*Should* a party be "friendly" to religion? I thought the whole idea was that they shouldn't care one way or another if citizens had religion, and if so, which one.

Good question. And it points to the possibility that what's presumed to be good for the Democrats (appealing to voters' religious, specifically Christian, sentiments) is not necessarily good for American democracy.

More frightening still is what negative influence this could have on Democrats as the large corporate faith bloc realize they might want to jump ship this upcoming election and invade the DNC. What will happen to our values then - will the DNC all of the sudden distance themselves even farther from gays or other 'questionable' special interest groups?

Question the party ? Question Jesus !! (or is it Lenin?)

I, for one, think it's a great idea. A threat to American democracy? Come on. Freedom of religion means people get to express their religion, whatever it is -- even if it informs their politics. And if Christian liberals have been cowering in recent decades, kudos to them for stepping up to the plate.

Josh, I concede that point. There can be good things from this, as progressive individuals of faith work to assert their more inclusive and positive values.
Still, the mega churches have a more corporate nature and a very manipulative agenda to harness a political party through their massive congregations, playing on their ignorance and fears, giving them simple, politically motivated and very un-Christian answers to real life issues, in order to strip all social progress gained in the last century and further the welfare of their not so secret financial backers, the corporate millionaires. These are the groups I don't want settling into my camp.

Fair point, Josh -- and I'm all for freedom of religion. But I'm not sure "cowering" is what religious liberals have been doing so much as observing the traditional church/state separation while (consequently) underexploiting religiosity as a vote winner. Their sudden embrace of showy piety owes more to political calculation than to high-mindedness.

Traditional church/state separation? I think you’d find that many of your liberal/socialist “ideas” from the 20th century, which we now take for granted, were the direct result of support from the guilt ridden Christian churches. You know, do good stuff to OTHER people or you’re gonna burn in hell, kinda thinking. And surely, the 20th century Catholic church was (is) as “corporate” as is imaginable.

Unfortunately, the Christians lost control of their imaginary friend to the mean fascist, and – of course – anybody with half a brain isn’t worried about “burning in hell” anymore – which is exactly what the problem is with the Christian churches now, only the people with less than half a brain are left. But, if you liberals want to win you need to figure out how to get these peasants to vote for you.

Inididuals' practice of religion is protected by the Constitution. However, this ame Constitutuion prohibits our government from 'making any laws respecting the eestablishment of religion'. Now, the right-wing conservitive Christian 'values voters' zombie mafia will swear up, down, and sideways that they are not making any laws to establish evangelical, Baptist Christianity as the offical religion. They are bery crafty, though...bit-by-bit the actions, statements, and yes, laws that are being crafted lay the groundwork for an American Theocracy. When a chaplain in the US military, in the company of everyone from the lowest ranking enlisted members to the Post/Wing Commander (FUll Colonels, sometimes Generals) leads a prayer at a promotion ceremony, retirement ceremony, dedication of a new building, change-of-command ceremony, etc, and prays to God in Jesus Christ's name, amen, then clearly the US military. whose stated mission is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, is laying down the law that the official religion of record is Chistianity. Why? The officials say this is done because the 'majority' of people are Christians, and that Christian prayer honors 'tradition'. So, no room at the inn for Muslims. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and atheists are, no kidding, persona non grata. So, the people charged with protecting and defending the Constitution have no idea, or don't care, that the document is built on the premise of protecting the rights of minorities (in this case, non-Christians), rather than enshrining the power of majority thought to steamrollers all other views. As goes the miltart, so goes all levels of government in the U.S: National (starting with the preachy, pandering president), to Congress, to the Supremen Court, to State (Terry Schiavo, anyone?) and local government (getting rid of teaching eveolution theory in the classroom anyone? Bring back Christian prayer at schools, anyone?). I fully support freedom of religion: the way it was when I grew up, where people went to church with their families (any type of church), or didn't go at all, and any way you diced it it was a private, personal affair. Now we have these mega-churches and political coalitions seeking to pass laws that are based on the Bible (read the recent pronouncements of Catherine Harris, anyone?). Moderate, progressive, tolerant, rational people in this country are like frogs in a pot of water over a flame that is rising very slowly...before they know what hit them they will be boiled.

Well said All, especially Star Gazer.

When I was a child our family went to church every sunday and we kept our worship to ourselves and allowed that all others worshipped in their own way or not at all as each so chooses. Remember, Free Will. AND, we insisted that each kept their religious preferences to themselves and never FOIST their beliefs on our family or infringe on our beliefs.

Now the radical religious right is in a most obvious way FOISTING their beliefs on me and all of us. In complete violation of our constitution they are changing the very fabric of our society to their own selfish ends and to the sure destruction of America.

First these mega churchs including my church which I am now ashamed of, the Catholic church and which is at the very center of all of this will disrespect some but it is ever increasing. As Al Franken says, fears(of hell) smears and queers are being disrespected but soon it will and to some extent already is muslims, next it will be Jews and finally it will be protestants, yes thats right you protestants you better beware.

I am and have been a catholic all my life but I am most assuredly not a fundamentalist catholic and find myself disgusted with what the Catholic church is doing.

Maybe I don't watch him enough but I have not heard Joel Osteen preach hate and intolerance. I do watch him from time to time and I always feel good when I do, that is the effect his preaching has on me. I also like Jim Wallis, Bill Moyers, the ads put on by the Methodist church (they are welcoming to all, warm and inclusive; Bush may go to a Methodist church but you will never convince me he is a Methodist based on some conservations I have had with Methodists and the Methodists preachers I have listened too).

I very much like and respect our most moral president, Jimmy Carter and I like/respect his form and style of Baptist envangelism which seems to be not very fundamentalist. America could benefit by more moral presidents like Pres Carter who teach by example.

I think the catholic church has gone overboard and lost the path taught by Jesus Christ and the laws of God namely, love thy God and love thy neighbor and respect the free will God has bestowed on ALL His children.

While I understand the political aspects of this "Faithful Democrats" endeavor, it still makes me sad (and a little pissed off) that there is this silly requirement that a Democratic candidate has to put on the equivalent of "religious face paint" to appease the fundamentalist Christian element of our society.

It seems like it can never be enough that a candidate enthusiastically supports all the causes which are in line with the teachings of Jesus. It's not enough for a Democrat to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk. You have to be like the very religious leaders and teachers of Jesus' day that he roundly condemned concerning their penchant for outward displays of their religiosity.

I think I smell the stench of hypocrisy.

> I think I smell the stench of hypocrisy.

We are talking politics here, right? If one wants a non-hypocritical political party, perhaps the Greens or Libertarians would be better? Of course, the goal should be to get rid of the fascists, which means voting for the party that can win. And Democratic slime, slime nurtured with developer and union contributions, populated by guilt-ridden wealthy limousine liberal insiders – who are prepared to give fistfuls of cash to their owners - are the only way to win. Of course, it’s best to “believe” wonderful thought about “the future” though. Paraphrasing Dilbert’s boss: “A leader first makes himself believe the lie, thus turning self deception into an inspiring form of optimism”. Substituting peasant or believer for “leader” and you’ve got 75% of the human population covered. And, anybody who talks to a “believer” – of the political or imaginary-friend kind – knows how well self deception works.

Remember the Clint Eastwood movie, "Pale Rider"? When Eastwood's character is asked by the wealthy landowner to come and do his preaching in town, Eastwood's character comments that the size of the weekly collection would tempt him to lust after material wealth rather than heavenly pursuits. The subtle lure of nice garments, nice cars, nice houses and so on, is the lure used by the powerful to sway clergymen away from their divine calling. Once the shepherd has donned the collar of gold, then the rest of the flock can be slaughtered at will.

Tom -
You recall for me the gentle, kindly pastor of the Southern Baptist church I was raised in and to which I no longer belong. Those little churches are disappearing. As I drove by a mega-church in my town yesterday, 'Victory' church it's called, noting its huge expensive complex, I thought of the kind of wickedness that must dwell in the hearts of the men and women who stand at the pulpits there. They are given their political instructions weekly and the only creativity they may have to muster is how to twist those instructions and a few Biblical verses into the braid of their sermon. A friend of mine told me of a church in southern Virginia where church members had to report their incomes so the church could in essense bill them proportionately. I think this is creepy. At the little church I'm recalling, two little boys walked up either side of the rows, passing down two wooden collection plates, lined in pool-table green velvet, and people dropped in small bills and coins. People love to throw out blase comments that times change, but somethings are changed by intention and agenda and do not reflect a natural shift in the attitudes of the people. This mega-church lifestyle has been presented to Americans and its disheartening to see them line up for their medicine without questioning any of it.

The believer – of the political or imaginary friend persuasion – needs to believe. It’s not a choice. This is why the cars with the Christian fishes have so many flags. Peasants need to believe in their god, king, and country – and if they “totally kick ass, dude” – so much the better – for them.

Just once I'd like to see Jim Wallis's comments followed up by a reporter asking for examples of "Democrats or interest groups ... [who] act as what I call secular fundamentalists and have a disdain for people of faith or talk of spiritual values."

Aside from his straw-man 'Some Democrats' charges, Wallis' language far too often conveys the assumptions 1) that faithful, spiritual, religious = Christian and 2) that a defense of the right to be a secular non-believer is an attack on religious believers.

To many Jewish Democrats, "secular fundamentalism" sounds a lot like the code words "secular humanism", which when used by right-wing Christian politicos means "Jews" (or "Jews and atheists"). I was pleased when Jon Stewart called Wallis on this during an interview.

It's one thing for the religious left to stand up for liberal interpretations of their scriptures and doctrines against right-wing claims that only their version can truly be called "Christian" or "Catholic" or "Jewish".

It's quite another for a political party to make it its business to promote faith over non-belief. In the aftermath of the 2004 election, I had a huge blow-up with a friend who brought me Wallis' "I told you so" analysis of the defeat. She's forgiven me for the way I exploded then, but I haven't forgiven Wallis for putting on the Democratic Party and its candidates a task that belongs to religious liberals.

One of the least taught significant facts of history is, that with the probable exception of Muhammad, none of the so-called "founders" of the world's seven major religions appear to have ever intended to found a religion and most certainly, modern Christianity in all of its insipid forms, does not remotely represent anything Jesus actually said or did (according to the Bible and as far as we know).

When are conservatives going to grow up and stop using Jesus to defend what he very clearly opposed and when are liberals going to grow up, accept the reality of free will and stop blaming God for religion? Why does God need a religion and why are the mass deceptions of human civilization's religions God's fault?

I've never met a conservative Christian who has a remote clue about the historical Jesus nor have I met an agnostic or atheist who has really thought very carefully about how much bigger than religion (and themselves) the Creator obviously is. Just take a look in a microscope and a telescope, dummy.

I'm a social justice Catholic. Which I suppose is code for someone who thinks for herself and doesn't believe everything she's told. The more radical Catholics (there is NO such thing as a "fundamentalist" Catholic--what a contradiciton in terms!) call people like me "Cafeteria Catholics." Yet here in the US, we outnumber the radical Catholics by about 4 to 1 if you look at the %age of US Catholics who use birth control. But the Catholic Right is trying to throw us out of our own church--they certainly make us feel unwelcome while there. And it was all the way back in 2000 when the priest--from the pulpit--made it REALLY CLEAR who, we were supposed to vote for. I was appalled. NO ONE tells me how to vote.

Sometimes, I don't know where the Church I knew went. I mourne it. I miss it. This lean to the right and the increasing politicization of my Church--it's scary. And it's getting worse. And the voices of reason--that say the even people of faith can differ in political opinion--are few. But where should I go? I'm Catholic. I have no desire to "change religions," so I'm hanging on, because darn it, this is MY religion TOO.

And that is why the Democratic party needs not only to BE friendly to religious people but to APPEAR to be friendly to people of faith. Democrats share a LOT of values with people of faith--and a LOT of religious people (just like me) hold those values BECAUSE of their faith. But with Democrats being seen as unfriendly (and you have ONLY to read the commentary here to get the idea that it's most certainly true), there is nowhere for people of faith to go.

Republicans don't have a monopoly on virtue... but there has to be a viable and acceptable alternative to the unholy alliance of the Evangelical Right and the Catholic Right (normally mortal enemies). The Democrats have to be seen as "a place to go." It has to welcome people who share key values and not look askance when a person's value system is formed by religion belief. The Democratic Party must not only BE this, but they must APPEAR TO BE this.

Folks, WE need a bigger tent.

Dejah, how big do you want your tent? Sounds like to me just small enough to keep out those pesky Evangelical and Catholic right-wingers!

I'm sorry, but as a Liberal and as a Christian, I have to agree with Wallis on this one. Too many times, even within the confines of Mother Jones, have Christians been labeled ignorant, sheep-like, out of touch or worse. And it pains me every single time that I read stuff like that. Because you're throwing me in there too, even though I have never voted for a Republican. You're throwing me in there too, even though I am all for gay rights, civil rights, feeding the hungry, empowering the poor, and healing the sick.

And the thing is, those viewpoints are my viewpoints BECAUSE I'm a Christian. So, to divorce my liberalism from my Christianity would be hypocritical of me. And I'm not alone by any stretch of the imagination. Nor should I be. Nor should I be made to feel like less of a person for being that Christian that follows the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments in order to come to those conclusions.

Personally, I think it'd be fantastic for a democrat to come out into the spotlight who wears his or her faith on their sleeve. When they come up against a Santorum or a Frist, they could nail those scumbags to the wall and show them for the moral hypocrites that they are to the very voters who voted for them on moral grounds. That's something that an athieist and/or an agnostic cannot do credibly.

And since, to some degree, we're ALL values voters, for once, I'd like to see some values candidates whose values number bigger than paybacks to campaign contributors.

I might confess to being a "Cafeteria Catholic," but I don't like that catchall, because I do think there are essentials of the Catholic Christian faith that I adhere to after all these years of semi-chaos post Vatican II. Am I pro-life? Yes, from cradle to grave and on all the "life" issues, including the sins of modern warfare, of capital punishment, of turning one's back on the victims of genocide, the starving, and those who migrate to feed their hungry and starving families. I am no champion of abortion (and I doubt there are significant numbers of my brothers and sisters who "believe" in abortion). However, there are those among us who would fight to abolish the conditions that lead to abortions and for policies that would make abortions totally unnecessary, rather than self-righteously condemn those of us who understand this is no easy issue to grapple with, despite the "glibness" of so many on both sides of the issue. I also know many of my brothers and sisters are homosexual in orientation, and I know they are just as much God's children, if not more so, than I am. They must confront so much more that is hurting and negative than I must confront day to day. I bet I would find many more who think and try to behave like I want to behave if there were some means to determine accurately what we all think and feel, not necessarily as we posture.

We, at Faithful Democrats, would like to thank each of you for the dialogue. We encourage each of you to share it on our website as well were we have a great dialogue between a very diverse group.

Peace
Faithful Democrats