Comments (35)

As a born again christian who follows american politics avidly from my own country I really cannot understand the Christian Right in the USA The views are just so very different from those of most of the Christians I know.(apart from those whose churches have strong affiliations with the US churches. Most Christians I know are Pro-life which means they are anti death penalty and anti war as well as anti abortion. My priest and several of us worked to have smacking made illegal and we won. (If eating meat causes your brother to sin then dont eat meat).Most Christians I know are environmentalists and animal rights supporters and center to left politically. My teenage son has a very biblical view of homosexuality but in his year at High School there is a transgender individual a boy who is going through the process of becoming a female and lives as a female My son doesnt feel threatened nor Contaminated by depravity as i saw written on one site opposed to californias law and he wouldnt dream of treating that person in any lesser way than his Christian friends. If we were voting in america most Christians we know would vote Democrat. Love Joy Peace Patience Kindness Understanding The fruits of the Spirit - the Democrats seem to show a lot more of them.

IH writes:

"Abortion is far from a 'theocracy' issue, it is not about the imposition about any biblical belief, it is about making murder illegal."

Obviously, you are not aware of Jewish Law which holds that a fetus is only a "partial life" until the moment the baby's head exits the birth canal, at which point it is considered a full person. Here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

Jewish Law has always allowed for abortion. If you knew your Bible better, you would know that the OT goes into some detail about abortion and when it is perfectly legal. You might also know that Yahweh demands/condones abortion in some situations:

See here: http://tinyurl.com/2nl7yl

Internet Handle,

My, where to start?

Bans on abortion, stem cell research, and same-sex marriage are all based soley on religious opinions. When a law is based solely on a religious opinion, that is theocracy.

Same-sex marriage is commonplace in western cultures. Ours is one of the very few that still prohibit it and we do so on strictly religious grounds. That's absolutely theocratic.

I know lots of Christians that favor stem cell research so you are wrong again there.

The Christian right is not protecting rights, they are protecting long-held priviledges that others do not enjoy. Exactly what rights are Democrats trying to take away from Christians?

As for spanking, my dad is a non-Christian Democrat and he spanked me regularly (because I deserved it). So you're wrong there too.

Nobody has a problem with you choosing whatever school you like, just pay for it yourself like you rightly propose to do with your charities. If you want a free education for your children, send them to public school like everybody else. That's a fair choice.

I can't speak for Democrats, but as a Secularist, I will always defend your religious freedom to be a Bible-believing Christian to your hearts content but I won't permit you to impose your religious opinions on anybody else. That's an extremely fair compromise, don't you think?

Wow, this is quite a phrase: "gently and lovingly spank their children"

What if I got a hold of you, a grown adult, pinned you down so you couldn't move, and started whacking at your behind. Now imagine how much more threatening that is to a small powerless child.

Spanking is a poor substitute for actually parenting effectively.

The reality is that the vast majority of Christians, and by this I mean bible-believing fundies and evangelicals do not know who Rusdoony is and most conservative theologians reject Dominionism/Reconstructionism on biblical grounds. Not to mention the fact that most conservatives have a high respect for the Constitution.

I guess I am always at a loss to see the emerging theocracy. Abortion is far from a 'theocracy' issue, it is not about the imposition about any biblical belief, it is about making murder illegal. Gay marriage is closer to a theological belief but for the vast majority of Christian intellectuals it is about not changing a human institution that far predates Christianity and creating a structure that has never existed in western culture.

I suppose some bring up stem cells. Which is such a red herring since all any Christian is against is embryonic stem cell use.

Can someone point out the theocracy? To the extent that there is an overt effect of Christianity on our laws is only that it is left over in our common law that co-evolved with Christianity in England since 1066.

What the Christian right IS trying to do is protect their rights that others want to take away.

Christians believe that they have a right to teach their children (or pastors teach their flock) that certain behaviors are wrong. Democrats want to make that hate speech. Christian parents want to gently and lovingly spank their children (it's in the Bible after all). Democrats would make that illegal.

Christians want to chose to personally help the poor out of love, Democrats want to force them to 'help' the poor on pain of imprisonment through an impersonal and ineffectual bureaucracy. Christians want to be able to choose a school for their children, Democrats vote down voucher programs.

I guess I do not see what the Democrats have to offer a Bible-believing Christian.

I'm amazed. this has been an almost civil,almost intelligent,discussion rather than a diatribe on two edges. Congratulations to all. Excellent work by Irving and Amode.

Dear naturalists. relax. You frequently sound like the fundamentalist you rail about. Part of learning is listening. Part of civility is respect. There are none of us who have it right.

Dear Tom Weaver -

Your point is taken that not all Xians think alike, just as not all Dems think alike. No group is monolithic in its thoughts, though it may be assumed that "some of" them are.

So, on the subject of adding the qualifying words "some of" when employing the labels we place on people: let's face it, few of us on this blog opt to place the words "some of" before each and every label we attach to people in these discussions. If we did, we'd be eating up bandwidth like crazy.

My perception is that any label used on this blog (or anywhere else, for that matter) automatically includes the exceptions to the rule. If someone labels people as religionists, Dems, Repubs, union members or whatever to make their point, the exception is assumed.

I see no reason to treat religious labels any differently. If a general principle is true for the Democratic Party, I don't need to add the superfluous words "some members of the" before using the words "Democratic Party." If a general dogma of the Catholic Church is under discussion, I don't need to add the equally superfluous phrase, "some but not all" before using the label "Catholic."

Can we agree on this? On should I get my panties in a bunch because you just wrote:
"IMO, the current wave of religious statements from Dems is more of a cathartic thing that should pass readily enough,"

rather than the more-precise:

"IMO, the current wave of religious statements from SOME Dems is more of a cathartic thing that should pass readily enough."?

;)

Actualy, Mr. Mark, I read your post quite carefully. You make it crystal clear that you suffer from the very biases the OP mentions.

Your first two paragraphs might merely have been poorly worded, where it could be inferred that all Xians long for a theocracy, when you use "Xians" instead of "some Xians" (accurate), or "the Xians in the conservative Republican Right" (less accurate, but to your point).

But in your third paragraph the invalidity of your argument becomes evident. When you say, "Doesn't that come with the territory? Isn't the alienation felt by the Xians their own fault for not knowing that this country is a secular democracy, not a theocracy?", it's now clear that you have fallen into the exact same mistake about which the OP laments. A large number, perhaps even the majority, of Xians believe strongly in the separation of church and state. Almost all major organized Xian denominations not only have strongly-worded platforms in support of this principle worldwide, but even produce periodicals devoted to this very idea ("Liberty Magazine" comes to mind, for example. No, I am not a Seventh-day Adventist).

What I find sad here is that we have two Op-Ed pieces running within a day of each other; one in which the atheist OP bemoans the abandonment of his fellow secularist atheist/agnostics, and this one, where the OP congratulated the Dems on no longer bashing a particular sub-culture. It's not a win/lose scenario. The best way for people to cooperate with each other is to recognize their common interests, not(as Mr. Mark is doing) harp on their differences.

IMO, the current wave of religious statements from Dems is more of a cathartic thing that should pass readily enough. Reminding their constituents that it's OK to be a Xian and a Dem is fine, since they have felt marginalized for a while; so long as it's not some central theme, or lines aren't drawn directly linking policy decisions and religious commandments - and I see no evidence that this is happening for any of the Dem contenders.

Whether one believes in the principles of the Dem party because some dead guy from 2000 years ago, or some dead guy from 200 years ago, doesn't make a huge difference to me. I am unsure why it should to you, either, Mr. Mark.

The Christian church was really dying during the Vietnam era and struggled with how to retain youth. The tipping point has been playing on public fears that everyone would loose their jobs to foreigners, schools would intentionally alienate parents, children would become test animals for corporate science and we would become the fat, lazy, stupid people of the world. We'd like to blame it all on the changes we feel have been imposed on us.

I don't think it's Christian, it's bad behavior, fear and oppressive control the public dislikes. Religious growth is a grass roots movement of saying we just don't like the way our children are taught and insecurity... we feel safer with magic.

Our country needs a uniter and maybe it's Obama. Someone who understands diversity and feels we have more in common than we have differences. I think Obama works because there is a message of believing, not in a religion but in each other.

Michael David Irving,

That was superbly well put.

The idea of a Christian that Bertrand Russell had when he wrote "Why I Am Not a Christian" is not the REAL, infinitely lovable person that a real Christian is.

The strawmen that the cacophonic, purported 'naturalist', crowds have set up and are busy making money projecting their distateful religion-bashing shows for, are dishonest caricatures of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and, indeed, Buddhism, as well as other religions that comfort the human soul as it contemplates the transcendental.

Thanks for the posting.

I have followed the teachings of Christ for all of my adult life and have found that most modern "Christians" have developed a belief system that, I'm sure, Jesus would have been appalled at. Their claims of discrimination and marginalization are so incredibly bizarre that they defy understanding. To the person who said' "There are no god loving liberals", I would respond that, while I know a great many liberals who have a great and abiding faith in God, I know of no liberals who use their faith as a bludgeon against those who may have a differing view of their creator and their responsibilites as earthly representatives of God, as they understand God.

I see the current state of the Religious Right in this nation as a progression of time.

The original firebrand church leaders, Jerry Falwell is a good example as he is both dead and while living, contributed greatly to the availability of Christian education.

More than a generation of his followers children have been educated in the schools and University he founded.

These schools themselves, by teaching Christianity, have had literally millions of children go through their systems.

As a result there is a large Christian educated population that now, having been taught the workings of their faith, come face to face with the politics of their parents.

The application of the question of "What would Jesus do?" is applied to their parents politics and the answer comes up wanting or worse it appears to be irreconcilable with the actual teachings of Jesus.

Thus, as we go further into this new century, we are witnessing the self created paradox that is the Christian Right, come to grips with it's actions being judged by the scions of the movement, who received educations designed by their parents.

A re-ordering of the priorities as this movement, as it matures, is occurring from within as the effects of a Christian education actually take hold and the older generation vanishes into history.

The comments so far, on all sides, have been so good, it would be superfluous for me to offer more. For the record, I'm solidly on the side of people like Ripcord65 and Keith_in_Seattle in believing that the Democratic Party has shot itself in the foot by confusing religion with the extremist religious right.

But for a comment that by far generated more light than the usual heat, I recommend Kay's, posted February 12, 2008 4:07 PM. I think she added a unique perspective to the issue of how to reconcile being a Christian with being an American fully committed to the Enlightenment values from which all American politics truly spring.

MHR is exactly right. The Democratic Party is going to have a hard time attracting the devout vote as long as so many of their party faithful continue to call them ignorant and dangerous fools. Back in 2004, I voted for Kerry, but as the election results came back in Bush's favor, I found myself happy. In spite of myself, on a purely emotional level, I was cheered by the loss of the party most favored by the people who regularly insult my beliefs. Gay Republicans probably feel the same way.

I seem to be reading a lot of comments which appear to come from some guilty consciences, thin skin and justification of position. Wouldn’t it be much simpler to accept most every segment of our society has nut-bags which stand of the ruffled fringe of all the extremes? To debate whether there are God loving liberals, offense at X, desire for theocracy or a number of Christian Fathers who designed a secular government would appear to confirm the sharp division Appleby’s theorizes.
There are Christian who piss me off with their strident intolerance, and secularist who look down their noses at any person of faith who may actually have an independent informed opinion that didn’t come from the “opium”. Have we come so far from the source that it is impossible to accept we may not agree on every issue but at the same time celebrate the issues we mutually embrace? Rodney King was right!
Hey guys, get a grip. We live in a country which allows us to even have the discussion. Why don’t we move past the offenses and justifications and make the damn thing work together. Sorry to be so shallow.

FRM CONEY ISLAN NEW YORK
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!-.....________________
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN! Thanks A*M*E*R*i*C*A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE&feature=related

-->->->->->->->->->->->
!
!
!
!
STOP! WE Say Stop!
STOP! In The Name of THE-LAW!
In the Name Of HILLARY CLINTON!
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:
< http://\\//\\//\VOTE\\http://\\//\\//\\ )
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:
< http://\\//\\//\VOTE\\http://\\//\\//\\ )
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:
< http://\\//\\//\VOTE\\http://\\//\\//\\ )
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

RIPCORD65 writes:
"Respectfully, some of you seem not to get the point.

"I am an evangelical Christian. I am a hard-core Democrat. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state.

"Mark ... you offend me (I suspect intentionally) by using "Xian" instead of "Christian", but your offensive comment won't keep ME from voting Democratic."

You disappoint me, Rip. It would appear that you're a religionist who goes out of his way to find offense where none is intended. Indeed, it would appear that you are offended that I employ a shorthand that has been around for at least 1800 years.

That's right, Rip. the "X" has been used since the days of the early Greek Church. It is the Greek letter "chi," which forms the name "Christos." The early church used this "X" in their graffiti. It sent a message and pissed off the Romans at the same time. The Greeks liked the fact that the "X" turned on its side formed the Cross.

Now, why on earth would a Xian find this shorthand offensive, unless they didn't know the history behind it, or they knew the history, but decided that offense was a more important part of their belief system than embracing a powerful reminder of their early history?

So, 1800 years of usage of a symbolic shorthand must end to appease the ignorance of the present-day "Keep Christ in Christmas" rubes? I'll have to think about that one.

My friend Arminius also dislikes my use of the X shorthand. He prefers to spell out the word "Christian." For me, posting as much as I do on this board, I see no reason to write out the full word over and over again. Typically, I start with "Christian" in the first use, then go to Xian as the post progresses. To keep writing the full word wastes time.

Arminius once asked why I would use an old shorthand that has no reference point in the 21st century (excuse me, twenty-first century). I found that a strange complaint coming from a person who believes in religious writings that have been around (and have remained stagnant) for even longer than the Greek "X".

Perhaps it is Rip who is actually insulting his own faith by not bothering to study its history, where he would have found this tradition explained and explained again.

And to aver that some Xians (sorry, damn! Christians) may vote against the Dems (sorry again, the Democrats) on the basis of a post written by an anonymous blogger on a blog read regularly by people in (at best) the high dozens is quite laughable. Looks to me like yet another attempt at censorship by a religionist. Or, perhaps Rip is one of those Republic-lite types who love to warn the Dems (sorry, Democrats) that they better stop what they're doing because it "might backfire" on them. Funny how those warnings get louder the more effective the Dem (sorry yet again, Democratic) strategy happens to be.

"Obvious insult" my ass. You need to grow up, Rip. Surely, your god doesn't find offense, for it would be a weak and spineless god who would find offense in a non-Xian (sorry, a now-non-believing-former-Christian-who-was-a-Christian-for-the-better-part-of-45-years-before-seeing-the-light-and-throwing-off-the-shackles-of-religion) utilizing a shorthand that the early church used copiously and with great vigor.

BTW Rip, my use of the X dates back to my days as a Xian. No one seemed offended by it back then, but back then, we had a knowledge of and appreciation for church history. In any case, I see no good reason to give up my shorthand simply because I've become a non-believer in the meanwhile.

That said, let's make a deal, Rip: I'll stop using the "X" if you and yours will stop using the Cross as a symbol. Do we have an accord?

Final BTW, since I missed you in December, Merry Xmas.

1. I am a Christian. While seeing "Xian" is startling, I find it no more offensive than "Xmas". It has historical roots in early Christianity, just as the fish symbol does.

2. I am a values voter. For example, I think that systematically lying in order to intimidate a country into agreeing to start an unjust war is not a good value. I think that plundering from that country, holding its citizens in secret prisons, and creating an environment where guards feel free to rape those prisoners is not a good value. I think that laughing at the plight of the Katrina survivors and telling the news media that you hope they don't decide to stay in your home city is not a good value. I think that altering the Constitution to instutionalize your biases is not a good value. I think that encouraging your followers to pray for the deaths of liberal Supreme Court Judges is not a good value.

3. The problem as I see it is that all sides appear to operate under the assumption that they have the monopoly on "good." You don't. I don't. Let's try to stop being so arrogant, OK? I'll try if you will.

4. One of the biggest problem the world has today is that too many people are willing to deny dignity to others. How can you think you are a good person if you habitually humiliate others? We should be ashamed. All of us.

There are no God loving Liberals.

As one who was a faithful member of the Democratic party for many years and who was also a Catholic, it seems odd to read so many comments from anti-Christian liberals who believe that gay rights and abortion should be the party's prime issues. That plus an elitist anti-American attitude spelled doom for the party.
That narrowly focused view is what brought the Republican party so many electoral victories during the past several decades. Anti-Christian bigotry is bigotry even if practiced by liberals with college degrees. Obviously, I no longer vote Democrat.

Mainstream Christians have suffered because of the public behavior of right-wing reactionaries who have dominated the GOP for the past twenty years. For decades, most Christian denominations gave social expression to their faith through charitable activities rather than through electoral politics. The emergence of the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et.al., and their efforts to demonize "liberals," attack the teaching of science in public schools, intimidate homosexuals, etc., has polarized the country in many unfortunate ways. The West criticizes Islam for not confronting its extremists. The same might be said of many Christians who allowed extremists to hijack their faith.

I am in complete agreement with Ripcord65. I am a Christian. How in the world can I even look at the platform of a party that continually demeans me for who I am? Unfortunately that party is the democratic party.

Check out this website:

fellowshipofchristiandemocrats.org

Best to all.

Respectfully, some of you seem not to get the point.

I am an evangelical Christian. I am a hard-core Democrat. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state.

Mark ... you offend me (I suspect intentionally) by using "Xian" instead of "Christian", but your offensive comment won't keep ME from voting Democratic. However, there are LOTS of other evangelical Christians who are not as solidly committed to the Democratic party as I -- and perhaps are not committed to either party at all -- who might have voted for the Democratic nominee in November, 2008, if he/she had not read your post, but will not do so because of the obvious insult it expresses.

You foolishly equate "evangelical Christian", and even "Christian", with "the Religious Right". What a pity. There are A LOT of Christians who are disposed to vote Democratic who will not do so because the only comments they see by Democrats are almost uniformly demeaning to Christianity generally. Irreligious Democrats who persist in demeaning Christians and Christianity do a HUGE disservice to the Democratic party.

I'm not going to try to convert you, Mark. There's no need for you to gratuitously insult me and my faith.

WYMER,

Thanks for the thought that " we agree about much".

No, my last sentence concludes what my whole post argues: " I was born a Muslim. I inherited a set of values. Among those set of values was one which enjoined me to use the faculties given to me by my Creator to my utmost benefit and the benefit of amnkind. Having benefited from an education that encouraged critical thinking (and, believe me most madrassas also do that, but 'apologetics' momentarily), I questioned myself, early on in life: "Who or What is God? If Islam is the chosen religion for the best of us, why did He not, in His mercy, make everybody a Muslim?"

Of course, like every other child, I questioned myself: "What is Absolute Nothing?"(Nobody will convince me that what this does not happen to every child -- every child wnders what happens when he sleeps and at one point the idea of 'nothing' as Absolute Nothing dawns on him, but apart from philosophers and great scientists, most of us get too hardpressed by the exigencies of daily life to probe the question further). At one point, probably when my handwriting was so awful everybody was making fun of me or when I had broken the irascible neighbour's window with my football, I asked my self "What is the purpose of life?" "What is the 'meaning' of life?"

Only yesterday, I got a slightly more complete understanding what 'meaning' means for an individual as well as for a community of individuals by re-reading certain passages of Walter Freeman's "How Brains Make Up Their Minds" (I had not been able to get a digital copy of Roger Penrose's 1992 article titled "On Umderstanding Understanding" because the back issues of the relevant journal had still not been digitalised at the time I checked).

In spite of honestly seeking answers to these questions all my life long, I have not collected enough evidence to make me say, as Bertrand Russell said "Why I am not a Christian" (and I think that Russell was wrong in his argumantation) or as Ibne Warraq said "Why I am not a Muslim".

That was the point of my last sentence. No apology. No proselitization. Just an honest sharing (however imperfectly one can summarise a lifelong search for the truth in a few hundred words) of an experience that I value.

Thanks again for saying "we agree on much".

From a Cyber friend of HILLARY FOR PREZ Thank You HUMATES!:

Today is 212

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:
< http://\\//\\//\VOTE\\http://\\//\\//\\ )
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:
< http://\\//\\//\VOTE\\http://\\//\\//\\ )
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:
< http://\\//\\//\VOTE\\http://\\//\\//\\ )
< ?: +) < ?: +) VOTE < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

---
---

Note Sistar Frietes, et al; The Female DEViL Exposed !

DOWN with OPRAH WINFREY’s & Barrac OBAMA's "THE SECRET"-ARMY now!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(2006_film)

Please see How & Why Oprah's Prez hopefull Barrak , and with NO-EXPERIENCE or extremely insignicant has "ATTRACTED" so many crazed Audiences as Voters for , Mr. wanabe Prez OBAMA, and Oprah V. Prez!???

Vote DOWN with OPRAH's & Dr. Phil's and their "The-Secret"-ARMY!

Call the Government on them for abusing FCC Regulated Networks now! Call The Police.

Please See this Scientology ANONYMOUS invasion for Comparison.

Note: From Info & belief, OPRAH's Show & THE SECRET will soon also have an ANONYMOUS invasion.

--

Vote DOWN with OPRAH's & Dr. Phil's and their "The-Secret"-ARMY!

Call the Government on them for abusing FCC Regulated Networks now! Call The Police.
--

"GO GET'M HILLARY!" Sickm Girl! ya Ya Yo!

Vote:(((( C* L* I* N* T* O* N---Hillary For 1st Woman PREZ 2009 & her Bill for 1st MAN Yea!))))))

Mohamed, I think we agree about much. I am not an anti-spiritualist, but I guess I have little use for the religions of the world as they have expressed themselves. The story of the physicist is inspiring, but the fact that he is Muslim or Christian or pagan or whatever really holds no interest for us. It is his work that holds the interest and is meaningful for the rest of us. Quotes from the Koran or from any religious texts might serve as poetic or spiritual expressions for our discoveries and wonderment at our universe, no doubt. Your last sentence is merely an apologetic for Islam, as if to say, "you see, it is Islam that is yet relevant and others should turn to it."

Very early on, when I was in Tunisia, I was the first person from Tunisia, or from any Muslim country, to register as a 'Bright'. Going by what Daniel Dennett had written in a WAPO column, I was enthused by the idea of his definition of a 'Bright' as someone who was lucidly committed to a naturalist as distinct from a 'supernaturalist' worldview, and his explanation that being a 'Bright' did not necessarily imply being an atheist or even an agnostic.

I am a convinced Muslim, now permanent resident of Canada where I had had all my University education in the early 1970's. I still consider myself a 'Bright' and have been dreaming about a 'Brightenment' movement that would reconcile the Enlightenment values with the values of the more committed seekers of truth in the transcendental/religious sense of the meaning of life and the purpose of the cosmos at both the purely sensory/scientific/verifiable level and the more emotional/spiritual level.

Unoftunately, I have watched with horror, not only the likes of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but luminaries like Richard Dawkins and Daneil Dennett trashing caricatures of the religious narrative and dismissing spiritually-committed people as superstitious folks who lack the courage to look at reality in the face or to challenge authority. My dream of 'Brightenment' has vanished.

The books the author proposes are not going to do much to bring about a 'religious liberal' revival except in the very narrow sense of domestic American political engagement and the race to accede to political, and thereby economic and socio cultural, power and influence.

However, the flame of hope lit in my heart by the soul-lifting reviews, a few months ago, in WAPO or NYT, of Cosmologist Emeritus Carl SAGAN's book ‘The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God’ has not been extinguished by the deplorable reverse-fundamentalism of the 'Brights' that I have witnessed. Nor will it be extinguished soon by the narrowly-political-driven agenda of the 'neo-liberal religiosity' that seems now to become a tool to accede to power.

In his book Carl Sagan writes: "I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship." The Richard Dawkins that I used to admire opines that Carl SAGAN was more than religious, having left behind the priests and mullahs. ‘He left them behind, because he had so much more to be religious about. They have their Bronze Age myths, medieval superstitions and childish wishful thinking. He had the universe.”

I have been reading the layman-targeted articles of Pakistani Physicist and Nobel laureate Abdus Salaam. This physics researcher who worked out the mathematical equations that conceptually and rigorously synthesized the electromagnetic and weak force at subatomic particle level and predicted the existence of the W and Z Boson elementary particles, later verified at CERN in Geneva, was a devout Muslim of Ahmadiya denomination. During his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in Physics, Salam quoted the following verses from the Quran:
"Thou seest not, in the creation of the All-merciful any imperfection. Return thy gaze, seest thou any fissure? Then Return thy gaze, again and again. Thy gaze, comes back to thee dazzled, aweary."
He then proceeded to say: "This, in effect, is the faith of all physicists; the deeper we seek, the more is our wonder excited, the more is the dazzlement for our gaze."
Unlike the mundane power-seekers and the sensationalist religion-bashers, Abdus Salaam was a scientist for whom, like Carl Sagan, his science was the most intense manifestation of his informed worship, that worship being the religion of Islam.

I concur with Mr Mark. His indictment of the Democratic Party and those who seek a middle earth position with regard to religion in the US is a correct appraisal. It is indeed these politicians and leaders who are disingenuous. All the candidates pander to religionist jingoism out of fear that they would be seen as too secular. They pander in response to a public that is horribly deprived of education in history, philosophy, political structures and how they work, and most ironically enough their own religious traditions. This is a public that expresses in majoris a love of God and Jesus and a belief that a God personally watches over them and answers their individualistic petitions. This is a tragic triumph of the private over the public in the United States.

While personal faiths and spiritualities must realistically inform decision-making by those in positions of government and leadership, it is Enlightenment and secular principles from which all applied politics and social policy must derive their strengths and intrinsic and binding authority for a society. This is the common table to which all must be invited and around which all must have a right to speak and voice their religiously or secularly informed ideas.

And if the majority of voting Americans nostalgically cling to their gods and monsters, then there isn't much any of us can do but to witness this invasion of the barbarians. Unless, of course, honest and brave candidates come forth, as did Joan Allen's character in The Contender, and out themselves as, let us say in the interest of political palatability, "non"-theists; and who then seek to explain, teach and lead us toward the renewal of the public mind, the commonwealth, the people's republic.

As a evangelical Christian myself, I find the religious right to be a disturbing bunch. Yes, according to the Bible, marriage is definded as a commitment before God, between a man and a woman; and all human beings ( I assume this would mean even the unborn) are God's children. However, the Bible also puts a high premium on individual choice and free will... one must choose to accept Christ as his/her savior and then choose to turn away from sin to face God for forgiveness. The religious right seems to have no problem trampling all over this fundamental principle, upon which Christianity stands... rather than reach people through missionary work/voluntary education (which I believe would be much more effective, as it would not alienate people!), they choose to enter the messy arena of politics and turn the Constitution up side down in order to FORCE people to comply with their belief of what is a sin and what is not. As a believer myself, this approach doesn't seem very "Christian" to me.

Indeed, we do not live in a theocracy, and it's funny how soon we forget that one of the reasons we came across the big blue ocean was to escape that kind of government... it doesn't work. Not only is Jefferson likely turning in his grave, but God is likely watching from above with tears in His eyes.

Although most Americans seem to equate "Christian" with "ultraconservative Republican," I see some hope that such a view will change, and these books are a start.

I'm a Christian, but I feel like people must have felt in this country 80 years ago when the KKK said they were true Christians — or how Muslims around the world must feel when American news media refer to suicide bombers as Muslim terrorists.

We have to get past the labels. I'm glad my father is dead and can't see how his Republican Party (he liked Ike) has been hijacked by these extremists. He got me to church regularly (Lutheran), and I learned that Jesus, the Christ whose followers were derided with the epithet "Christian," always, always sided with the least among us. So if the U.S. has a Christian government, how well are we taking care of the least among us — the children, those with substandard housing, those with no health care, those without enough food?

Mr. Mark,

Very well said.

Christians have successfully invaded our school rooms with bogus Creationism, blocked our science by limiting stem-cell research funding, tirelessly promoted amending the constitution to institutionalize bigotry in the form of a gay marriage ban, and given this nation the pleasure of the deranged rantings of Ann Coulter and the rest of her ilk.

Here's a thought: perhaps it is the fault of the Christians, whose "broad agenda" is not in line with all of the right-wing nonsense above, who have failed to define themselves for this nation, or the Democratic party.

Why would you blame the Democrats for not recognizing a species of Christian whom I for one have never heard of?

The Republics have spent decades wooing the Xians by attacking the Constitution and - with a wink and a nod - giving the Xians the impression that a Xian theocracy was in the future as long as they continued to support the Republic Party.

Note to Xians: Jesus will return before you get your American theocracy (which is say, "never.")

That R. Scott Appleby ("one of the smartest academics studying born-again America"), can write that the "leadership of the Democratic Party...can now look back at a long campaign of successful efforts to alienate white Christians, who make up two-thirds of the American electorate," begs the question:
why wouldn't people who attack the secular foundations of our democracy feel alienated when someone stands up and defends those foundations? Doesn't that come with the territory? Isn't the alienation felt by the Xians their own fault for not knowing that this country is a secular democracy, not a theocracy?

Apparently, the authors mentioned in the above column (and, perhaps Ms Hoffman, as well) feel the right course is for the defenders of the Constitution is to give up and to join their opponents embrace of the fantasy world of religion as a guiding principle in running our democracy.

We'd be much better off if both Democrats and Republics defined themselves, "by the...powerful reputation of their parties as fundamentally irreligious," rather than attacking the foundations of this nation by defining their Parties as being the opposite, ie: fundamentally religious entities.

Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.