Honestly that looks like an ignorant view of evangelism/fundamentalism, it is not all about hate and despising, that is unfair and shows you have the prevalent attitude among elites who do understand the great red states. Being from New York, it is sort of foreign to me too, but iit is something I am trying to understand.

My religion is Catholicism, if you count that as the religion on top then I guess my religion is at the top. There is still a sepertaion of church and state, no specific religion has been declared, they are not imposing religious laws on people, like your example of vegetarianism.

Now "moral issues" are a different story and I agree many things are being made "moral issues" by the religious right that should not be "moral issues." But no religion has been established.

And this country is a Christian nation, not officially, as there is no established religion, and your allowed to come here pratice whatever religion you want. That is what is great about America.

Separating the soldiers from the generals, TCO. Does it matter if the vast majority of the religious right is kind, inclusive and opened minded if the religion hoisted on us from our leaders is the intolerant legalist kind?
I was raised Catholic too, you know. I'll spare you why I lost the faith, but I understand that the vast majority of Catholics are distinct from the Catholic leadership that is so out of tune with the world today. Likewise I know that the vast majority of evangelisists are not like the hate spewers that the agnostic ''elites'' you describe think they are, but I still fear the leaders that are like that and of which Fawell is one.

I included leaders too, as I dont think all the leaders are evil or hateful either. As I said before I dont like Jerry Falwell, but not all leaders are like that. And remember this, Jerry Falwell is not in charge of this country, and Bush is not like Jerry Falwell.

I would be against all those leaders, both secular and religious, that spout out hate, as there is plenty on both sides.

Respecting someone's right to start a political movement and being thoroughly creeped out by it are not mutually incompatible. As you said, that's the point of democracy. We understand full well that Falwell has the right of free speech, we just vehemently disagree with him. And find his I'm-superior,-you're-all-going-to-hell attitude more than a little scary. Which is our right, too.

Respecting his right to free speech doesn't mean you have to like him. Or like what he's doing. Or be nice to him.

As for the argument that religion has always been a part of politics in America? Try rereading your post, but inserting the word "racism" where "religion" is written. It's extreme, but it makes the point. Just because something has always been there doesn't mean it should necessarily continue to be there. There are good, solid, historical reasons to keep religion and politics largely separate. When religious beliefs drive policy, the result is often not good.

For example, take Turkey. Turkey is a Muslim democratic country. Hardline politicians there wanted to criminalize adultery. Now if most of the country believed adultery was wrong and wanted to make it illegal, and it was done through the democratic process, that would be OK, right? Not necessarily. Just because something is voted in democratically doesn't make it any less abhorrent, harsh or inhumane, or antithetical to the principles of democracy. In reality, most of the punishment would fall on women, because of longstanding societal discrimination against women. Criminalizing adultery would surely end up being used to legitimize domestic violence and put rape victims in jail.

Why do so many seem convinced that the omnipotent is on our side? That goes against everything I've been taught. The almighty loathes those who do not hold to the teachings of the authorities. He will smite those who give to the rich and break the teachings of his son, or claim his teachings for falsehood. We must fight back. We must be strong; we are fighting God himself! We have the most powerful enemy there is and must take up arms! Tell the tyrant of this universe to kiss off, and fight for what you believe in! I believe that there is a point of the human spirit at which no one, not even the trinity, can break it.

Now, me, I don't care if somebody disapproves of homosexuality and wants no part of it in his or her life.

What does bother me is their proactive way of approaching at it. Have you heard how these radicals phrase their disapproval with homosexuality?

"Homosexuality is an attack on family values -- an attack that started over fourty years ago."

These people think that a play which portrays homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' rather than a shameful sin constitutes an attack on their values. They don't only hold certain values; they're on a crusade against anyone and everyone who doesn't hold the same values they do. And that's why the absolute best thing about democracy is the idea of checks and balances. If Bush had the power, he'd probably already have illegalized pornography and all acts of homosexuality, as well as made adultery a felony, and even maybe made it illegal for public libraries to stock pro-gay litereature.

They don't phrase it as saying "We think gayness is wrong, so we're going to stop you." They phrase it as "We, the ones who are Right, are under attack, and we must defend what is Right." And THAT'S what's frightening.

"Bestow unto God the things that are God's, and bestow unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

I see that as saying "You should follow governmental authority to an extent, but there are some things that are much more important than that authority."

I think the more common interpretation of that, Bob, is actually that government and religion don't mix. There are things that are Caesar's business and there are things that are God's business; God doesn't involve himself in Caesar's business, and Caesar shouldn't involve himself in God's business.

As I recall of the passage, it follows a question from someone wondering if they should pay Rome's taxes, but my Bible is at home so I can't look it up. Bascially, Jesus was saying 'Caesar worries about taxes; God does not care.'

Jesus was a proponent for the seperation of church and state, you know.

I think morality has a strong place in politics, and I dont think religion has been something bad like racism has. Religion was responsible for the abolition movement, the progressive movement, and the civil rights movement. I see those as good things, and I see it as a good thing that some issue that will remain nameless will be more limited. There is my problem, while I am happy Bush will get conservatives on the judge for one issue, but at the same time I dont like what it means for gay marriage, but the attitudes through most of the country not just the religious right is not ready for it yet. Once our age group is in power, gay marriage will probably be legalized.

edit: Sorry if I mentioned an Illegal issue

All those instances you mention are incidences where people used religion to *expand* people's rights.

It's very fair to say that people shouldn't be able to *restrict* people's rights for purely religious reasons where the harm principle does not apply.

This whole post seems to only allow for the good religion does and ignores the bad. There were many people that gave religious reasons why there should be no interracial marriages.

Back in the 1800s there were religious people that could find many reasons for slavery. I think most of these people would have been found in the south.

Saying that religion was responsible for the abolition movement makes it sound as if no one was anti-slavery who was not religious.

The same thing goes for the civil rights movement. There were many liberal ministers involved. And there were many ministers that railed against it. And then there were people who marched in civil rights protest that just thought it was wrong.

There is a bad and a good side to politics, just like most things in our system. Religion has always been in American politics and it is here to stay, I just dont think it is that bad a thing as long as it is balanced.

No, not quite. Piety and morality may have a place in politics; but those are quite distinct from Religion (though they may be informed by it). Religion is an institution; and it's the institution that the Constitution specifically forbid a seat at the table. As is all too clear from looking at the Religious Right and the history of other state churches (and wannabe state churches); it's tragic for both the state and the particular religion whenever they get a sniff of temporal power.

In addition to what Weremensch said, I'd like to point out that it is NOT balanced right now. Its no secret that religion played an incredibly heavy role in this recent election (as has been discussed multiple times hbefore here with plenty o links) and we're seeing religous teachings more and more affect policy - such as gay marriage issues. You cant honestly tell me that the decision to ban that is not an entirely religious based one.

Also I think the whole
mentality is a rather dangerous one. That is implying that since it always has been that way we need to just accept that it always will be. That breeds complacency which is an incredibly dangerous thing in any society, especially one such as ours.

If you want to read some of Falwell's venom, check out this link: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/foulwell.htm

" If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."

Oh, and just for laughs... http://funnystrange.com/quiz/ -- can you tell whether a quote is by bin Laden, or by Robertson/Falwell? I got 6/20.