Oh good grief. I'm just now reading my paper and see this. I'm not at all trying to invoke triumphalistic "parity" between Islamism and the Christian Right, as if that would be necessary to demonstrate that the problem of their fundamentalism is a serious one. Nevertheless, these ARE the people who vote on issues of war and peace [And, the Secularistic Left has gotten more than its share of my attention for their Enlightenment fundamentalism.]

MIAMI -- U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla, is under fire once again for controversial comments about the separation of church and state.

She told a periodical that such a separation is a "lie" because, as she put it, "God is the one who chooses our rulers."

Harris said God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."

The Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate also said that, if Christians are not elected to political office, politicians will "legislate sin." She cited abortion and gay marriage as two examples.

Re. Katherine Harris' comment: . . .if Christians are not elected to political office, politicians will "legislate sin." She cited abortion and gay marriage as two examples. she's right to note that permitting gay marriage and abortion are every bit as much moral issues as forbidding or curtailing them. So it's not as though the agenda of the secular left is a-moral (not that anyone has suggested as much, here); it's not. And this notion that letting people make their own choice so as not to "legislate morality" is also a moral position.

Obviously, I'm not in much fear of the religious right, and I don't think we ought to be too troubled by their agenda.

Oh, I'm quite aware of the existing constraints. Praise the Lord. Only one wonders what these people really want and how things would otherwise be if they had their way. It is one thing to note the practical constraints that exist. That's a rather trivial observation.

Well, thanks a lot, doc. But my point was in response to your: theocratization is a path many fundamentalists in America's Religious Right will take us down if we do not remain ever vigilant. I think we can take our naps and relax; 'twon't happen.

What I am addressing, rather, is what that cohort's theoretical stances are and I am maintaining that those stances, however explicit or implicit, need to be countered by a critical exploration of their underlying principles. Otherwise, thwarted by practical constraints, some might resort to "work-arounds," like, for example, mudering doctors and bombing clinics. It does matter which types of abortion and emergency contraception one labels murder versus merely an offense against human dignity. And it does matter that they at least understand the reasonableness and integrity of others who hold different opinions.

I don't think too many religious righters approve of murdering doctors or bombing clinics, so there is at least an implicit respect for existing laws and constraints. As to whether they're open to exploring the underlying principles informing their positions . . . I think you're right on in suggesting what is badly needed, here. Of course, that would entail openness to biblical criticism and non-biblical wisdom, both of which they resist because . . . well . . . because that's how it goes with fundamentalism. I know that's circular reasoning (i.e., fundamentalists reason the way they do because they're fundamentalists), but it's pretty difficult to get these folk to see that they really are interpreting the Bible and bringing their own preconceptions about it to the table.

I enjoyed your critiques of Wilber and Bernadette Roberts. We've had a discussion going on this thread. I know it came up because I brought Spiral Dynamics into the discussion, but I don't think the two are equivocal. Wilber makes use of S.D. but S.D. doesn't necessarily endorse the full thrust and breadth of Wilber's work. In fact, there are some rather "official" disclaimers about the relationship between the two.
- see http://www.spiraldynamics.org/...ng/faq/integral.html

So, onward . . . It will be interesting to see how influential the religious right will be during the elections ahead. Like him or not, one must acknowledge that Karl Rove has done a good job in energizing this voting bloc, without whom Bush could not have been elected. But neither could he have been elected with only/primarily their vote. Not all conservatives are religious righters, just as not all liberals are leftists. (See this glossary, which I put forward sometime back to try to "standardize" our use of these terms in our discussions. It will be interesting, too, to see what Rove does after Bush retires from political life.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]
But my point was in response to your: theocratization is a path many fundamentalists in America's Religious Right will take us down if we do not remain ever vigilant. I think we can take our naps and relax; 'twon't happen. [/qb]

There is a concept we employed in the corporate world with respect to corporate governance and it drew a distinction between "effective control" and ownership. It is much like the distinctions we draw between style and substance, form and content, theoretical and practical. There is also a concept known as undue influence.

Sure, one can relax with respect to our constitutional structure being legislatively and judicially re-formed in the stylization, theory and ownership of some theocratic governance (especially in terms of degrees).

What can happen in an executive branch --- substantively and practically, in terms of effective control and undue influence?

America Magazine: At the Brink of Disaster

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

quote:

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."
U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...e=The_Bush_Theocracy

'Bush Gets Mandate for Theocracy'

Google this syntax: +Bush +theocracy and, interestingly (distressingly), the overwhelming returns are not talking about Islamism

Or. go take a nap

pax! we pray
jb

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Re. Katherine Harris' comment: . . .if Christians are not elected to political office, politicians will "legislate sin." She cited abortion and gay marriage as two examples. she's right to note that permitting gay marriage and abortion are every bit as much moral issues as forbidding or curtailing them. So it's not as though the agenda of the secular left is a-moral (not that anyone has suggested as much, here [/qb]

Yes and yes. What my interest has been is to at least get people to quit demonizing others and their positions and to quit deifying their own leaders and positions. There are too many ad hominems and charges of intellectucal dishonesty that are neither true nor useful (not that some don't stick but they're difficult to make). Folks need to understand WHY others hold different views from their own. As you noted, appealing to such a mindset is problematical but I think there are people who can be rescued from poor thinking. I still haven't looked at all of your "critical thinking" materials, but I'm sure they'd make a great evangelistic outreach to some evangelicals.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:

I enjoyed your critiques of Wilber and Bernadette Roberts. We've had a discussion going on this thread. I know it came up because I brought Spiral Dynamics into the discussion, but I don't think the two are equivocal. Wilber makes use of S.D. but S.D. doesn't necessarily endorse the full thrust and breadth of Wilber's work. In fact, there are some rather "official" disclaimers about the relationship between the two.
- see http://www.spiraldynamics.org/...ng/faq/integral.html

Yes, one does well to read spiraldynamics dot org, dot com and dot net and especially the link you provided above.

I really do think my strategy could place Wilber's 4Q on much more solid ground, philosophically. I really liked Helminiak's stuff and resonated with his thrust, but I thought it would be useful to present it in a less ambitious way, letting the foci constrain each other without having to defend issues like primacy, basicality and such, which are contentious for many. IOW, which focus is broader, which comes first and all do matter but I thought it would be better just to present their mutually-constraining nature without having to defend those other dynamics. I scratched my head on that a lot and am glad to be done with it, really.

Thanks, again
pax!
jb

- from http://www.christianitytoday.c...t/2004/144/32.0.html

<sarcasm>

quote:

George Bush has been given another four years in the White House, say both conservative and liberal activists, but the biggest winners today are probably religious conservatives. It's no mistake that his acceptance speech today included a promise to "uphold our deepest values of family and faith."

That's terrible! What's this world coming to? This is dangerous business! Everyone get worried . . . very worried!

quote:

"In the pivotal states, he benefited from the strong support of evangelical Christians and, just as important, an impressive showing among regular churchgoing Catholics and mainline Protestants."

Oh my goodness! These groups preferred Bush to Kerry, who showed disdain for them in no uncertain terms. How unfair of them. And how dare these people vote for a candidate whose values and policies reflect their own preferences. It's un-American.

quote:

Well, with maybe it's time for Democrats to change their message, says Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times. "Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values," he writes. "One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many of them perceive Democrats as often contemptuous of their faith. And, frankly, they're often right. Some evangelicals take revenge by smiting Democratic candidates."

Democrats would never do the same, of course. They would never vote AGAINST a candidate, even if their guy or gal had nothing substantive to offer (e.g. Ned Lamont).

quote:

"Yes, the Values Party won because they pandered to America's fundamentalists. But I disagree that Democrats need to jump aboard the values express. � Democrats should not become value-whores like the GOP. That would only accelerate the Talibanization of America."

Ah, brilliant! Such astute analysis! "Pandering to people's values!" How low can you go?

quote:

Such "dismissing, and even belittling, evangelicals' deeply held beliefs may not be a smart tactic for winning national elections," says Wright.

All together now . . . D'OH!

</sacrcasm>

And the Dems wonder why they keep losing elections? This sneering at fundamentalist, evangelicals and other conservative Christians, who are a HUGE voting bloc, isn't a very smart move on their part. Charicaturing them as Taliban types is about as dumb as it gets.

http://www.christianitytoday.c...t/2004/144/32.0.html

Apart from the superficial ad hominem type exchanges between bloggers, what was most salient in Olsen's account, for me, were the descriptive accounts of the substantial amount of horsepower under the hood of this particular political engine known as the Religious Right.

In addition to that good dialogic weblog by Ted Olsen, there's a bunch of articles topically arranged. I provided that Christianity Today link in the spirit of equal opportunity. I did wonder, however, whether that title - Weblog Bonus: 'Bush Gets Mandate for Theocracy'- was tongue in cheek or what? maybe serious?

Now, our next focus will be on digging through these links to discover the best and the brightest, and the most substantive arguments engaged by either side, and getting those out there in front of us for meaningful engagement. This is, after all, where some of the best conversations on the Internet happen!

pax!
jb

Here are some recent books:

American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion,
Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century
by Kevin Phillips

The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right�s Plans for the Rest of Us
by James Rudin

Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism
by Michelle Goldberg

Thy Kingdom Come: How The Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical�s Lament
by Randall Balmer

I haven't read these but I did just finish Madeline Albright's __The Mighty & The Almighty, Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs.

A most articulate engagement of the notion that there is a paranoid movement in America being a tad hysterical in crying: Theocracy is the feature artcile in this month's First Things:

Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy by Ross Douthat.

Douthat writes:

quote:

[T]he fear of theocracy has become a defining panic of the Bush era, reaching a fever pitch in the weeks after the 2004 election, when a host of commentators seized on polls suggesting that �moral values� had pushed the president over the top�and found in that data point a harbinger of Gilead.

Later, more cool-headed polling analysis suggested that the values explanation was something of a stretch: The movement of religious voters into the GOP played a role in Bush�s victory, but the uptick in his support between 2000 and 2004 seems mainly to have reflected national-security concerns.

So, while not denying the significance of this voting bloc, what I described as horsepower under the Religious Right's hood, immediate post 9/11 security concerns would, understandably, have been a bigger motivator at the polls.

I'll gather some of his other on the mark critiques of this "defining panic of the Bush era." I would not want to contribute to an over the top fear mongering and see this as a rhetorical technique that needs to be tempered to foster a more substantive political and civil discourse.

Back after these messages.

pax!
jb

quote:

To understand what, precisely, the anti-theocrats think has gone so wrong, it�s necessary to understand what they mean by the term theocracy. This is no easy task. The word is often used to connote government by a specific institutional faith�Shia imams in Iran, say, or Wahhabi clerics in Afghanistan�with the clergy writing laws and a temple guard enforcing them. But the clout of institutional religion is at low ebb in American politics. No prelate wields the kind of authority that Catholic bishops once enjoyed over urban voters, no denomination can claim the kind of influence that once belonged to the old WASP mainline, and the evangelical Protestantism that figures so prominently in anti-theocracy tracts is distinguished precisely by its lack of any centralized ecclesiastical government.

This distinction is critical to understanding what the real problem is and is not. It is reflected in the lexicon:

quote:

There isn�t perfect agreement on what to call the religious radicals in question: Everyone employs theocrat, but Kingdom Coming also proposes Christian nationalist, while The Baptizing of America favors the clunky Christocrat. Others have suggested Christianist, the better to link religious conservatives to Osama bin Laden�and of course there�s the ubiquitous theocon, suggesting a deadly mixture of Oliver Cromwell and Paul Wolfowitz.

Sounds like the Daniel Pipes deliberations over the lexicon of Islamism and Islamofascism and such. And this does emphasize distinctions other have drawn here, again, as in w.c.'s terms, mixing apples and oranges. Analogies invoke far more dissimilarities than similarities we should recall, and weak analogies even fewer. If what is going on does involve what I have described as a resistance to intellectual and affective conversion, sinful or invincible - not mine to call, that may be the only significant parallel. Otherwise, fundamentalisms have distinct lineages. Interestingly, fundamentalists across denominational lines have more in common, often, with one another than they do with their co-religionists.

quote:

Michelle Goldberg�s Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism is marginally less ridiculous than this, perhaps because Goldberg, a reporter for Salon, actually spent some time among the believers and even found herself liking them. �I was treated with remarkable openness and hospitality,� she notes, and speaks with sympathy of the Christian nationalists� eagerness �to engage in passionate discussion about the meaning of life, and about how we understand morality and reality.� But within a page, she�s quoting Hannah Arendt on the origins of totalitarianism and warning balefully that �individual decency can dissolve when groups are mobilized against diabolized enemies.�

Well, all very well, but diabolized enemies and demonized politicians does seem to be a problem. At the least, again, it is ruinous to good productive argumentation and skirts legitimate debate. At the worst, it leads to ... sociologically ... to complex, I dunno.

quote:

There�s certainly room, after thirty years of culture war, for an informed and evenhanded critique of Christian conservatism, and Balmer�s background would seem to make him an ideal writer for the job. But while he occasionally nods in the direction of intelligent criticism�noting the disparity between the Christian Right�s fixation on gay marriage, say, and its long-running silence on divorce; or zinging religious conservatives for writing the Bush administration a blank check in the war on terror�these arguments are quickly dropped in favor of the usual litany of anti-theocrat complaints, flavored with the usual apocalyptic rhetoric.

Interestingly, he does describe, as intelligent criticism of the Christian Right, Balmer's zinging of religious conservatives for writing the Bush administration a blank check in the war on terror.

It would be interesting to see where either Balmer or Douthat would go on this issue. It is an important issue and one of the very few that Douthat let's any of these authors slide on. I should say, while I am thinking about it, that Albright's rhetoric was not over the top.

As for Douthat's assertion that there's room, after thirty years of culture war, for an informed and evenhanded critique of Christian conservatism,, I'll be on the lookout for that to provide counterpoints to his charges of paranoia and hysteria. I am trying to keep this Fair & Evenly Balanced, so Rupert Murdoch doesn't drop me as a correspondent.

pax,
jb

quote:

This reality poses no particular problem if you simply disagree with religious conservatives about abortion or gay marriage or prayer in public schools. But if you�re committed to the notion that religious conservatives represent an existential threat to democratic government, you need a broader definition of theocracy to convey your sense of impending doom. Which is why the anti-theocrats often suggest that it doesn�t take mullahs, an established church, or a Reconstructionist ban on adultery to make a theocracy. All you need are politicians who invoke religion and apply Christian principles to public policy.

Of course, he intelligently engaged my own nuance of theoretical vs practical, style vs content, form vs substance, effective control and undue influence ---

and, then, not unwisely counters:

quote:

If that�s all it takes to make a theocracy, then these writers are correct: Contemporary America is run by theocrats. Of course, by that measure, so was the America of every previous era. The United States has always been at once a secular republic and a religious nation, reflexively libertarian and fiercely pious, and this tension has been working itself out in our politics for more than two hundred years.

And that is a cogent statement of what this is all about: tension, creative tension ... and it's about pendulums swinging and constant rebalancing of power. And it is not hyperbole or paranoia to suggest that vigilance is required to preserve freedom and ... ... ... maybe even to grab hold of the blank checks that pay for war, levees, stem cell research, faith-based initiatives and other competing values and disvalues, depending on whom you talk to.

quote:

Sometimes it�s argued that what sets the contemporary Christian Right apart from previous iterations of politically active religion isn�t its Christianity per se but its unwillingness to couch argument in terms that nonbelievers can accept�to use �public reason,� in the Rawlsian phrase, to make a political case that doesn�t rely on Bible-thumping. As a prudential matter, the case for public reason makes a great deal of sense. But one searches American history in vain�from abolitionist polemics down to Martin Luther King�s Scripture-saturated speeches�for any evidence of this supposedly ironclad rule being rigorously applied, or applied at all.

I do not know enough about history to make such a claim as this above; I have, rather, simply maintained that we must move to public reason, although I talk about transparency to human reason and moral clarity. The fact that this has not been accomplished is not an argument against the prudence of this position. It is a caveat that has downside implications for a political realism. This case need to be made again and again.

quote:

No religion-infused movement can afford to be used by a political party as a way to gain votes and nothing more. That�s how the Democrats have used the Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson�era civil rights establishment and, sadly, how the GOP has often used the Religious Right. But this is less of a danger to the nation�s self-government than to the integrity of religious witness.

It's a danger when such movements provide the margin of victory for ____________________ (leave it blank or fill in the blank with something like "miltary adventurism" or "partial birth abortion.")

quote:

In today�s America, these arguments are constantly taking place�over issues ranging from abortion to foreign policy; over the potential, and potential limits, of interfaith cooperation; over the past and future of the Religious Right. But they are increasingly drowned out by cries of �theocracy, theocracy, theocracy� and by a zeal, among ostensibly religious intellectuals, to read their fellow believers out of public life and sell their birthright for the blessing of the New York Times.

theocracy, theocracy, theocracy is too shrill a cry, too filled with paranoia, too hysterical.

Are there more sober reflections and calmer voices that have voiced more substantive critiques against the Religious Right? Who are they? What have they said?

pax!
jb

Here are a few resources to get one started on a critique of the Religious Right from a more distinctly Catholic perspective. You can use their search facilities to locate articles and commentary. And there's a superabundance of resources that substantively critique social justice issues, many affirming the books that were reviewed in First Things above and countering the points from that article that I highlighted. But I am not going to continue to summarize same here. The issues are broader than war and social agenda items and also include poverty and budget and health etc As they say, the right is wrong and the left doesn't get it - sometimes

Sojourners/Call to Renewal | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010

The National Catholic Reporter

An AmericanCatholic.org Site from the Franciscans and St.Anthony Messenger Press

America, the online weekly Catholic magazine of news, opinion, book reviews and articles

U.S. Catholic magazine: published by the Claretians

And, you can count on First Things for a more conservative, even neoconservative slant. If you're looking for "critiques," you'll pretty much have to read the letters of those who object to their book reviews and editorials. - Another major source of public theology, in Benne's view, are the neoconservatives, by whom he means figures such as Michael Novak, George Weigel, Robert Jenson, and Richard Neuhaus, along with the scholars, publications, and institutions that they have gathered around them. The Protestant mainline and, to some extent, the Catholic bishops have studiously tried to ignore the neoconservatives, Benne says.

I'm signing off now through the Labor Day holiday. Katrina, ya know.

pax, amor et bonum
jb

JB, lots of good resource links and reflections you've posted.

I'm wondering where you are, personally, on this issue, however. Are you very much bothered by the "agenda of the religious right?"

As I've noted, I'm not -- not in the least. I view them as an important part of what Michael Novak calls the Moral/Cultural aspect of society, which interacts with the Political and Economic aspects. It's entirely appropriate for the Moral/Cultural to try to influence political and economic life, and I'm not sure what "undue influence," would mean, here, aside from threatening violence. If a large segment of the population holds values that they want to see reflected in the political or economic sphere, then they should work for that. Jim Wallis and Jimmy Carter believe that, only they don't have the numbers that the "religious right" does, and so some of their complaints smack more of sour grapes than anything else.

After all is said and done, I don't really disagree with many of the changes promoted by the "religious right" . . . creationism/intelligent design is the only one I disapprove of completely. For all the rest, I'm mostly sympathetic, though I might justify my positions a little differently than they do.

What agenda of the "religious right" do you object to?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]It's entirely appropriate for the Moral/Cultural to try to influence political and economic life, and I'm not sure what "undue influence," would mean, here ... [/qb]

Very good distinction, PSR. Such influence is constitutionally protected. My charge of undue influence is narrowly aimed at specific theocratizing influences, which are grounded in any type of divine guidance without also being articulated using a robust moral reasoning process. In this sense, then, influence that is not sufficiently justified is unwarranted, unreasonable, undue. It is not illegal, merely imprudent.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]Are you very much bothered by the "agenda of the religious right?"

What agenda of the "religious right" do you object to? [/qb]

The agenda of the Religious Right grieves me deeply because it too narrowly focuses on personal ethical issues rather than a more expansive social justice agenda. Its overly idealist character needs to be tempered by a more informed political realism. Ironically, they are not bringing home any moral pork because they squander too much of their political capital on issues, like abortion, with too little attention to whether or not such causes stand a meaningful chance of advancement in any given political season. Other social justice issues get sacrificed.

Given the imprudence they exhibit, vis a vis 1) an apparent lack of moral reasoning coupled with a theocratic mindset 2) an apparent lack of political realism in tension with their inordinately idealist approaches, it positively frightens me to imagine how they might approach just war deliberations (re: Israel), especially in coalition with some neoconservatives.

I engaged "Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy" by Ross Douthat, __2006, First Things__ 165 (August/September 2006): 23-30

here with more affect coming through, and also here with a less forceful tone and tenor.

I'll engage more fully after the holiday and possibly address any specific agenda items of the Religious Right in which you or anyone else may be interested.

pax!
jb

JB, I see the "religious right" as being mostly in reaction against the secularizing influences of the past 40 years. We read about nonsense like this and feel like any kind of religious expression or respect for religious values is being pushed completely out of public life in the name of "separation of church and state."

quote:

. . .they are not bringing home any moral pork because they squander too much of their political capital on issues, like abortion, with too little attention to whether or not such causes stand a meaningful chance of advancement in any given political season. Other social justice issues get sacrificed.

Don't bet against them on abortion. With Roberts and Alito now on the Supreme Court, they could well overturn Roe v. Wade, turning it into a "states' rights" isse. Abortion is extremely important to religious righters and, indeed, to all conservatives. Liberals are total hypocrites when it comes to this issue, as the issue of human rights in the political sphere is foundational to many of their policies . . . except if it applies to the unborn. We pay HUGE moral, spiritual and health consequences in this country (and the West) because of our complacency re. abortion. Even if this were the only cause championed by the religious right, their time would be very well-spent, imo.

Another victory they've won is with regard to "faith-based initiatives" -- of obtaining federal funding for church and non-profit groups that provide social services much more effectively than do government agencies. Kudos.

But I think their main contribution is to continually challenge the insane idea that the first Amendment calls for a secular society of the sort that permits no overt religious expression whatsoever, not even in the name of free speech. Don't think it's possible in the West? Can you spell F r a n c e?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] re. abortion. Even if this were the only cause championed by the religious right, their time would be very well-spent, imo. [/qb]

Can you subtract 1 9 7 3 from 2 0 0 6 ?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] re: a secular society of the sort that permits no overt religious expression whatsoever, not even in the name of free speech. Don't think it's possible in the West? Can you spell F r a n c e? [/qb]

I think we can take our naps and relax; 'twon't happen.

While working and waiting for the consistent ethic of life utopia, if the radical pro-choice cohort would be willing to roll-back abortion rights a whole trimester, in exchange for that, I'd be willing to offer them 1) condom distribution 2) emergency contraception 3) morning after pill and 4) highly regulated stem cell research w/ 14 day limit on embryo growth.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb] Can you subtract 1 9 7 3 from 2 0 0 6 ? [/qb]

Yep. And it's one less year than 2007 minus 1973!

Now how many years did we have slavery (even sanctioned by the Supreme Court) before it was overturned? It's a good thing the abolitionists didn't get more "practical" and devote their energies to "other social justice issues."

I'm still not following why the religious right bugs you so. You don't like the way they reason about things, but it's possible that even if they undertook a more sophisticated, nuanced approach, they'd come out advocating for the same policies. If the majority of Americans (and their elected officials) don't like the policies they advocate, then they won't be enacted into law -- or they'll be overturned. And, as we've pretty well settled this theocracy f.u.d., there's little to worry about.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I'm still not following why the religious right bugs you so. You don't like the way they reason about things ... [/qb]

Well, to be sure, my disgruntlement is narrowly focused on how they spend political capital (Pew Forum surveys) and the bad image they give religion thru their fundamentalism. Out of 18 distinct religious communities in America, the traditional Evangelicals are the ONLY group where a plurality opposes the proposition of middle class tax increases to better enable the government to fight hunger and poverty.

Most significant, though, their coalition with the neoconservative influence on the use of our military (and Israel's) is most unsettling to me. That cohort is a lot more likely to agree with the notion that the US has a special role overseas (we're special, but HOW special) and disagree with the US minding its own business than the other cohorts, and very much more likely to support preemptive war doctrine, democracy promotion and Israel over the Palestinians, all which, properly nuanced, are defensible positions, but where's their nuance?

Their variance with the population at large is substantial on most matters and with modernist Catholics like myself is off the charts, like whether the US should give high priority to fighting AIDS (19 point difference). When I say most matters, that includes : economics & welfare, foreign policy and cultural issues. There's even an 11 point difference between modernist Catholics and traditional Evangelicals on the US involvement in famine relief.

Don't get me wrong, I would not want to take my critique of these folks over the top on a broader range of issues than this political consideration. We may differ on social, cultural and political emphases, but, of paramount importance, we share the same faith, and, as you pointed out, many of the same faith-based initiatives. This has never been more apparent than I've personally witnessed in the past year's Katrina-relief efforts. I do not disagree that we'd come out on the same side on many cultural issues, anyway. Disagreement there, obviously, is moreso tactical and not strategic.

Folks can Google the Pew Forum for survey data, if they're interested. Stuff I'm using is local, on my hdd.

pax,
jb