Last summer, in the wake of Senator Barack Obama's speech regarding the role of religion in public life, I wrote several essays pointing out that Senator Obama and Jim Wallis' author of God's Politics, had internalized and expressed one of the central frames of the religious right, namely that "secularists" or a number of variants (secular humanists, secular fundamentalists, etc) were somehow oppressing Christians (or religion, or people of faith, etc), or driving religious people "out of the public square."   They offered no evidence for this. It was, and is, a false and unsubstantiated frame designed by the religious right to argue that traditional efforts to advance the rights of conscience of all citizens against appropriation of governments resources for prostelyzation and other misuses of taxpayer resources and public property to advance religious views were somehow in opposition to religion in general or Christianity in particular.  

Now comes Democratic political consultant Mara Vanderslice who told The New York Times recently that Democrats should not use the phrase separation of church and state because it is not in the Constitution and because "That language says to people that you don't want there to be a role for religion in our public life"  I wrote at the time that this argument is very close to, even indistinguishable from the argument advanced by the religious right. I also noted that she was not the only one saying uch things in the Democratic Party.  That said, I think candidates doing smart forms of "religious outreach is a good thing and, I might add, somethihg that has never been alien to the Democratic Party or to liberals in general. That some Democrats are now more publicly connecting their religious values with their politics is fine with me. Doing it appropriately and well will be the ongoing trick.  

Meanwhile, to underscore how fuzzy this area can get as religious right talking points bleed into the Conventional Wisdom, here is a news and public affairs quiz!

We are long overdue for a rescue round-up but there certainly has been alot happening in the Greater Blogosphere regarding the religious right and what to do about it. No doubt, there is much I have missed.

But before we get to the more traditional rescue round-up, I want to note that lately, an influential faction in the Democratic Party that overlaps with the agenda and talking points of the religious right has come under fire.  As I wrote here and elsewhere around the blogosphere, some fashionable political consultants think that candidates should jettison use of the phrase separation of church and state because, they say it sends up "red flags with people of faith."  What ever the merits of the scriptwriters du jour, fortunately, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which has for 50 years been led primarily by "people of faith" brushes off such glib faddishness.  Lauren Smith reminds us this week in their blog The Wall of Separation:

Contemporary Americans of a wide range of religious and political orientations find themselves adrift.  Adrift in the sense that we do not know where we stand in history; American history that is.  Therefore, we too often end-up relying on the latest poll. or trend article in the newspaper for our understanding of our political moment. Polls, although they are mostly snapshots in time, also sometimes to a good job of spotting and describing trends. Sometimes they are wildly misguided or grossly biased. Same goes for trend articles.

The problem many of us face is that we do not know enough about our history as a nation: as contending religious groups, classes, interest groups, and political parties. We don't know enough about the gradual extension of rights to more and more classes of people from the time of the founding.  We don't usually know that the struggles over the nature of religious freedom and separation of church and state are not new in our history, and that there is much to learn from the stories of how these matters were handled and how we got to where we are today. This has signficant implications for those of us who seek to engage the religious right of our time.  

There is always lots to blog about the religious right.  I blog on these things all the time here, and at Talk to Action.  But there are many fine blogs addressing aspects of these issues. Here is a round-up of recent interesting posts from the Greater Blogosphere, on the religious right and what people are doing about it.

Even the most dedicated reader can have a difficult time keeping up with everything the religious right is up to, and what people are doing about it.  But there are a growing number of blogs that regularly feature important information and analysis about the religious right

Here is a sampler of recent posts from some of them.

 

Yes, countering the religious right is a culture shock -- in part because there are relatively few people who actually do it, and even fewer who do it well. That is changing. But what is unchanged, is that it is usually quite difficult for people to take-in disturbing new information. And taking-in disturbing new information is made more difficult when it is presented in an unnecessarily alarming fashion, or in ways that exaggerate it's signficance. That's why I was glad to be pleasantly reminded of two organizations that approach these subjects with dedication, cool heads, and a rigorous approach to gathering facts and presenting analysis.

Somebody quick call Bill O'Reilly!

Get me Jerry Falwell!

George and Laura Bush have joined The Evil One in the War On Christmas! So has the Republican National Committee!