Your penchant for fabricating hypocrisy where there is none is almost as strong as your unwillingness to consider any other Christian but conservative Christians truly Christian.

From a previous post on my blog:

First, in fairness to Americans United, they oppose mixing the state and religion, not mixing politics and religion; AU would not be very effective if they could not politically organize their mainline and liberally religious base. Here's their verbatim description of the event:

"Several Nashville and national organizations will gather to let Americans know that there are many people of faith who understand the importance of the separation of church and state, who believe that all faith traditions should respect one another, and who oppose the use of government to impose the beliefs of one doctrine upon our diverse country. The gathering is intended to give Americans a spirited and inclusive message."

In order to oppose government's imposition of a specific religion on everyone in a Republic, AU would have to organize politically.

As for myself, I don't disagree with mixing religion and politics; I don't particularly care for the partisanization of faith, but that's a risk of political participation. I don't oppose the entitlement of conservative Christians to organize; I do object to them claiming Christian values for themselves without reference to the rest of us Christians. Some organizers of Just-Us Sunday I basically called conservative Christianity the only Christianity. My faith considers that a sinful expression of pride and presumption. I also object to conservative Christians who talk the language of Zion but flex the political muscle of Zeus. Exercising power is not any better if you cloth it in religious garb. It's still power.

If you read my criticisms of Just-Us Sunday I & II, they are not directed at the co-mingling of politics and religion, because I believe that even when religions avoid politics, that avoidance has political affects. I just think that the conservative Christians attending those events are plain wrong and that they are not as moral as they claim to be, nor are they any more moral than the rest of us sinners. I also think that moderate and liberal Christians should organize to counter the tremendous influence conservatives have gained over the past couple of decades.

Trouble is, liberals and especially moderates don't subscribe to blind, uncritical allegiance and call it loyalty like some conservatives have. They debate and divide until they absolutely have to come together. I don't know if this is the event where that convergence needs to happen, but it surely better happen soon if somebody's going to check the conservative agenda to turn this Republic into one huge Protestant evangelical church.

S-town: First, I have never put a political litmus test on who I consider Christian.

I have stated many times on this blog that I consider anyone who professes belief that Jesus Christ is God's son and faith in the sufficiency of His sacrifice on the cross to be a Christian, saved by grace, regardless of differences of opinion we may have on a whole host of religious/doctrinal matters.

Second, you give yourself away when you say you are not against mixing religion and politics, just religion and state - because it is obvious from references you and the Left commonly make to right-wing Christians wanting to impose a theocracy that you treat almost any organized political involvement by conservative Christians as an attempt to impose a theocracy.

Thus, the Left says it is okay with conservative Christians being involved in politics, but then condemns their involvement as a violation of the separation of church and state. (Never mind that the constitution spoke only of protecting religion from government meddling, not government from the influence of the church!)

You say your groups want to "check the conservative agenda to turn this Republic into one huge Protestant evangelical church."

But there is no such conservative agenda, except maybe at the very extreme fringes. Justice Sunday II is not an attempt to impose a right-wing conservative/evangelical theocracy, it is merely an event by which a group of conservative Christians is making their views known on the direction of this country.

As for any statements that one version of Christianity is the only version, I was on the website of the Christian Alliance for Proress. It did not take me more than 5 seconds to find language indicating a public stance that only progressive/liberal Christians are true Christians with the correct agenda:

"Our values are at the center of Reclaiming Christianity in America."

"Reclaiming" Christianity?

One doesn't say they are "reclaiming" something unless they believe it has been taken and is being held by someone who doesn't actually own it. In other words, by saying they are "reclaiming" Christianity, the CAP is saying conservative Christians are not truly Christians.

The CAP website makes it clear that the CAP believes if you don't sign on to their anti-war, left-wing environmentalist, "social justice," pro-gay special rights, pro-abortion agenda, you are not really a good Christian.

Justice Sunday 2 is not part of an attempt to install an evangelical theocracy, it is an attempt to make heard the voices of Christians who don't subscribe to the left-wing agenda.

(I have tried to reply to each of your points in a single post, but I keep getting a "comment denied for questionable content" message, and I don't know what the questionable content is. So, I'm breaking up the reply and trying to send parts of it, so that I can isolate the problematic content).

Good to see that you don't use litmus tests. I wondered in the past when you referred to me and others as "liberals criticizing Christians." I don't criticize Christians qua Christianity. I criticize Christians who don't seem to have moral scruples.

You misread and misunderstand groups like AU. I don't know how I can say it more clearly: they do not associate conservative political involvement itself with theocracy; they do associate policies enacted at government level that explicity tie government to a specific religion as theocracy.

As for the threat of the US becoming one big Protestant evangelical
church, I had href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050612-110139-7239r.htm">Texas
specifically in mind and the recent furor that Gov. Perry caused in
his attempt to mix church & state. I believe that such is what many
religious conservatives desire at the federal level. They have the
right to express that on Sunday if they think it. Constitutionally,
they do not have the right to impose it. And progressives better get
in gear if they want to nip the imposition in the bud.

Finally, to your comment:

"One doesn't say they are 'reclaiming' something unless they believe
it has been taken and is being held by someone who doesn't actually
own it. In other words, by saying they are 'reclaiming' Christianity,
the CAP is saying conservative Christians are not truly Christians."

It is a total and absolute leap in logic to move from the word "we
reclaim" to "you are not truly Christians." Reclaiming simply means
to return to something or to procure something that one has either
left or had taken from her by someone else. That's all. There's
nothing whatsoever in the idea of reclaiming Christianity that
suggests those who currently claim it are untrue. This is just
another example of conservative projection of what conservatives
do--claim truth absolutely for themselves--on to liberals, moderates,
and progressives.

It's ok for most every group in America to organize and lobby for political causes--except Christians it seems.

I don't buy into S-townMIke's "reclaiming" phrase--for it would mean that his brand of theology was once America's. And it's not.

Mike can paint it any way he wants. He can call it whatever he wants. But the battle is whether America will remain--yes, remain--a Godly nation. And I reject his argument that God in the public square is the same as forcing citizens of a state to pray, tithe, etc.
Perhaps Mike needs a theocracy lesson by visiting the Middle East.

What Mike really objects to is people believing the bible reads that homosexuality is a sin, that life is not a choice, etc. Those core beliefs are not just a "conservative Christian" beliefs--they are also the beliefs of orthodox Jews and Muslims as well.

We don't stone homosexuals, we don't arrest adulterers---America is far from theocracy.
What Mike wants is for the government to endorse his belief that no one should ever glance his or anyone else's direction and vocalize, let alone think, that a particular action is immoral according to God's word. Isn't that his own brand of theocracy?

Americans United say that don't want to mix state and religion--but they lie. They most certainly do. They want an atheistic state---and that is indeed religion. Atheism is something--it is not neutrality!

Mike is entitled to his view of the world--and I'm entitled to mine. I'm entitled to gather with my friends and fight for those views, and he's entitled to the same.

For some reason I knew S-Town Mike would be the first to post a comment on this.

I am glad when left wing religious organizations get involved politically. Becuase it helps us to see the hipocrisy. They say they dont want to mix church and state. They say that if your policy comes from your religous belifs then they are invalid. But their policies towards the poor and left wing issues come from their religious beliefs. It's so weird that the things that are clearly laid out in the Bible they against.

Then they say that "conservative Christians" dont help the poor. That is absurd. I can point to Operation Blessing and James Robison off the top of my head. I am still trying to figure out how marriage being a man and a woman is a "conservative Christian" ideology.