It would help in these discussions if the important distinction between faith and belief were clarified. The root word for faith comes from (fidare- to trust), which is process and relationship rather than the static meaning of belief, which is to hold fast to a conceptual formulation, or tenet, or ideology. The word faith on the other hand is equally applicable to a dynamic and changing relationship of friendship, spouse, family, or in the spiritual sense, to the Divine, the Universe, or Source. It is a misuse of the word "faith" in my view to reduce it to belief as religious fundamentalists have done, whether it be the textual/biblical fundamentalism of the fundamentalist evangelicals or the institutional fundamentalism of other Christian sects.

I am not nearly as frustrated in this realm as you seem to be, but I can relate and MAN did this make me laugh. I think using humor to get a serious point across is one of the highest art forms and so I must say - well done.

Ha, ha, ya. But it's hard work to argue honestly, Pat.

"Like Christianity, Progressivism's spread depends on changing minds."

Wheeeee! Do we absolutely have to do the Roman Circus and the Crusades things before we start the Inquisition??? Do we? Do we? Do we? Couldn't we do it all simultaneously the way Jeezhadists have been arguing and preparing for??

"When challenged on certain insane sounding assertions, the worst of them go to one of the most worthless (and most common) arguments ever offered:

I can't understand."

Sounds like Progressives and Conservatives (not) carrying on a conversation. I agree, there are plenty of close-minded people in religion and politics.

Here's one good answer taking place in Oregon for Progressives to turn to: Oregon Center for Christian Values.

Reason is one of the things missing from both ends of the poilitical spectrum. I am liberal because I am convinced there is no "self-defense" argument for the death penalty vs. perpetual incarceration. I am conservative because I cannot see the reasonable argument that a child moments before being born has no rights. I am liberal because I think that "government"-meaning "we" collectively have right and duty to care for the poor as one body of people. I am conservative because I think the "common good" implies objective goods and not mere caprice.

Pat Here's another reason I'm a liberal. I think choices in favor of the environment are needed. We have to leave to future generations an inhabitable planet in accordance with the order we can see in nature. The "common good" is something I'm sure we can come together on because we're part of nature and are entrusted with it. We are entrusted with it because we are the only discernable species I see able to act freely (apart from simply instinct).

We can't go on exhausting the resources of the planet. Our selfishness has to take a place behind tought. The thawing of glaciers, the greenhouse effect, the building carbon dioxide problem, all coupled with the increase of natural disasters has me very concerned. We have to restrain our use of forests and all other natural reserves.

Poor countries suffer the most because of the attitudes of the industrialized world and the sometimes excessive trust in scientific and technical progress.

The richest nations should not to abuse resources of developing countries just because they can. There has to be a return to them in some way for the revenue derived from their resources. It's a matter of justice and equity. The goods of the earth are destined for all people of all times.

Surely our intelligence has possibilities for bringing about a new, lasting course of action.

Faith is the agreement we make when God reveals himself to us. In a way, the Thanksgiving holiday we just celebrated is symbolic of that. God is on his own side- and because he made us- he is on ours. We have to be on ours.

The common good requires us to step back from our own wants and pains and take a bigger look. This country is built on sacrifices- Lincoln noted that a society as blessed as we could help lead this kind of change. Democracy ("under God"), as he said, is the "last, best hope of the earth."

Democracy under god may be great for some, but I'm not buying it. Our nation is a nation of laws created by We The People. Our rights were granted us by our creator, but I just view it as our birthright-

I am a pro life, anti death penalty atheist. What I believe and feel I can explain to you without having to rely on an invisible sky wizard or whatever for direction.

There is a tax free institution provided to those who want to do the faith thing- its called your church. Reason is all that should be needed to properly ensure our democracy. When faith gets involved and reason flies out the door, no amount of evidence at all can be injected into the situation.

" I believe it just because I do " is just a cop out, and has no basis in good government. Citizens need to view each other as a group, and compassion, sympathy and empathy is what should be involved as we are all human, we all have families and we all have the unalienable right to live our lives. We have an absolute need to base policy decisions on FACTS.

Raul I hope your hostility is not directed at me. Like you, I can explain my positions using reason, which I indicated in my first post. I intend no wrong toward you or anyone else. As Lincoln said again, "We are friends, we must not be enemies."

I am sorry if you took my post as hostility toward you..I just don't agree with your ideas regarding faith-

The whole god reveals itself deal should have nothing to do with how we choose to govern ourselves, or how we choose those who represent us.

Whenever I disagree with anyone regarding their religious views, it always seems to be taken as a personal affront. There is no anger here- that seems to be how religious folks seem to feel when I choose not to accept their chosen mythology.

Personally, I feel religion is harmful. Reagan's Interior Secretary felt that we could do anything we want to our environment because Jesus is coming back soon.

Separating ourselves from the situation that we live in, with the hope of heaven, adhering to Manifest Destiny, demanding our leaders should be religious, this is all archaic thinking.

Once again, if you want to do the religion thing- do it at church. That is what the first ammendment is all about. Civic thinking should be based on a morality that reflects how policies affect real people, not invisible spirits.

And Pat Ryan, I see what you did there. That was funny and made me laugh out loud. You owe me a new keyboard.

Thanks Raul. Perhaps I was mistaken. But the suggestions that I let "reason fly out the door", that "I believe it just because I do" and that I "cop out" are unfounded based on what I have said so far. Maybe you were just generalizing about "my kind of people." If so, this is a faulty assumption. Likewise, it doesn't logically follow that religion is harmful, simply because individuals make certain conclusions about it.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. We can't totally walk in each others shoes, can we?

Understandably, not everyone believes in God. Further, not everyone who says they have this faith can agree, or often even come very close to agreeing, concerning the implications of knowing God. So, it doesn't make sense to point to some group or Church groups to direct our affairs- there's no agreement anyway. Reason is the strongest tool that we all agree on to have the "great conversation" with. But persons who encounter God cannot, should not have to deny that they do. Conversely, agnostics and atheists should not have to say or act as though they are not- in order to maintain their place in society. I doubt anyone is correct about everything, but that does not disqualify one from their right to have a say in society's policies. Each one is naturally going to support the legislation and/or people whom they feel best represent themselves.

I don't know if you mean to say that the very topic of God's or religion's place in society should be limited to private homes and Church properties. Perhaps not. If not, I don't know what you mean. If so, that would not be the purpose of the First Amendment. It would be unreasonable to think so- since the same people who proposed and enacted that amendment didn't hesitate to discuss what they believed were the implications of faith in legislative session.

<h2>Rather, the amendment, I think, seems to protect free people from the kind of institutional subjugation I mentioned in the 3rd paragraph.</h2>