As always, I find myself falling back upon the principle that your rights end at the beginning of my nose. Thus, it is fair for society to impose the moral precept that theft or murder is wrong, whether we derive that precept from a utilitarian, humanist or theological basis. When moral choices do not infringe upon others (such as two consenting adults engaging in a relationship the Qur'an would deem sinful), then the right to impose one's morality has ended.

Complicating the picture is the fact that there are a great many people who do not hold to this view, who would very much like to impose their morality and religious beliefs on others. In America that consists of the religious right, who are working hard to impose a conservative brand of Christian morality on all us. Further, they would like to deny the morality and the piety of any Christian (and non-Christian) whose beliefs and morality does not match their own.

The question remains what should the response be to this kind of pedagogy? Is it enough to simply aver publicly and loudly that there are many ways to be a devout Christian and to interpret the bible? Is it good enough to write articles and deliver speeches that one finds ample support for progressive ideals in the Bible (or in my case in the Qur'an)?

Or does the religious left have to mobilize much as the religious right has? I have participated in a variety of organizations and efforts aimed at respresenting the religious right. Last month, I participated in a campaign in support of legislation to extend the anti-hate crimes laws to include crimes motivated by antithapy due to gender and/or orientation. The campaign brought together 225 clergy members and religious leaders from a wide range of faith traditions and from every state in the union to talk with their congressmen and senators as people of faith, and most particularly as people whose faith inspired them to believe this legislation is vital. People whose faith teaches them to love for others what they want for themselves.

I am also a member of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and participate both in their advisory board, and in their efforts to present Congress with the fact that the religious right does not have a lock on what it means to be religious, or to be moral. That the left is equally religious, and their morality is equally faith based.

On the one hand, I feel that these efforts are vital to counter a noxious breed of conservatism that is trying to change the face of American liberty. On the other, I worry that by emphasizing the faith based nature of our morality, the religious left is effectively doing exactly the same thing we are opposed to the religious right doing -- that is we are trying to impose a morality based on religious precepts. Does the fact that the morality is more open, more tolerant, more permissive, and more accepting of other's rights to freedom of consience excuse the fact that it is, in fact, imposing our morality on others?

In the long run, I'd rather see that than the imposition of the religious right's morality. Clearly, the imposition of a progressive or liberal religious morality is a lesser evil than sitting back and allowing the religious right to go unopposed.

Another issue I worry about is that the current dialogue effectively shuts out atheists, agnostics or those who simply couldn't care less about religion. If would-be officials have to thump their Bible or Qur'an or whatever holy book they follow in order to be seen as acceptable for office, then we have another problem to deal with.

I guess in an ideal world, the religious left would be able to proudly own their own faith, and their own faith based morality, while at the same time championing the right of people to be irreligious. Even more, championing the fact that irreligious people can be and are moral, and that their morality is just as valid as ours.