Rev. Wright, so I’ve heard has done great things for his community, so that makes him a fine example of the positive potential of religion. I say this and I’m an atheist.

“… both candidates have distanced themselves from religion, thus pushing religion further out of what’s acceptable in the public square. For adamant proponents of the separation of church and state, this is a victory. For those who believe there i…

What I do see is people being less and less impressed by individuals who set themselves up as “religious leaders.” Usually based, as far as one can tell, on a large ego, a lot of chutzpa, and a loud voice — actual faith in God or a desire to do good works strictly optional. And, not too surprisingly, the politicians are starting to figure this out and move away from them as well. Note, however, that an actual devout individual may be respected and honored by lots of people. They just have to be more interested in their faith than in their own agrandizement.

Who knows, eventually the media will figure it out as well. And, instead of seeking out those supposed “religious leaders” whenever they want a comment, actually find some men and women of God to talk to. But, since it won’t give them easy headline-making comments, they probably won’t be all that motivated.

But the truth is, America has become increasingly secular over the last fifty to one hundred years. So secular, in fact, that politicians of both parties are finding themselves running away from rather than embracing religion and religious leaders.

is “Prove it.”. Conservatives constantly talk about how much more secular our society has become without offering up any proof. Heck, I’ve never even seen an acceptable answer for what constitutes a secular society. Is it that they can’t have organized Christian prayer led by teachers and administrators in public schools? Is it that the Ten Commandments and other overtly Christian symbols aren’t allowed in court? When does it cross the line?

And frankly, the current brand of political conservatives don’t seem to limit themselves to believing that there is a place for religion in the public square but that there is a place for using the power of the state to force others to live the way the conservative’s religion says people ought to live. Terry Schiavo, Roe V. Wade, Lawrence V. Texas and a host of other cases show that it is not respect for religion that is desired, but law based on religion. Taliban? No. A desire to be Taliban Lite? Yes, I think so.

Religion in America has it’s ebb and flow. When people see evidence of religion being co-opted for ill-gain the pendulum swings a little toward secularism. But the pendulum always swings back the other way sooner rather than late. Remember Reagan and the “shining city upon a hill.?” American’s are as fickle as they are forgetful.

We see what religion can do when applied by the ignorant majority. The blind leading the somewhat less blind if you will. I’m a “secularists” if for no other reason than I don’t believe anyone until I have both side’s “truths” to weigh. Only then can I decide which one sounds more plausible. More sane.

As for religion’s role in America and it’s politics. It’s noot going anywhere. It IS a politic all of it’s own.

If anything I would see the separation of church and state as one of the key factors that explains why the US is such a religious country. Instead of having a central belief imposed (eg. Anglicanism in the UK) the “free market” for belief has created a wide variety of sects that offer different philosophies/ceremonies/etc. Also, from my experience with the USA (via marriage) it seems that religious organisations are an important social focus, whereas where I’m from (Australia) secular organisations, especially sports clubs, fulful a similar role.