Hating the "Religious Right"

[Tigermike 3,029]

Hating the "Religious Right"

Should people of faith also be allowed a say in the law-making process?

by Hugh Hewitt

03/31/2005 12:00:00 AM

THE TERRI SCHIAVO TRAGEDY has been seized on by long-time critics of the "religious right" to launch attack after attack on the legitimacy of political action on the basis of religious belief. This attack has ignored the inconvenient participation in the debate--on the side of resuming water and nutrition for Terri Schiavo--of the spectacularly not-the-religious-rightness of Tom Harkin, Nat Hentoff, Jesse Jackson, and a coalition of disability advocacy groups.

The attack has also been hysterical. After Congress acted--ineffectively, it turned out--Maureen Dowd proclaimed that "theocracy" had arrived in the land. Paul Krugman warned that assassination of liberals by extremists was not far off. And the Internet frenzy on the left was even more extreme.

Into the fray came former Missouri Republican Senator John Danforth, an ordained priest, and much admired man of integrity. In yesterday's New York Times, Senator Danforth blasted the control that he asserts is now held over the Republican party by religious conservatives. Danforth specifically criticized the congressional action on behalf of Schiavo, a proposed Missouri bill that would halt stem cell research, and concerns over gay marriage.

All of these charges--from the most incoherent to the most measured--arrive without definition as to what "the religious right" is, and without argument as to why the agenda of this ill-defined group is less legitimate than the pro-gay marriage, pro-cloning, pro-partial-birth abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda of other political actors. Danforth's position is, apparently, that the agenda of the left on these matters ought not to be resisted, which means that it will be enacted. "For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group," Danforth intones, "is often to oppose the cause of another." That is inescapably true. To come to the defense of the unborn, as Senator Danforth correctly notes he always did during his legislative career, is to oppose abortion on demand. To come to the aid of the Christians in Sudan is to oppose the wishes of the Muslims who sought their destruction. Every political conflict is a choice between competing moral codes.

So Danforth's essay is really a poorly-camouflaged complaint that his positions on stem-cell research, gay marriage, and Terri Schiavo are not the positions of the Republican party. It is fair for him to try and persuade people to endorse his positions but it is wrong and demagogic to attempt to question the right of people of faith to participate in politics. That is certainly what Dowd, Krugman, and others want to accomplish, and although Danforth asserts that "I do not fault religious people for political action," the intention of his essay is to encourage the Republican party to reject the efforts of religious people to influence the party's agenda.

There is little chance that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Bill Frist or Dennis Hastert are going to heed Danforth's advice. But a strain of thought is developing that the political objectives of people of faith have second-class status when compared to those of, say, religiously secular elites. Of course, not only would such a position have surprised all of the Founding Fathers, it would have shocked Lincoln and Reagan, too.

The speed with which issues that excite the passions of people of faith have arrived at the center of American politics is not surprising given the forced march that the courts have put those issues on. It was not the "religious right" that pushed gay marriage to the center of the public debate; it was courts in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts. It wasn't the "religious right" that ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed; it was a Florida Supreme Court that struck down a law passed by the Florida legislature and signed by Governor Jeb Bush which would have allowed Terri Schiavo to live. And it isn't the "religious right" that forced the United States Supreme Court to repeatedly issue rulings on areas of law that would have been better left to legislatures.

These and other developments have indeed mobilized new activists across the country, many of who see a vast disparity between what they believe ought to be public policy and what is becoming that policy by judicial fiat. They have every right to participate in politics, and they can be expected to refuse to support elected officials who ignore their concerns.

Attempts to silence them, marginalize them, or to encourage others to do so are not arguments against their positions, but admissions that those positions represent majorities that cannot be refused a place at the law-making table.

Hugh Hewitt is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show, and author most recently of Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That is Changing Your World. His daily blog can be found at HughHewitt.com.

link

[AURaptor 1,125]

I have my issues w/ both the Religious Right and the Religious Left, ( the latter being a term we seldom ever hear from the media ). However, much of the vitriol that has been hurled toward the R.R. is unwarrented and nothing more than Left wing spin aimed at distorting the facts to drown out any discussion about the issues which the Left disagrees.

[Piglet 0]

Religious left--what, like Jesse Jackson?

Religious or not, it seems the country gets more and more polarized between extreme radical leftists, and extreme raving conservatives, and leaders with basic common sense get harder and harder to find every year.

And it seems to me that keeping religion and government separate is a good idea, because like it or not the government is supposed to be run by secular values, and our religious lives by religious values. As in the approach to crime and punishment: The Gospels say we must forgive enemies, return love for hate, kill the fatted calf for the returning prodigal, and let the sinless cast the first stone. There ain't no jails in the church. But the government's business is to hold criminals acountable for their crimes and make them pay the fair penalty. Different values for different functions.

It ain't that "people of faith" are second-class citizens in policy making. My experience is the opposite--the people I see who have an active role in their churches are the ones who MOST frequently also take an active and responsible role participating as citizens in the secular community too. The thing is, we wear different hats with our different roles. There's a time to lead through reason and logic, and a time to lead through faith, and our churches and governments will both be better if we remember where we are at all times.

[TexasTiger 12,881]

I have my issues w/ both the Religious Right and the Religious Left, ( the latter being a term we seldom ever hear from the media ). 

153763[/snapback]

Perhaps because their influence is negligible.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Perhaps because their influence is negligible.

Doesn't mean they're not there. We can only hope that their 'influence' remains as negligible as you'd like all to believe it is.

[TexasTiger 12,881]

Perhaps because their influence is negligible.

Doesn't mean they're not there. We can only hope that their 'influence' remains as negligible as you'd like all to believe it is.

153802[/snapback]

What activities of the Religious Left do you think the media should be reporting?

[mcgufcm 4,096]

i have a beef with a few things hugh had to say. first, i honestly don't believe the courts of san francisco or massachusetts started the issue of gay marriage. i think the catalyst was tax breaks for married couples, and the courts had no choice but to make a ruling once the law was challenged. don't blame them for starting something just because you don't like the decisions that were made. the judges didn't bring the cases to court.

next, don't equate sustaining a vegetable's life with giving berth to a new born. they aren't the same no matter how you look at it. what happened to terri shiavo was terrible, but she was never, ever going to be a fully functioning human being again. unless the next feeding tube they gave her was pumping magic into her stomach.

finally, i think it's absolutely ridiculous to say that the opinions of "religious" (oh, and why can't he just come out and say Christian since that's exactly what he's implying... even going as far as using a Christian/muslim reference) have been marginalized in any way. that clearly is the currently the most active and influential demographic in america.

i agree with him that it would be foolish to fault someone for trying to effect change that they think is in the best interest of their faith. it is and should be the most important thing in the life of any Christian. my problem with the religious right (and why do we need to define everything down to the smallest detail when we all know a good approximation of who's being referenced?) is that i don't think they are representing the actual preachings from the gospel all that well, but that's a debate for another day.

[AURaptor 1,125]

What activities of the Religious Left do you think the media should be reporting?

Well, for starters, how about being a bit more critical of Dems during election years when candidates show up at the pulpit of black churches and deliver sermons-aka:political speeches. Can't forget how AlGore put on a show w/ his impression of a black preacher, shouting to the audience and carrying on in a most ridiculous and pandering manner I've seen. When the likes of Falwell simply makes a comment where he mentions the name of G.W. Bush, the press is all over it with their ' RELIGIOUS RIGHT ' labels..... but you NEVER hear the 'Religious LEFT used to describe when Gore or someone is in the pulpit, w/ Jesse Jackson et al by his side.

[TexasTiger 12,881]

What activities of the Religious Left do you think the media should be reporting?

Well, for starters, how about being a bit more critical of Dems during election years when candidates show up at the pulpit of black churches and deliver sermons-aka:political speeches. Can't forget how AlGore put on a show w/ his impression of a black preacher, shouting to the audience and carrying on in a most ridiculous and pandering manner I've seen. When the likes of Falwell simply makes a comment where he mentions the name of G.W. Bush, the press is all over it with their ' RELIGIOUS RIGHT ' labels..... but you NEVER hear the 'Religious LEFT used to describe when Gore or someone is in the pulpit, w/ Jesse Jackson et al by his side.

153835[/snapback]

So you consider Gore to be a member of the "Religious Left?" What are some the key views of the "Religious Left?"

[Tigermike 3,029]

What activities of the Religious Left do you think the media should be reporting?

Well, for starters, how about being a bit more critical of Dems during election years when candidates show up at the pulpit of black churches and deliver sermons-aka:political speeches. Can't forget how AlGore put on a show w/ his impression of a black preacher, shouting to the audience and carrying on in a most ridiculous and pandering manner I've seen. When the likes of Falwell simply makes a comment where he mentions the name of G.W. Bush, the press is all over it with their ' RELIGIOUS RIGHT ' labels..... but you NEVER hear the 'Religious LEFT used to describe when Gore or someone is in the pulpit, w/ Jesse Jackson et al by his side.

153835[/snapback]

So you consider Gore to be a member of the "Religious Left?" What are some the key views of the "Religious Left?"

153847[/snapback]

Key views of the Religious Left would be to act religious during election years. Talk like they know what they are talking about. Does John Kerry ring a bell? Or am I confusing Religious Left with complete hypocrite?

[TexasTiger 12,881]

What activities of the Religious Left do you think the media should be reporting?

Well, for starters, how about being a bit more critical of Dems during election years when candidates show up at the pulpit of black churches and deliver sermons-aka:political speeches. Can't forget how AlGore put on a show w/ his impression of a black preacher, shouting to the audience and carrying on in a most ridiculous and pandering manner I've seen. When the likes of Falwell simply makes a comment where he mentions the name of G.W. Bush, the press is all over it with their ' RELIGIOUS RIGHT ' labels..... but you NEVER hear the 'Religious LEFT used to describe when Gore or someone is in the pulpit, w/ Jesse Jackson et al by his side.

153835[/snapback]

So you consider Gore to be a member of the "Religious Left?" What are some the key views of the "Religious Left?"

153847[/snapback]

Key views of the Religious Left would be to act religious during election years. Talk like they know what they are talking about. Does John Kerry ring a bell? Or am I confusing Religious Left with complete hypocrite?

153849[/snapback]

Well, there are a ton of hypocrites out there, including most politicians who flaunt their religion. My question is, the Religious Right is identified with several key issues-- are there several key issues that the "Religious Left" promotes?

[Tigermike 3,029]

What activities of the Religious Left do you think the media should be reporting?

Well, for starters, how about being a bit more critical of Dems during election years when candidates show up at the pulpit of black churches and deliver sermons-aka:political speeches. Can't forget how AlGore put on a show w/ his impression of a black preacher, shouting to the audience and carrying on in a most ridiculous and pandering manner I've seen. When the likes of Falwell simply makes a comment where he mentions the name of G.W. Bush, the press is all over it with their ' RELIGIOUS RIGHT ' labels..... but you NEVER hear the 'Religious LEFT used to describe when Gore or someone is in the pulpit, w/ Jesse Jackson et al by his side.

153835[/snapback]

So you consider Gore to be a member of the "Religious Left?" What are some the key views of the "Religious Left?"

153847[/snapback]

Key views of the Religious Left would be to act religious during election years. Talk like they know what they are talking about. Does John Kerry ring a bell? Or am I confusing Religious Left with complete hypocrite?

153849[/snapback]

Well, there are a ton of hypocrites out there, including most politicians who flaunt their religion. My question is, the Religious Right is identified with several key issues-- are there several key issues that the "Religious Left" promotes?

153857[/snapback]

Yes there is and I am sure you could provide us with several if you wanted. An attempt to make Christianity a "cafeteria style" religion would be high on any list, wouldn't you think?

"We must not suppose that even if we succeeded in making everyone nice we

should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own

niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as

desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world -- and might even be

more difficult to save. For mere improvement is no redemption, though

redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end,

improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine." --C.S. Lewis

[TexasTiger 12,881]

What activities of the Religious Left do you think the media should be reporting?

Well, for starters, how about being a bit more critical of Dems during election years when candidates show up at the pulpit of black churches and deliver sermons-aka:political speeches. Can't forget how AlGore put on a show w/ his impression of a black preacher, shouting to the audience and carrying on in a most ridiculous and pandering manner I've seen. When the likes of Falwell simply makes a comment where he mentions the name of G.W. Bush, the press is all over it with their ' RELIGIOUS RIGHT ' labels..... but you NEVER hear the 'Religious LEFT used to describe when Gore or someone is in the pulpit, w/ Jesse Jackson et al by his side.

153835[/snapback]

So you consider Gore to be a member of the "Religious Left?" What are some the key views of the "Religious Left?"

153847[/snapback]

Key views of the Religious Left would be to act religious during election years. Talk like they know what they are talking about. Does John Kerry ring a bell? Or am I confusing Religious Left with complete hypocrite?

153849[/snapback]

Well, there are a ton of hypocrites out there, including most politicians who flaunt their religion. My question is, the Religious Right is identified with several key issues-- are there several key issues that the "Religious Left" promotes?

153857[/snapback]

Yes there is and I am sure you could provide us with several if you wanted. An attempt to make Christianity a "cafeteria style" religion would be high on any list, wouldn't you think?

"We must not suppose that even if we succeeded in making everyone nice we

should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own

niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as

desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world -- and might even be

more difficult to save. For mere improvement is no redemption, though

redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end,

improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine." --C.S. Lewis

153863[/snapback]

You mean like peace and love? Feeding the hungry? Tending to the weak and infirm?

"Cafeteria style" is hardly left/right. If Christ returned today, whom do you think would remind him most of the Pharisees?

So do you have any actual positions you see the "Religious Left" as pushing?

[Piglet 0]

So do you have any actual positions you see the "Religious Left" as pushing?

Oh, you know...world peace, love, charity to the poor....radical hate-America stuff like that.

[TexasTiger 12,881]

So do you have any actual positions you see the "Religious Left" as pushing?

Oh, you know...world peace, love, charity to the poor....radical hate-America stuff like that.

153881[/snapback]

Oh, you mean values inspired by the Sermon on the Mount!

[AURaptor 1,125]

Oh, you mean values inspired by the Sermon on the Mount!

Exactly. Very timely. Those on the Religious Left who'd try to make Jesus out to be some sort of Political Revolutionary and would try to piggy-back the causes of Communism onto the back of Christ. Pope John-Paul II spoke out about this, and I'd suspect being from Poland, he'd know a thing or two about such things as Communism.

[TexasTiger 12,881]

Oh, you mean values inspired by the Sermon on the Mount!

Exactly. Very timely. Those on the Religious Left who'd try to make Jesus out to be some sort of Political Revolutionary and would try to piggy-back the causes of Communism onto the back of Christ. Pope John-Paul II spoke out about this, and I'd suspect being from Poland, he'd know a thing or two about such things as Communism.

153898[/snapback]

Got any links to any prominent member of the "Religous Left" piggy-backing "the causes of Communism?"

Pope Paul spoke out on a lot of things, and tended to have thread of consistency in his positions: against abortion, the death penalty the Iraq war. Got a link to him speaking to what you mention here?

[AURaptor 1,125]

I guess for some folks, it's all about the links.

OPENING ADDRESS AT THE PUEBLA CONFERENCE

In other cases people purport to depict Jesus as a political activist, as a fighter against Roman domination and the authorities, and even as someone involved in the class struggle. This conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth  does not tally with the Church's catechesis. Confusing the insidious pretext of Jesus' accusers with the attitude of Jesus himself — which was very different — people claim that the cause of his death was the result of a political conflict; they say nothing about the Lord's willing self-surrender or even his awareness of his redemptive mission. The Gospels show clearly that for Jesus anything that would alter his mission as the Servant of Yahweh was a temptation (Matt. 4:8; Luke 4:5). He does not accept the position of those who mixed the things of God with merely political attitudes (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; John 18:36). He unequivocally rejects recourse to violence. he opens his message of conversion to all, and he does not exclude even the publicans. The perspective of his mission goes much deeper. It has to do with complete and integral salvation through a love that brings transformation, peace, pardon, and reconciliation. And there can be no doubt that all this imposes exacting demands on the attitude of any Christians who truly wish to serve the least of their brothers and sisters, the poor, the needy, the marginalized; i.e. all those whose lives reflect the suffering countenance of the Lord

So, I don't have any 'prominent' members of the Relgious Left right off hand, but the basic issue was important enough to be mentioned. Remember, my initial point was that the MEDIA avoided even acknowledging the Religous Left, while we see the term "Religoius Right " on almost a daily basis.

[tiger88 934]

"It has to do with complete and integral salvation through a love that brings transformation, peace, pardon, and reconciliation."

Amen on that one. How many people have really achieved this???? Most Christians I know haven't even come close. They're too busy trying to damn everything to hell. I know I haven't.

[TexasTiger 12,881]

I guess for some folks, it's all about the links. 

OPENING ADDRESS AT THE PUEBLA CONFERENCE

In other cases people purport to depict Jesus as a political activist, as a fighter against Roman domination and the authorities, and even as someone involved in the class struggle. This conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth  does not tally with the Church's catechesis. Confusing the insidious pretext of Jesus' accusers with the attitude of Jesus himself — which was very different — people claim that the cause of his death was the result of a political conflict; they say nothing about the Lord's willing self-surrender or even his awareness of his redemptive mission. The Gospels show clearly that for Jesus anything that would alter his mission as the Servant of Yahweh was a temptation (Matt. 4:8; Luke 4:5). He does not accept the position of those who mixed the things of God with merely political attitudes (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; John 18:36). He unequivocally rejects recourse to violence. he opens his message of conversion to all, and he does not exclude even the publicans. The perspective of his mission goes much deeper. It has to do with complete and integral salvation through a love that brings transformation, peace, pardon, and reconciliation. And there can be no doubt that all this imposes exacting demands on the attitude of any Christians who truly wish to serve the least of their brothers and sisters, the poor, the needy, the marginalized; i.e. all those whose lives reflect the suffering countenance of the Lord

So, I don't have any 'prominent' members of the Relgious Left right off hand, but the basic issue was important enough to be mentioned. Remember, my initial point was that the MEDIA avoided even acknowledging the Religous Left, while we see the term "Religoius Right " on almost a daily basis.

153917[/snapback]

Those on the Religious Left who'd try to make Jesus out to be some sort of Political Revolutionary and would try to piggy-back the causes of Communism onto the back of Christ. Pope John-Paul II spoke out about this,

Its more about facts, actually, but that's what links should provide. Thanks for the link. Good stuff there.

Well, then it's still not clear who on the "Religious Left" in this country has done this, although there may be some reference by an obscure figure out there somewhere. So for you, "fair and balanced" news is reporting equally on a hardly identified "Religious Left" as one does on the highly organized and politically "Religious Right" which crows about its impact and influence and insists on attention. The word "bias" is just one more word subverted by those on the Right.

John Paul's quote here in not at all surprising. People in Jesus' day expected the Messiah to fight and defeat the Romans. He was clearly not political in that sense. He railed more against the Scribes, the Pharisees and the Hypocrites within the Church and did not concern himself much with the secular government. John Paul goes on in this speech to describe a liberation theology that makes the case for the Church's role as being primarily things more focused on by Progressives in this country than the Right, including the Religious Right. In fact, if I had said this things, you'd probably call me a Socialist.

It is prompted by an authentically evangelical commitment which, like that of Christ, is primarily a commitment to those most in need.

In fidelity to this commitment, the Church wishes to maintain its freedom with regard to the opposing systems, in order to opt solely for the human being. Whatever the miseries or sufferings that afflict human beings, it is not through violence, power-plays, or political systems but through the truth about human beings that they will find their way to a better future.

III—4. From this arises the Church's constant preoccupation with the delicate question of property ownership. …

This voice to the Church, echoing the voice of the human conscience, did not cease to make itself heard down through the centuries, amid the varied socio-cultural systems and circumstances. It deserves and needs to be heard in our age as well, when the growing affluence of a few people parallels the growing poverty of the masses.

It is then that the Church's teaching, which says that there is a social mortgage on all private property, takes on an urgent character. Insofar as this teaching is concerned, the Church has a mission to fulfill. It must preach, educate persons and groups, shape public opinion, and give direction to national officials. In so doing, it will be working for the good of society. Eventually this Christian, evangelical principle will lead to a more just and equitable distribution of goods, not only within each nation but also in the wide world as a whole. And this will prevent the stronger countries from using their power to the detriment of the weaker ones.

Those in charge of the public life of the States and nations will have to realize that internal and international peace will be assured only when a social and economic system based on justice takes effect.

Christ did not remain indifferent in the face of this vast and demanding imperative of social morality. Neither could the Church. In the spirit of the Church, which is the spirit of Christ, and supported by its ample, solid teaching, let us get back to work in this field. Here I must once again emphasize that the Church's concern is for the whole human being.

Thus an indispensable condition for a just economic system is that it foster the growth and spread of public education and culture. The juster an economy is, the deeper will be its cultural awareness. This is very much in line with the view of Vatican II: i.e., that to achieve a life worthy of a human being, one cannot limit oneself to having more; one must strive to be more (GS:35).

When Paul VI declared that development is the new name for peace (PP:76-79), he was thinking of all the ties of interdependence existing, not only within nations, but also between them on a worldwide scale. He took into consideration humanism, and that therefore lead on the international level to the ever increasing wealth of the rich at the expense of the ever increasing poverty of the poor.

…

There are many signs that help us to distinguish when the liberation in question is Christian and when, on the other hand, it is based on ideologies that make it inconsistent with an evangelical view of humanity, of things, and of events (EN:35). These signs derive from the content that the evangelizers proclaim or from the concrete attitudes that they adopt. At the level of content one must consider how faithful are they to the Word of God, to the Church's living tradition, and to its magisterium. As for attitudes, one must consider what sense of communion they feel, with the bishops first of all, and then with the other sectors of God's People. Here one must also consider what contribution they make to the real building up of the community; how they channel their love into caring for the poor, the sick, the dispossessed, the neglected, and the oppressed; and how, discovering in these people the image of the poor and suffering Jesus, they strive to alleviate their needs and to serve Christ in them (LG:8). Let us make no mistake about it: as if by some evangelical instinct, the humble and simple faithful spontaneously sense when the Gospel is being served in the Church and when it is eviscerated and asphyxiated by other interests.

As you see, the whole set of observations on the theme of liberation that were made by EVANGELII NUNTIANDI retain their full validity.

…

Permit me, then, to commend to your special pastoral attention the urgency of making your faithful aware of the Church's social doctrine.

Particular care must be devoted to forming a social conscience at all levels and in all sectors. When injustices increase and the gap between rich and poor widens distressingly, then the social doctrine of the Church — in a form that is creative and open to the broad areas of the Church's presence — should be a valuable tool for formation and action. This holds true for the laity in particular: "Secular duties and activities belong properly, although not exclusively, to laymen" (GS:43). It is necessary to avoid supplanting the laity, and to study seriously just when certain ways of substitutingfor them retain their raison d'etre. Is it not the laity who are called, by virtue of their vocation in the Church, to make their contribution in the political and economic areas, and to be effectively present in the safeguarding and advancing of human rights?

[AURaptor 1,125]

People in Jesus' day expected the Messiah to fight and defeat the Romans.

TT. I was unaware that you were a theologian AND a historian.

Glad us folks on this board are so lucky to be in the presence as one so learned in knowing what people in Jesus' day were expecting.

You want names of the Religious Left in this country? Already mentioned Jessie Jackson. How about Al Sharpton?

[TexasTiger 12,881]

People in Jesus' day expected the Messiah to fight and defeat the Romans.

TT. I was unaware that you were a theologian AND a historian.

Glad us folks on this board are so lucky to be in the presence as one so learned in knowing what people in Jesus' day were expecting.

You want names of the Religious Left in this country? Already mentioned Jessie Jackson. How about Al Sharpton?

153941[/snapback]

TT. I was unaware that you were a theologian AND a historian. 

Now you know. Acutally, it is hardly a hidden nugget that many Jews expected an earthly king who would restore their position of power vis a vis the Romans. I suspect this is not news to many, if not most, of the people on the board.

You mentioned two people who tend to get a great deal of press when they are active. Given his showing, Sharpton's coverage during the primaries was disporportionately large. Still, you seem to focus on African-Americans (the earlier Gore reference was in about when he appeared at a Black church). Most religious African-Americans are fairly conservative socially. Is this the group you identify as the Religious Left?

[AURaptor 1,125]

While Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are what I consider the religious Left, I don't presume that they speak for all the blacks in this country.

TT, and you really do need to do something about your sig... 1/2 a page of quotes is simply overkill.

[TexasTiger 12,881]

While Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are what I consider the religious Left, I don't  presume that they speak for all the blacks in this country.

TT, and you really do need to do something about your sig... 1/2 a page of quotes is simply overkill.

153947[/snapback]

The system would allow even more characters, so it must not be.

[tiger88 934]

I use the sig disable feature in the control panel and have never regretted it. Avatars too.