We're going to be lurching from one theocratic spectrum to the other at this rate.

That said, the left has a difficult task ahead.  This is not just because the religious right has already staked out their ground, but because mainstream denominations are declining in numbers and have a much less active infrastructure to begin with.  Sure, we have Sojourners and such, but organizationally this isn't close to a fair fight yet.

More to the point, as I talk about on my blog (though others have done the actual research), the decline is not recent, but a half-century trend towards more fundamentalist sects.  Not an easy thing to overcome in itself, and we haven't even gotten to the question of political strategy yet.

That aside, it is obvious to a sane person that Christians come in many flavors, and all we have gotten is the burnt again flavor (i was bound for hell but was saved, and you weren't saved so you're a-goin' to hell!).  It is about time that the media (yes, the media) start paying real attention to all those other religious folks that have been ignored because they aren't loud mouth bigots.

There are an awful lot of Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus in the world.  By and large their values are quite different from the Evangelicles.

And there are an awful lot of Christian denominations that are not right-wingers (Congregationalists come to mind, and the Catholic Church is pretty left-wing on a lot of issues).

And, for those of us in New England, it's worth remembering that most of the original settlers were members of "First Parish" churches that are now either Congregational or Unitarian-Universalist.  I.e., the legacy of our Nation's Founders lies with the religious left, not with the Evangelical latecomers.

The religious left faces a rhetorical dilemma. It is easy for the religious right to marry a strong statement of a faith motivation for political activity with intolerance and exclusivity. It is more difficult for the religious left to wed strong statements of motivation that arise from particular faith with messages of tolerance and inclusivity. I'm thinking here of real historical examples. Martin Luther King, Jr. was so moved by the work of Thich Nhat Hahn, the Vietnamese Buddhist, that he nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967 (and then came out against the war). Thomas Merton, the Trappist Monk, called Hahn his "brother," suggesting that he shared more in common with him than many of his co-religionists (some of whom were busy blessing armaments on their way to Vietnam).

I think that the rhetorical dilemma is furthered by what the Left would view as the necessarily secular nature of our polity. My engagement in the polity arises from strong counsel I derive from my faith to seek social justice and peace. However, I view the need for the political order to remain secular as sacred. I want the polity to remain a common ground in which I can share the pursuit of these goals with like-motivated people who do not share my faith, or whose motivation arises out of non-religious humanitarian ethical values.

Finally, I think the Left has so long associated religiousity with quietism or with intolerance, that it often marginalizes its own religious Left. It's a little disconcerting to see them now try to run to the other side of the boat to import their token religiously-minded. I think it's important to take some time to allow the religious Left to speak with its own voice. I have hope that this will happen. Allowing this to happen should be viewed as a strength beyond what is offered by the Republicans, whose neocons merely use the religious Right as vote fodder.

Adlai Stevenson in response to one of his supporters who assured him that, "all intelligent people in this country will vote for you":

"That's not good enough. I need a majority".

These rural people often are dumb. But so are many "urban" voters. Can one be scared of both? I think it is important to realize that the foundation of democracy is the people. If the people are strong the democracy will be strong, if the people are ignorant the democracy will be ignorant. Trying to get the vote of someone who is ignorant is putting the cart before the horse. Enlighten them first, and the vote will necessarily follow.

Red State America needs a Bill Cosby-type character to start pointing out their faults. The social and economic retardedness of rural America needs to be confronted, not appeased. Does one expect to make a middle class living growing crops in the 21st century? That went out of style in the  19th century!

They complain about the moral sewer that is urban America. Where do you think those people come from? They come from red states! They leave because they can't get jobs, thus "purifying" the red states and polluting the blue. It has been said that rural America's delenquency exceeds that of the blue states. I believe it. Their mideval attitudes encourage a rejection of education and "liberal" ideas like industry. They shy away from the world and huddle together as far away from the coasts as they can. Racism? Is it even a question?

The world isn't going away folks. It coming. And you can dress up your decline in end-time rhetoric, but the sun will come up tommorow.