That's why I specifically said the Christian Left should confront the Christian Right... it seems to me that one of the main goals of any religious left should be to empower those of all faith traditions to challenge the regressive forces within their own faiths.  Christian progressives challenging the Christian Right, Jewish progressives challenging the politically conservative element in Judaism, Muslim progressives challenging the more oppressive elements in Islam, etc.  Challenges from outside the faith tradition aren't going to work - not only is there the issue of being perceived as not having the best interests of the faith at heart, but there's a significant language gap.  I think that in a very real way, the only people who can convince Christian conservatives to turn around are Christian progressives.

Here's the angle I take as an evangelical(ish) Christian progressive: The Christian Right hurts the Christian witness.  When Christ is a figure of hate, intolerance, and condemnation, when He is seen standing for free markets and the exploitation and oppression of the poor, when He is primarily about exclusion rather than inclusion, Christianity suffers.  People don't like that Christ and people don't want to know that Christ, and with good reason: if that's what Christ is like, I don't want anything to do with him either.  But that isn't Christ, and the sooner we realize that and get back to the business of loving people and displaying compassion and working for justice, the more people will want to know the Christ that motivates us to do these things.  (To non-Christian ears, that sounds problematic; however, we also have to realize that a Christ like that also doesn't permit proselytization by coercion, by fear, by mistrust; a Christ like that invites people into the circle with love and acceptance.)

The problem is that at least in conservative Christianity (the tradition I'm most familiar with as a Christian progressive and evangelical Seminary graduate), the problems go all the way down to their theology (as if we can separate bad theology from bad practice).  We have to call out a theology that permits and condones things like a lack of concern for economic justice, like state torture, like hate for LGBT citizens.  The problem, quite simply, is their theology - a Manichaean and neo-Platonic theology that separates the whole world into good and evil, black and white, flesh and spirit.

But I think we also have to admit that on a certain level and within certain limitations, a theology with absolutes does have something going for it - in that under the right circumstances, that theology can enable and empower people to stand up beyond all hope, beyond all human limitations, and combat things that are evil in some pretty fascinating ways.  It was a theology of absolutes that enabled Wilberforce to stand against slavery in England, that enabled King to stand against racial hatred in the U.S., that enabled Tutu to stand against apartheid in South Africa.  I'd be inclined to say that if they didn't believe in the absolute rightness of their cause, and if they didn't believe that there was a stronger force in the universe that had their backs, they might not have had the resources to stand up when they were fought, when their houses were firebombed or the police were engaging in violence or when Parliament just didn't care.

Dispatches is premised very much on the idea of separation of church and state. It is a foundational principal, that is fully integrated into the thinking of the writerrs and is as thoughtfully discussed as you will find in any political book anywhere. Here are a few quotes, just for example:

Here are a couple of quotes from the book:

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State writes:

Federal laws regarding the role of religion in politics must be respected. Advocates of a progressive view of church and state must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the Religious Right. Partisan politics has no place in any pulpit. People do not attend worship services to get a list of endorsed candidates. Biased voter guides that attack one candidate and praise another are an abomination. They have no place in our pews. Pastors can discuss issues. They need to refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit or using church resources to help or harm a candidate.

An overriding principle ties together the progressive view on church and state: It is perfectly appropriate, and indeed necessary, for laws to have a secular rationale. This means our nation is legally a secular state. We must not fear this. In fact, we must embrace it. Without the secular state, we are hopelessly at sea. Why? Secularism, despite what the Religious Right would have you believe, is not a corrosive force. It is not an anti-religious force. Secularism mandates neutrality, not hostility, toward faith. A secular government is one that recognizes that it has no religious functions.

Governments that bulldoze churches, ban private worship and arrest clergy are not promoting secularism. They are promoting hostility toward religion. A secular state allows many religions to flourish. It extends preference toward none but welcomes all. It neither aids nor hinders religion.

Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates opens his essay:

When I speak in public about my criticisms of the Religious Right, I often identify myself as someone who is trying to help build a Religious Left. A common response to this statement is, "Oh great, that's all we need. Now we'll have twice as many problems." I hope that is not the case, as I don't think additional problems are the likely outcome of attempts to remobilize a Religious Left in the United States.

On the contrary, I have faith that the resurgence of an authentic, politically dynamic Religious Left will be part of a new broad progressive coalition that will help fulfill the long delayed promise of American democracy for all people, especially those who have historically been oppressed, marginalized, and abandoned by our society.

Throughout our history as a nation, Religious Left activists have been fierce advocates for justice and equality and opponents of unfair concentrations of privilege and power. In addition, they have joined with secularists and civil libertarian religious conservatives to defend our Constitutional tradition of separation of church and state.

Barack Obama explained it very well.  I wish that I could find the youtube vid.  He gave a speech regarding the role of religion in politics at a huge and beautiful church from behind a big rostrum made of boulders.  

What he said was that there is not really anything wrong with your religious views motivating your political views, but that you need to find a secular argument in order for your policy desires to be (a) within the spirit of the Constitution and(b) have any chance of garnering support from the less faithful or nonbelievers.  

He used Abraham and Isaac as an example.  He said that, if today, we saw a man raise a knife to plunge into his young son's chest that we should expect all good people to act immediately to subdue and disarm that man.  Even if that man were Abraham acting under God's direction, stopping him would still be the right thing for everyone else to do.  Only Abraham hear's God speaking the orders.  The others do not and thereby have a responsibility to protect the innocent young man.

Today, a person driven by their faith to endorse a political view is just like Abraham.  People who don't share that person's faith, who embrace a different faith or no faith at all, do not hear the same orders and aren't driven by the same doctrine and that is as much their right as is the faithful person's right to have their reasons.  However, with a secular argument, we have ideas and observable realities that everyone can see regardless of religious stripe.