Maybe there wouldn't be anything wrong w/ using religion

[ck4829]

Let me start by saying we have discovered a way for us, the Democrats, to make strides back toward power and evict the Anti-American RW from Government.

Whenever a RW'er says "If the Democrats do _____, they will destroy their party" or something like that, then we should do it even faster. I already believe that Howard Dean was an excellent choice to be chairman of the DNC. And, what did the RW say about him? They said we would basically commit suicide by letting Dean be the chairman of the DNC. So, I'm glad we did it.

Well, there have been attempts from the Liberals to use religion, to introduce themselves to religious people, and things like that.

Apparently, one RW'er already thinks it is a mistake.

Columnist David Limbaugh accuses Democrats of unfairly claiming the mantle of the “true Christians and decrying Republicans for trying to assert a monopoly on Christianity." Limbaugh continues: “The Democratic leadership should understand that it won't endear itself to many Christian voters"
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17625

I'm not saying we should become a Theocracy. We can have both a Separation of Church and State AND proclaim that we actually love and respect religion, unlike the RW'ers who use it as a tool for propaganda and an enabler for their bigotry.

[ClassWarrior]

1. I think we should promote a "Defense of Faith Act"...

...that reaffirms every American's right to worship whomever and however she or he pleases.

Let's see Bugman Delay come out against "defending faith."

NGU.

[ck4829]

2. Yes, that is an excellent idea

[Bridget Burke]

4. NO. Christianity is not "Under Attack"

The Constitution covers this quite well. Check out the National Alliance Against Christian Discrimination for more misinformation.

http://naacd.com/index.htm

"Protecting & Promoting the Christian Faith & Our Religious Heritage"

Edited to add the NAACD logo...it explains a lot:

[shadowknows69]

7. Which includes protections for any religion

to display something in public areas on holidays if applicable or for none to have that right.

[Bridget Burke]

3. Religion should not be "used"

Many good Democrats are also people of faith. If they wish to speak out about their beliefs--how they consider seeking peace & justice to be "moral"--that's great. They could help counter the extremist "Christians" who have been doing Bush's work.

But the party does not need to "use" religion. Leave that to the Republicans. We can be good Democrats with any faith or none.

If a rightwinger thinks something is a bad idea, that usually means it's a good idea.

[Bellamia]

6. Many good Democrats

are people of faith.Yes, we are. You (Bridget) took the words right out of my mouth. I completely agree.

[Az]

5. A person's religion can inspire and inform them

But it should never be used as the justification for the action. This is the problem.

I was listening to an NPR show last night where they invited several members of the clergy on to talk about how religion is mixing with politics once again. It was a beautiful comedy of errors.

All seemed to start out in agreement that the founding fathers never meant to keep religion out of politics. It was just to keep the government from choosing an official religion. They then proceded to inform the world that bible based morality needed to be placed back in the seat of power.

Thats when the trouble started. Each of the clergy began disagreeing on interpretations of the scriptures. Different emphasis began arising and the commoradory quickly departed as they kept informing each other that they were focusing on the wrong verses.

They failed to see the very reason why Church and State must be kept seperate. Even if you have an infallible source doctrine the various interpretations of it can fuel conflict for eons.

Religion can never be seperated from the individual. This is not the intent of the Seperation clause. Belief can inspire and inform people. It can be their inspiration. But it cannot be allowed to be the boot stepping on the necks of those that do not agree with it.

You can have all manner of religious zealot in office. As long as they realise that their inspiration has to be translated to reason to be presented before the people. Claims to divine authority are completely inappropriate in the halls of Governance of a free people. Either appeal to your sense of reason or you have perverted the intent of this nation.