I don't know if you've heard of Jim Wallis and Sojourners before, but here is the Sojo website and this is the book that Wallis wrote thats a NY Times Bestseller.

Thanks for this post.  Together the Progressive Christians and Non-Christians will take the country back.  Long live the Non-Christian and Progressive Christian Coalition.

Christian: means follower of Jesus

Non: means just say no

so you are saying to this new coalition to
"just say no to Jesus" what the hell! , I mean
what in heavens name are you smokin.

I challenge you to a sword fight who ever wins
they must find a better term or keep the term.

non-christian must go! En garde! <sarcasm>

http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/disagree/34.gif

Christian: ?
Religious, not Christian: ?
Not - Religious: ?

But it's also forced a lot of formerly Democratic believers to reconsider and abandon the party. Vitriolic, insensitive, and exclusionary "Jesusland" attacks aren't helping us. You might not like evangelicals or agree with their theology, that's fine. But amping up hate for religion generally, and Christians specifically is not the way to go. It's the much more politically fatal mirror image of gay-bashing. (I know, I know, people choose their beliefs. Now shut up.) The point is, people who believe that most Democrats piss on their beliefs won't stick around. You attrac more flies with honey than vinegar, My Mom said. And it's true. We can stand for a women's right to choose, and against abortion clinic bombings. For civil unions and gay marriage, against hate speech... All without pithy  or, worse yet, flagrant intolerance of religious perspectives.

Perfect example: the Shiavo mess. Don't scoff at religious reasons. Just point out DeLay and others opportunism and hypocrisy. And for Heaven's sake, leave it there. Too many of my friends who are Progressive at heart, feel that to be an acceptable Democrat we have to attack our friends who have sincere beliefs. To call them silly, duped, or backward because they go to Church.

At the end of the day, if we cannot translate to Church-goers, we are giving up hope in the four fastest growing states. You don't have to be anti-abortion or pro-guns to wins Westerners votes. But out here, the 'ACLU' means anti-religion, and acts like it. And in places where religion is valued, good PR is important when we defend rights. The best way, also defend the rights of the religious. And be vocal about it. Call them simple-minded (you won't make friends)--not many people are rank-and-file Falwell followers. But if you're not especially political or thoughtful, and you're choosing between the Rove team that says "Religion welcome" and our team, we better say the same thing.  We can, in a better way. I for one think Jesus would be a Democrat. He probably would be a card-carrying ACLU and Sierra Club member... although the last few years might have made him question both.

Let's just not be hateful. Think Hegel, if to join the collective Democratic Ego, people feel they have to check Jesus at the door, they won't often.

Think about it, in the last 60 years, we've completely lost the Mormon vote, now 80% REpublican. That group is a huge, wealthy force politically in ID/UT/WY/NM/AZ/NV/OR/HI and parts of CA. And they were once all Democrats. 80% plus. I know it's hard to see that far from Blue States, like the one I live in. But the West is just about won or lost with the Mormon vote in at least 5 states, and they are important elsewhere. It's a lot of money too.

And the only thing that we need for good PR: show that as a religious minority, Mormons are next-in-line to have their rights trampled by Rove, Bush and co. Think about it, evangelicas are not at all friendly to Mormons.

PRogressive PR that emphasizes:

1. We love, value, and accept religious minorities
   
2. and, Falwell/DeLay/Rove, etc. don't....
   

but if the only message that gets out is the Falwell/DeLay/Rove message of:
1. If you go to church, the Left hates you...
then, we lose bigtime. religious should not be pejorative in the party. and if you think that way, just keep it away from politics, because it hurts us.

1. He will lose to Frist or Rice or Barbour.
   
2. And then Progressives need only argue:
   

just like Kennedy's nomination marshalled Catholic support for the Democratic Party--a defeat of a Mormon perceived as 'because of his religious beliefs' could also realign voters.

after all, consider this:
 Romney's late father, George, who was also Mormon, ran for president in 1968 when he was the governor of Michigan. He dropped out before the primaries, but in an April 1967 Gallup Poll 17 percent of respondents said they would not vote for a Mormon for president, even if their party "nominated a generally well-qualified person" of the faith. Thirteen percent said they would not vote for a Jew; 8 percent would not vote for a Catholic; and 3 percent would not vote for a Baptist.

A Gallup Poll in February 1999 that repeated the question again found 17 percent of respondents saying they would not vote for a Mormon, while 6 percent opposed a Jew and 4 percent said they would be against a Catholic or a Baptist candidate.

which party are those 17 percent from?  if we can make a case they are mostly Republican rank-and-file, then get ready to take back the West.

I'm making my pouty face now. Lower lip sticking out and sad, sad puppy-dog eyes.

Anyway, if you click the link to my Religious Left blog above, this is my most recent post:

I'm working two jobs right now, so I really don't have time to blog my brains out about this. But I do keep hoping to generate interest among others who can help promote the idea of using this day that is celebrated "by presidential proclamation" as a time to talk about our diversity in a positive way, and increase awareness.

The perjurative "lib-ruls" is a handy tool because it is used to lump any group that is considered "liberal" together into one big enemy. And by it's very nature, faith is one area where people like to stay fairly conservative. ("Faith of our Fathers...")

Republicans have realized this, and the one time party of proper WASP restraint has become the party of that "old time religion". Touching on traditional and religious themes wins them votes. The Republican Party then becomes the defenders of faith and tradition. Hate Catholic-lite? Vote Republican. Believe that St. Paul means what he says about homosexuality? (I'm not getting into a theological debate about St. Paul's views, so don't bother.) Vote Republican. Still believe in the Bible is the inspired word of God? Vote Republican. Do you believe your religion is the actual truth of God? Vote Republican.

Intellectually, it is absurd, but emotionally it works quite well. What do you think was behind the drive to excommunicate John Kerry, push anti-gay marriage amendments, including a federal one that has NO CHANCE IN HELL of passing, the mailings sent out in WV and AR saying that "lib-ruls" were going to ban the Bible, and Bush's constantly invoking Jesus at every opportunity? Tie political conservatism to religious conservatism and they can win.

It is a shame that this is happening for many reasons, but especially because it is leading to the death of a very American political thought, specifically, that I may be devoutly religious, but that it is none of the Government's business who is and who isn't. It is Jefferson's (a heretic if there ever was one) idea that it didn't matter if his neighbor believed in no gods or many. This idea was shared by many of the Protestants at the time, especially Baptists. The extremely devout Calvinists and the lapsed Anglicans who wrote the Constitution all agreed that it was best for Government to stay out of religious matters.

This is in stark contrast to the European idea that there should be a state religion, that was followed publicly, even if people didn't actually  believe it. (The remnants of this idea explain why it was perfectly socially acceptable for Prince Charles to have an affair with Camilla, but it was controversial for him to marry her because she was divorced!)

To make a long story short. Politicizing religion is un-American in the worst way.

You can hear every bird, every leaf.
You feel the club head, there's a good
strong, but very simple feel to your swing.

You think about your target line.

A misfire or a misclub and a shot over
the green or in the water, means you
drop back, and take your shot.  You
don't whine or moan or wish you
believed in something instead of
stand up for it. You just stand
over the ball and get back in the
game.

Golf has a nice way of teaching, I guess,
that here, in this life, you're better
organized to do more with what you have
than anything else.  Just as you can
walk down the fairway and see all kinds
of life around you, you know that to play
the course well you need to think of the
architect.

Blessed be the name of the lord.