While I share the concerns of Kevin Phillips (American Theocracy) about the political ambitions of the religious right, I find his rhetoric about 'disenlightenment' overblown. Overall, politically mobilized Baptists, Evangelicals and Mormons haven't been very successful in advancing their political agendas on the national level (whether in education, science or social conservatism) and have mainly just been exploited for money and votes by the corporate/militarist wing of the GOP. Certain religious leaders have managed to extract considerable loans and subsidies for 'faith-based' programs from taxpayers, but that's about the limit of the malicious impact of the much-maligned religious right. Is there anything good (as opposed to 'mostly harmless') about the religious right? While I don't see any merit in forcing social/cultural conservatism via government censorship/coercion on adults, perhaps there is something that can be done about limiting the impact of an increasingly materialistic and nihlistic popular culture on children. In this, if only this, the religous right may have something positive to contribute.

I'm a Christian, but I don't think much of the "Religious Right". Perhaps this group of people have been wrongly characterized, but I tend to associate many key members of the religious right with fundamentalism, bully tactics, and Bible beating. I don't think that Christians having a presence in the government is a bad thing. I do think, however, that many members of the religious right don't exactly improve the image of Republicans or Christians.

Much like the goofy leftists that harm the Democratic party- the Right Wing has absolutely dragged down the Republican party. . .anti-education, anti-freedom-as-long-as-it's-hillside-protestant-freedom, fixated on an America that either existed long ago or never did, and the bizarre obsession with sexual and family issues that aren't their business. . .runs contrary to republican concepts of self-reliance and personal liberty. The irony is astounding. . .

I am pro-life but thats because of my personal values. I have a complex set of values surrounding marriage that can be summed up in the following view. If the union forms a family - its a marriage. If it doesn't form a family - its not a marriage, its a civil union. I am fine with the nation having civil unions for those unions that do not result in the formation of a family. What's a family? I say it any union of two people that come together to raise each other's children - adopted or conceived. Can gays get married then - sure if they are adopting children. Can heterosexual couples be in a civil union - absolutely! This would be perfect for all those couples that get married with a prenupt saying "there shalt be no kids." I personally am a creationist and I think exposing to a variety of argument is perfectly sound. I don't intend to evangelize others with my creationist view point though. I just share it and leave it up to the other person to decide whether they agree or disagree. It would mean nothing if they accepted the viewpoint with personally seeing any light in it. Why am I going through a laundry list of personal views on social issues? Because those are the issues addressed by the religious right. Issues that have a basis that's purely personal. One must personally decide where they stand on social issues. Because they are so personal - the nation's stance cannot be decreed. We can, and have, legislated a due process where by the nation comes to a stance on these issues. This piece of legislation is the constitution that says states can decide for themselves what they want and that representatives (elected because they share the views of the views that individuals of their district) debate and legislate. Its okay by me that the religious right voices its religiously based views but it should stop there. The main disagreement I have with the religious right is the same one I have with regards to the Log Cabin Republicans. If you want to change the way nation's approach to any social issue - it will not happen by collecting a band of legislators to write in the things you'd like to see. You cannot decree social and moral values. You can only convince people one by one, one individual at a time. When the individuals of America see things from a more religious point of view you will see a legitimate change. The religious right is going about its agenda the wrong way. Take your case to the people instead of trying to legislate it. My second disagreement is more basic. This faction also seems to like employing a technique of getting in the way of buisness to get what it wants. This is what brings the religious right down to horrible status. Its awful that we as a nation can't get to buisness because this faction wants to see people duke it out over social issues. If you want to duke it out start of forum OUTSIDE capitol hill where people can go at it and walk away either with something to think about or with more conviction in the point of view they came to the forum with. Meanwhile, back off trying to legislate these values and let government go back to doing what it should be doing: reducing its size, protecting us from terrorists and enemy states, keeping the economy strong, making true on its promise to those whose paychecks it has taken chunks of while insisting it will give them retirement security, maintaining and upholding constitutional due process, balance the budget by spending less, and getting out of my daily life so I can use my time and my earnings instead of the government using it for me. This faction is awful because it obstructs the GOP from being true to these republican principles layed out so clearly in the Reagan Revolution and the transformation of the party to a conservative one by Barry Goldwater.

I've changed my tune, the religious right has dreams of a theocracy. And that's bad enough for me. Let me ask, what does the religious right think about global warming, obesity, youth suicide, war? Or is it just pick-and-choose morality in the republican party? It's the fuss made about gay marriage that has europe and other western nations laughing at the inane ponderings of the U.S.

There has been much written about the cohesion between religious principles and constitutional democracy. My favorite professor in college is actually an authority on the subject editing and contributing to three seperate books worth of essays on the study. One of these books was a compilation of essays on the work of the late John Courtney Murray who argued that constitutional democracy is completely compatible with religious priciples, and more than that depends upon religious institutions to cultivate the environment for constitutionalism to work. Deontological liberalism, that which is widely professed by the anti-religious secularists actually subverts the principles of democracy and erodes the constitutional system through which we debate issues. As fabricated "fundamental" rights expand our perceived "liberty" through the courts the principles of democracy are lost. When all religious imput is eschewed in favor of secularism, secularism becomes a religion- an intrinsic dogma to which society must adhere beyond the protection of the process that brought us our Original Law. The created procedure formulated upon the principle of moral neutrality becomes a system of professed beliefs about the nature of man akin to that which they claim to hate. The "right" and "just" is that of the procedure. Essential to the acceptance of our constitutional system is the notion that man above all else is a rational being. That our constitutional system is itself a reflection upon how man behaves and what man's vices and virtues are. Religious inspection informs this assumption and helps formulate the institutions upon which constitutionalism rests. If one can first understand the temporal order of rational discussion leading to the "ought" of politics one will work within the order to reach the common good. Contrast that with the assumption that liberals make, that people are a composition of self interests and freedom is defined by the ability to choice one's own ends regardless of obligation to society on a whole. When viewed for what it is, it becomes readily clear that it is the secularists who are the real threat to democracy. And those who don't understand that are what Lenin called "useful idiots".

America is a shockingly religious country. The vast majority of Americans believe in some Deity and seek to elect politicians to positions of leadership and decision-making who are guided by some moral/religious compass. If the Founding Fathers were anti-religious (or even atheistic) they would not have used the words "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . . " Does that sound like the product of atheistic thought? So, when someone spouts off about how religion should have nothing to do with American politics, that's just not true. The religious right of America is the most frequently mocked and mis-characterized "faction" in American politics. Religious zealots. Holy Rollers. Bible Thumpers. If you invoke the 1st Amendment, prohibiting the establishment of a state religion, as your basis for an atheistic government, Id ask you to point out the law where Congress has established such a state religion. If you invoke, "Separation of Church and State" I'd ask you to point out its presence in the US Constitution. It's not there. Religious people are just as entitled to believe that religion does, indeed, have a role to play in American politics, so long as the Constitution is not violated. A faction works against the main group. These people are a vital part of what separates today's republicans from today's version of democrats. What I can't comprehend is why the overwhelming inertia toward atheistic government continues, even as the republican majority grows year after year. Liberal judges? Media brainwashing? Lack of legislative courage? Go figure.

This is the portion of the party that is killing us - The Nut Wing. Efforts to prevent abortion were better suited to the previous century and ideas about teaching Creationism in public schools ... err ... uh, I mean "Intelligent Design," are about as reasonable as the mainstream use of horse drawn carriages. It is not that this faction exists that damages the GOP. It is that mainstream Republicans are so slavish to it. Fortunately (if you're a conservative like me), the Democrats are as equally shamelessly in bed with the race baiters and ethnic hustlers. Having Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters running around behaving as though the U.S. circa 2005 is comparable to Johanessburg in the early 80s or Montgomery in the early 50s makes the left look even worse, which is probably why my party continues to win hotly contested national elections. At the end of the day, most Americans seem to prefer a small number of religious lunatics to a few ungrateful extortionist racial minorities. I count myself among those in the slight majority

Superstition has no business influencing government policy. Wackos.

First of all I would like to say that I believe in God. I believe God hates the sin of homosexuality, NOT homosexuals. There is an important distinction there, but that's not the point. The point is: nobody feels more strongly about this than I do. And DESPITE THIS, and apparently to the shock of some, I have openly (without trying to force my religious beliefs on anybody, I might add) debated the ins and outs gay marriage in this forum with you, Magellan. I seem to remember having quite a lengthy and reasonable discussion on the matter. How I was able to do this and remain a Christian is a mystery to me (sarcasm). If you want to know how I feel about the presumption that I let my Religion blind me, read Tboneya below. He took the words out of my mouth.

** I think each of you are smart people who have reached your conclusions on this subject based on thoughtful analysis and your personal experiences. Please grant me the same courtesy. ** I'm not a big fan of religion in politics. Too many on the religious right seem (to me) to have replaced their logic/reason with Belief. It just makes for a very inflexible, partisan, and binary political climate, which I believe, fractures the country. Debate would seem to be such a critical element to a functioning political system. The give and take of ideas, the arguing, the reasoning, the pitching of ideology. But with religious fundamentalism, there can be no debate. If you believe that God hates homosexuals, you will not debate their right to equal proection under the law. If you believe that Israel needs to be in Gaza to conform with God's plan, you will not debate the wisdom of trying something new to achieve peace. From my experience with the Religious Right, debate is not an option. The more I learn about this stuff, the more I admire Ataturk.

Perhaps it doesn't speak well for our future that the values once commonly held by many people regardless of their color, gender, age or the like are now limited to the so-called "religious right." In all honesty, the notion of seperating religion and politics is a rather odd one at best. Being a Christian (or follower of any other religion for that matter) means more than going to Church and reading the Bible. One should try to practice the faith through conduct to the best of their ability and that doesn't include saying one thing on Sunday and doing another on Friday night.