's speech that hits the right notes regarding the role of religion in a democratic pluralist society, but the speech is indelibly marred by propagating one of the central frames of the religious right."

Among other things he said:

"...some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith."

He also said:

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

I wrote:

I am not aware of anyone being asked leave their faith at the door of public life. Are there a few cranky atheists out there who oppose all religiosity, particularly in politicians and public life? Well sure, so what else is new? But there is no evidence that anyone is making any actual headway in reducing religiosity in America... While we have all encountered some people who are as he describes, can Obama or Wallis name a single Democrat who behaves in the ways he attributes to "some liberals"? I think not. And there's the rub. If anyone of any prominence had behaved in this manner it would be news. It is a false and unfair caricature of the place of religious people and religious expression in the Democratic Party. If Democrats are going to shake off the reputation of being antireligious, they are going to have to stop internalizing and repeating the central frame of the religious right. In my own experience, I must say that for every heartfelt anecdote I have heard from people who have been made to feel excluded, marginalized, or discriminated against for for their religious faith -- I have heard non-religious people say the same thing. Is there prejudice and discrimination against religious people by non-religious people? Of course. Is there prejudice and discrimination by religious people against non-religious people? You betcha. Just ask them.

Is any of this restricted to the political left? Why no. There are lots of non-religious Republicans. And Libertarians are some of the most sneeringly antireligious people I know. All libertarians? Nope. Just some of those in my experience.

In that essay, I also went into considerable detail in the way that Wallis spends a large chunk of the first part of his book, God's Politics, busily knocking down secular strawmen. For a generation, the Christian right has built itself up by whipping conservative Christians into a political frenzy in opposition to alleged secularists and secular humanists.  It is analogous to the calling people with whom you politically or disagree a "communist" back in the days when the Soviet Union and "Red China" were the bogeymen of the far right, and geopolitical adversaries of the United States. Looking back, here is the quote from Wallis that struck me most: He complained about "secular fundamentalists," who  

"attack all political figures who dare to speak from their religious convictions. From the Anti-Defamation League, to Americans United for 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 amazing lapse of historical memory when they suggest that religious language in politics is contrary to the "American Ideal."

That Jim Wallis sounds in this instance, more like Pat Robertson or a Cold War anticommunist demagogue than a contemporary social justice Democrat -- shows just how deeply the consciousness of the religious right is seeping into the center of the Democratic Party.  

Meanwhile, Lava also deserves further credit for apparently getting Senator Obama himself to agree, in a recent interview, that maybe some of us had a point:

[Lava] There were both positive and negative critiques of your speech at Call to Renewal this past summer, and much of the criticism came from the liberal blogosphere. What do you think of the negative criticism, in particular, and what do you think it will take to generate more acceptance -- both from the right and the left -- of a strong faith voice in the Democratic Party?

[Obama] Well, I'm grateful for the words of support I have received regarding the speech, but I also understand and appreciate the criticism I received from those who disagreed with me. This was expected, and I think what's important is that these reactions reflect an honest dialogue on these issues. It's a dialogue that I believe enriches our national conversation about the role of faith in politics, and it's a dialog that keeps me continuously thinking about how these issues affect my public service.

And we are grateful that Obama is listening.

We can only hope that other senior Democrats are listening too -- and taking seriously the current dialog about separation of church and state that is also enriching our national conversation about the role of faith in politics.