Gov, Bob Riley of Alabama, a conservative Republican, is apparently citing the Bible as an excuse to raise taxes on the wealthy. "Jesus says one of our missions is to take care of the least among us," according to the governor.

Rev. Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners, a progressive Christian magazine, said "What Bob Riley is doing is acting like a Christian... The Bible is full of poor people. Biblical politics has the poor at the center... What's happening now around the country is that faith is being applied to issues that Jesus talked about - like poor people," said Wallis. "It's a sign of things to come."

Apparently, there is something of a rise in liberal religious action in the US. Wallis, for example, believes his faith mandates support for social justice issues. Rev. Eileen W. Lindner, of the National Council of Churches, claims recent world events have heightened the link between religion and policy. "I believe," she says, "we are right at the very early days of asking afresh, 'What is the role of faith in our society?' "

According to Michael Perry, author of Under God?: Religious Faith and Liberal Democracy, "In the U.S. in recent times we tend to associate reliance on religion with conservative positions." But historically, he argues, religion has played a part in politics across the spectrum, citing as examples the Civil Rights movement and Jimmy Carter's Biblical justification for relinquishing control of the Panama Canal.

The question is, if liberal issues start coming to the fore of religious politics (justifying, for example, taxing the rich), will those who have recently argued against the separation of church and state start changing their tunes? If religion starts being used as an argument to support causes which threaten the corporate status quo, will the vital importance of "separation" start being supported by those who currently depend on a more fundamentalist constituency? Is there an extent to which a religious foundation for any given position is just an expedient means to achieve a political end, liberal or conservative?

In short, religion has recently been exploited by the right to manipulate public opinion and garner support for certain conservative issues (opposition to gay civil rights and a woman's right to choose, support for federal funding of faith-based institutions and even our war on "evil"). Might similar exploitation by the left render religion a less effective "tool" for achieving political ends?

when i sit and view such things on the telly, it reminds me of mad scientist convention cartoons on the comic strip the far side.

not in a rude aspect but in that its different to me i guess.

the fundemental aspects of it our nothing new, its the same type of mindset that enables nazis and so on, just a different flavor. i just wonder if there will be any tags to this wanting to help the poor, and its overall "i could care less" about the seperation of church and state thing going on right now. i blame this all on bush of course. how this train will stop or slow down is the part i worry about, its like a nice civil war almost.

alabama is nothing new to me on such issues, that state and kansas is a breeding ground almost for such things to occur.
my hopes is that at least it can be contained, the point that the christian idea can cure the worlds ills is a bad one at best, i hope the various peoples in place that fight this can get a good amount of people to listen to them, even in the light they dont have a non elected president to back them

Politicians on both sides of the isle have used God for their advantage, as Wertz has shown. I think you can over use God, sort of like crying wolf. Eventually people will stop listening. I think you have to choose carefully when and what battles to quote Jesus for. He doesn't want to be made a fool of...
No, I think it's fine for Liberals to quote Jesus, we have just as much right as the Conservatives.

No matter what the effect of religion and politics might be in a particular situation, I will always favor the absolute separation of the two. Each one alone can be harmful, helpful, or neutral. Together, the combination is always toxic.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some change their tunes, but I'd rather they not. I don't want to see religious fundamentalism playing any more a role in my life than I do corporate greed. I'd like to think we could be reasonable and act according to logic rather than archaic codes of morality or contemporary class systems. It's an idealist point of view, I know, but that's my personal stance on the matter.

I have to agree with victoria silverwolf. anytime that religion and government have mixed bad things tended to happen. please see as examples: the catholic inquisitions, every mideast theocracy, Isreal (god gave this land and we are his chosen people.) and others I am having trouble thinking of (sorry, haven't slept much (4.5 hours tops) since monday at noon. thinking kinda mushy)

I think religion is for weak minded and weak willed people who can't (or won't) decide what to believe about the unknown and must be told what the "truth" is. (don't get me wrong, I have no problems with one having spiritual beliefs, I'm a pantheist myself.) they control people through fear (false evidence appearing real) saying "if you don't do as we say god tells you to do, you will burn for all eternity in hell", which most people correctly assume would be quite unpleasant.

religion and politics should NEVER EVER EVER mix. the combination is far too volatile.

I would have to disagree with you. Would you call our founding fathers "weak minded"? Would you call Gandi "weak willed"? MAN perverts religion, for their own agendas, but the fundimental truths of the worlds religions are benefitial to mankind. If the person is blindly following along, not challanging anything, the problem lies in the person, not the religion.

My personal feelings aside for a moment, the "weak minded... weak willed" comments might be better suited for casual conversations of religion rather than somewhat more organized debates.

I would not label the Founding Fathers as having been weak minded or Ghandi as being weak willed. One thing about your response, however, BJ:
While they are frequently referred to and believed to be truths, they do still remain speculation founded in faith. And therein lies part of the problem when religion begins to intertwine itself with government. Since the "fundamental truths" you speak of are subjective objects of faith, problems arise when you try to apply them as truth to the whole public.

Well, I look at the major religions of the world and the teachings within them as innately human desires. Like how you treat one another. Inner peace, oneness, harmony, love, respect,charity, honor and dignity.
What about "We find these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equally."? I look at the root of religions as such. But I do agree with you that religion is mostly subjective and is abused to represent only a one sided opinion. That's why I don't call myself an religious person, I'm a spiritual person. I don't adhere to an organized institution, because eventually they all end up like the pharisees of Jesus' time, the modern Catholic Church, the Southern Baptists or the radical Muslims.