One of the worst mistakes the Democratic Party ever made was to embrace anti-anti-communism, thereby creating a safe haven within their party for the far Left.

The virus is now destroying its host. The seething religious bigotry of the Left has driven many people of faith out of the party. It has forced rival denominations who could never arrive at a governing consensus - let alone a theocracy - to make common cause.

It will be interesting to watch this issue play out in the '08 presidential primary. In an effort to win back lost demographics, Hillary Clinton peppers her speeches and soundbites with Biblical references. But while the Party's activist core recognized Bubba's religiosity as pure snake oil, they may not easily swallow Hillary's new-found dogmatism.

You forgot "and substitutes the UN for Jesus as the source of morality".

“...the few Jews who are still serious...”

So those Jews not members of the Religious Right are not serious? And by extension, those of any religious faith not in alignment with the Religious Right are not either? You toss this insult out so casually. Did you really think this through? I would hope not; I would hope it was just carelessness.

But let's focus on something more important, as the above is just one example of the increasingly ugly, even hateful, tone of your posts over the past three years. (Not that I claim innocence in that regard--I've only recently, very recently, come to my senses, convicted by the Light and seared with the realization of my own transgressions, especially in comments here,)

Let's look at this phrase:

“...espouses "justice" and "peace" as a replacement for the Gospel.”

The Gospel? As in:

"But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them....But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish.”

That Gospel?

“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.”

That Gospel?

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

That Gospel?

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger....But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in....Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves....Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others....You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

That Gospel?

“He who has ears, let him hear."

C'mon Dave, you know perfectly well what I'm talking about. You can tell how liberal a church is by counting how often you hear the word "justice." In fact, somebody did just that. Studied church documents and graphed the frequency of "justice" and "salvation." When one goes up the other goes down.

And no, I'm not knocking justice. I'm all for it. Peace too. But in liberal denominations "justice" and "peace" have become code-words for substituting left-leaning politics for things Christian churches used to emphasize, such as winning souls for Jesus and converting non-believers and strongly enjoining traditional morality. And, in some instances, believing in God.

There's nothing "hateful" about pointing these things out. If you have some facts that prove I'm wrong, let's hear them. I'll make a retraction.

Nor is there anything "hateful" about pointing out that similar things can be observed among Jews. I exaggerated in saying "the few Jews who are still serious," but those Jews who still follow Jewish laws and customs and diet strictly are in fact the ones most likely to make common cause with the Religious Right. And "serious" Jews of the left usually turn out to be mostly serious about political or social movements.

And this was a post criticizing hateful accusations made against certain religious Americans. Where do you stand on that? You give the distinct appearance of being allied or joined with the sort of people who routinely accuse Christians (non liberal) of being like the Taliban, or plotting a theocracy, or being fascists. (Do your Quaker associates talk like that?) You are very slippery about revealing your own positions, while attacking mine, which I put out in the open, the better to learn from my critics, such as they are.

Who's being slippery? You dodged my first questions: do you mean to say that those Jews not members of the Religious Right are not serious? (I have one particular Jew in mind: it makes me giggle to think of you saying that to her--I've never seen anyone flayed before.) And by extension, are you saying that those of any religious faith not in alignment with the Religious Right are not serious either?

If you answer those questions plainly, then I will feel it worth my time to engage you. But if I do, fasten your seatbelt, because we're going to have to delve into the depths of eschatological theology just to deal with your first paragraph.

And, BTW, "somebody" is not good enough. Cite your source. Otherwise your assertion is as worthless as the "Koran always on the top shelf at Borders" nonsense that was flying around the right blogosphere recently.

Not to get in the middle of a tussle here (in which I'm completely outgunned!) - but Dave, you said, "do you mean to say that those Jews not members of the Religious Right are not serious?" And I think a pretty plain reading of John's comment is that he defines Jews-Who-Are-Still-Serious as "those Jews who still follow Jewish laws and customs and diet strictly."

Sounded to me like "serious" was shorthand for "observant/kosher/etc.", and that he observed that those who happen to follow those practices strictly are more often aligned with the right. Might be true, might not be true - but it wasn't very slippery.

And it certainly wasn't saying that those who don't agree with him politically are hell-bound pagans or something. That's a pretty gratuitously over the top reading...

Dave,
"Jews not serious." As I said, it was an exaggeration, but to clarify, I was not saying they were not serious persons. Rather that those you might find among the "anti-Religious Right" are less likely to be seriously practicing Judaism in its traditional forms. Probably not Kosher, tending to inter-marry with other faiths, not keeping the Sabbath strictly, etc.

Actually, the remark was flippant, and not quite what I actually think, so I withdraw it with apologies. (I had in the back of my mind an article I read, about how Judaism is melting away in Britain. Not because of any persecution, but merely because of indifference and inter-marriage. Being quite philo-Semitic, I find this troubling.)

The point does not logically extend to the other denominations mentioned. They were listed to show how ludicrous the possibility of "theocracy" is. All of them have members who would not be considered part of the RR. But as a general observation, those Americans who worship in ways that their grandparents would understand and approve of tend to move towards the political right, and to leave those churches which have become "liberal." If you are a traditionalist, then the "serious" people tend to be found on the the right. If you are a "modernist" then you see it the opposite way.

This was a post about politics, and my point about the frequent use of "justice" and "peace" was mostly meant in a sociological sense, as a marker of "liberal" churches that tend to specialize in liberal politics. It was not intended to be a religious argument about which church flavors might be right or wrong, although some of my thoughts on that crept in. (This was sloppy writing by me; I would actually want to treat religion in a more serious mood than I do the just-political aspects of it. But this blog is the only place where I get to pop-off! Everywhere else I have to mostly nod and smile and keep my mouth shut. So, R.J. Ground-Rule, hitherto-fore unstated: My posts are often hasty; I reserve the right to clarify in the rare event that somebody cares.) Feel free to make a case that I'm wrong; I will attend with interest.

I would have included a link to that study (it was serious, but not scientific. Not a rumor.) if I still had it. But it fits with my personal observations. Have you observed something different?

To clarify MY question. You have accused me of being "hateful" several times. But you appear to define "hateful" as any criticism of liberals or leftists.

You seem in this to be part of a pattern we see very often in current discourse. Leftists consider it illegitimate to criticize them or their allies. When a Rush Limbaugh criticizes leftists, he's not called "wrong," he's called a "hate-monger." When leftists are criticized, they frequently claim they are being "censored," or that "debate is being stifled," or that their critics are "fascists." (This is actually a weird and fascinating thing to me, because they don't seem to be faking it. I think they actually believe that they should not be criticized.)

At the same time you present yourself as some sort of neutral observer, not aligned with any political group or philosophy. You yelp when I criticize the Left, but never identify yourself with those criticized, you never say "you're criticizing us!". I don't think your pose of lofty detachment is honest.

Perhaps there is another side to you I don't see. Perhaps you visit your lefty-blogger friends, and lash them with harsh words for criticizing conservatives. But I doubt it.

These aren't fair debates, because I can't point out when you are being inconsistent with your own beliefs. You use the tone of someone writing from a thought-out set of beliefs or principles, not the more tentative tone appropriate for matters where one has no position. But your principles are never stated. I suspect you are either trying to fool me, or fooling yourself. Also unfair because you seem to shift your role from debater to judge at will.

And you write as if your premisses had already been accepted by all reasonable people, and as if mine were too nonsensical to even be worth debating. This comes off as pompous and absurd, and offensive. I'm pretty forbearing, but if you tried that stuff on Charlene (say, quoting scripture as if it were an irrefutable argument that no sane person could disagree with or misunderstand) you would learned a bit about "flayed."

Thank you for recognizing how that comment I noted sounded to me.

And I don't intend to come across as neutral. I am anything but neutral: I find many of the positions of the Right morally and spiritually indefensible, and am convinced, by and large, that the Left is closer to the demands of the gospel.

However, to respond to only one point, I do find the intemperate speech found on many left blogs distasteful as well, and my reading on that side has narrowed considerably. I even ended up, if not defending Ben Domenech, at least explaining why he might better be pitied than excoriated, in response to a excessively contumacious poster on MaxSpeak. And I have almost totally given up using expressions even as mild as wingnut: I am determined to look for that of God every person, no matter how detestable their views, and one way to enforce that determination is not to minimize their humanity in any way through the use of lazy-minded categorizations that are the internal equivalent of an ad-hominem argument ("he's just a wingnut, so I don't have to consider his arguments"). It's a course I recommend highly, as it tends to clarify both one's thoughts and one's speech.

That's one of the reasons I haven't posted much lately: I'm struggling with the realization that all too often I feel like saying things that come uncomfortably close to the vile spew found on places like LGF, and that does not nourish the Seed within. And I'm re-examining all of my beliefs in the Light to make sure they're founded on a spiritual rock, and not political fervor--I don't want to be a "donut Quaker:" all sorts of social justice concerns wrapped around a spiritual void.

I didn't have time to get back to you today before now because we got a respite in the rain and I spent the day weeding and top-dressing the vineyard, and learning to use my new custom-built scythe (it's not easy). So I don't have anymore time to comment right now, but I will try to return tomorrow night for some discussion about the false dichotomy of "justice and peace" vs. "salvation" and what I regard the real failings of the Religious Right to be.

Finally, the Scriptural quotations were not there as irrefutable arguments: as a Quaker I could hardly insist on that. But if, as you seem to insist, you are a member of the Religious Right, and a communicant in the Roman Catholic church, Scripture must have some authority for you, and I those passages are, I think, ones you should read, mark, and inwardly digest, and make sure they're not speaking about you, as they definitely do about too many in the RR.

A couple quick notes...
1. A scythe! I'm filled with admiration! Awed! Let me know how it goes.

2. I don't think there is any dichotomy between peace and justice, and salvation. As the church I grew up in taught, if you are saved by Faith you will just naturally want to do Works. And working to further peace and justice are excellent things. (We disagree I'm sure on what to actually do.) But "Faith without works is dead" is also true if you turn the sentence around.

3. I'll be happy to ponder the quotations. It was your implied tone that was offensive, not the verses.

4. I'm not in fact a communicant That's a big step, especially for one raised a Baptist, and I won't do anything for a while. You can't just walk in and take communion. (You get a nice blessing instead.)

"Works without faith" is the very definition of a "donut" Christian.

In regard to the "study" you referred to: it may be true that any given church that seems to put more emphasis on peace and justice than salvation may be hollow. It may otherwise be true that, as with many Quakers (those that are Christian, anyway), that such a church is based on an actualized eschatology rather than an apocalyptic eschatology. These are two strains of thought that have co-existed in the Christian tradition from earliest times, and pivot around the question: what is the time frame of the "last things," or, as I prefer to put it, of the ultimate destiny of humankind.

For those of us working with an actualized eschatology, that period is right now. Salvation is something that happens in the only part of eternity in which humans share the image of God, the only part in which we can act. The past is memory, and the future lies in the hands of the Omnipotence. And if salvation is right now, then peace and justice are demanded on the same time frame. Jesus healed in the here and now, and we are called to do the same.

This does not mean that a church that leans to apocalyptic eschatology, where the time frame is the end of history, does not work for peace and justice. But too many that take that view do use it to defer the concern with the poor and outcast demanded by the Gospel. And in my opinion, this is one of the besetting sins of the Religious Right, as hollowness is of the Religious Left.

The other besetting sins of the Right (IMO) are pointed to by the Scriptures I quoted (in order): lack of charity (caritas) towards people they disagree with or their actual enemies; the spiritual murder, within their own souls, of their fellow human beings by the indulgence of anger and the use of violent, denigratory imagery or words; self-righteousness; and hypocrisy.

The last is an especially grievous fault among many so-called "pro-life" agitators, who see nothing contradictory about opposing abortion while supporting war and capital punishment, or who condemn countless thousands of the poor (women in particular), especially in the Third World, to misery, illness, and death through their opposition to contraception. Some even go so far as to lie about condoms to prevent their use in the fight against AIDS. Truly, I tell you, these wolves in shepherd clothing are fashioning their own millstones!

Finally, you say that "But this blog is the only place where I get to pop-off!" I tell you from personal experience: be careful. As you speak, so will you think, and become. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also, and if you treasure anger and despite, you place yourself desperately near that place Dante spoke of:

"Noi siam venuti al loco ov'i' t'ho detto
che tu vedrai le genti dolorose
c'hanno perduto il ben de l'intelletto."

"For we have reached the place of which I spoke,
where you will see the miserable people,
those who have lost the good of the intellect."

The Divine Comedy, Canto III, vv 16-18

Your answer to MY question was not impressive. You managed to be bloodless and neutral in denying that you are neutral.

You comments on the Religious Right are thought-provoking, and have some truth, I'm sure. But you are inputting leftish definitions and cranking out leftish answers. Many of these things look different when viewed from the Rive Droite.

One sees people going to extremes to keep a murderer from execution while never mentioning his poor victims, and even worse, being coldly indifferent to what happens to the communities where crime blights the hopes of the poor, and where police or simple honest citizens never get a morsel of support or encouragement from them.

One sees activists poring energy and enthusiasm into killing unborn children (even as our birthrate is barely above replacement level) while the efforts of our military to liberate people from savagely murderous tyrannies are greeted with sneers or hindrance. And while it is true that contraception can help people, the energy that drives those who promote and celebrate it seems to come from evil realms where all hope springs from the elites, and common people are just a burden we'd be better off without...

One sees how the Religious Left's "concern for the poor" often takes the form of support for welfare programs that actually trap the poor in dependency and destroy self-respect and the work ethic. While the RR tends to support the values that help people actually escape from poverty, such as marriage, personal morality, religious faith and hard work....

And while numbers are not everything, one sees the churches associated with the left (yes, I know all this terminology is imprecise) having shrunk drastically in the last quarter-century, while those associated with the right have grown. And also still send out great numbers of missionaries, whose efforts have born fruit to the point that certain poor third-world countries are now themselves sending large numbers of Christian missionaries to even less-favored realms...

As for "be careful. As you speak, so will you think, and become". That applies to you, because you have no philosophy to guide you. (So I must assume, since prodding you even to the point of rudeness does not extract one.) I on the other hand am working from ideas I've been mulling since the early 1970's. [If anyone is interested, that's when I discovered Peter Drucker. Everything else is built on that. Not specific positions, but his way of looking at things.]

You'll have to take my word for this, it was all interior until blogging happened. I have no one to talk to and wrote nothing down. BUT, you can read my blog posts from 2001 and discover that I'm pretty much saying the same things, though I'm far clearer about what it is I am aiming at and how all the pieces fit together. And the clarity comes from "popping off," and then having to think about what I'm saying, especially when people comment. If I only blogged well-researched posts, I'd be lucky to do one a week.

Also, the reason I frequently refer to where people are putting their energy or enthusiasm, is because left-leaning people give dishonest "of course" answers when pressed...

Of course we are patriotic. BUT...
Of course we are glad Saddam was overthrown. BUT...
Of course we support the troops. BUT...
Of course we are glad to see democracy in [insert country] BUT...

I'm not fooled.

"...and if you treasure anger and despite, you place yourself desperately near that place Dante spoke of..."