Here's one reason why. Looking over the agenda as it currently is posted, it's not just Jewish believers who aren't a part of GodBlogCon. I see one (tentative, potential) session on Eastern Orthodox Christianity and none for Roman Catholics.

Actually there appears to be a (tentative, potential) workshop on the itinerary you linked to for Roman Catholics listed right after the one on Orthodox Blogging (Item #17):

http://smartchristian.com/blog/index.php?p=1285

I think Matt is making too much of a name. I don't see why a Jewish (or exclusively Catholic) GodBlogCon would be offensive, either.

And isn't it also offensive to leap to the conclusion that a proposed Evangelical blogger convention is trying to make proprietary claims on God, or advocating "replacement theology" or some other anti-ecumenical heresy?

Let's be clear - there are a lot of bad ideas out there (like replacement theology) but there is also a lot of uninformed and unjustified suspicions that ought not to be stoked up without good reason. If objectionable content results from this convention, then by all means criticize that. When and if it happens.

Throley, you're right & I've updated the post to reflect that.

Still, it's telling that the Orthodox and Catholic sessions have no moderator so far. I get the impression that they are outside the general thrust of the conference. There certainly are Catholic bloggers who write about their faith - I can think of half a dozen off the top of my head, some of them very well known in the blogosphere.

Still, it's early in the organizing for this conference. Perhaps it will evolve. It will be interesting to see who leads the session on apologetics, for instance.

And here's a positive note: I wandered over to Blogicus, who will facilitate the pro-life session. I think I've been there before but have never lingered at the site. His blogroll links people across a variety of denominations, all united on this issue.

I'm a Roman Catholic who's not terribly offended by GodBlogCon's title. As a Southerner, I've lived among the heretics my whole life. They're actually usually pretty good people. Their attitude towards me seems to be "Fred's a good guy. Too bad he's going to roast in Hell some day, but hey, that's between him and God." And they usually leave it at that and relate to me as a person. I call that tolerance.

I call that tolerance

A pretty good definition. ;-)

there is also a lot of uninformed and unjustified suspicions that ought not to be stoked up without good reason. If objectionable content results from this convention, then by all means criticize that. When and if it happens.

Fair enough. But there's a larger issue I've been circling around and thinking about lately. I think we may be facing a challenging decade or more. Globalization has just begun to shake the tectonic plates of economies around the world. Islamacist jihadis aren't the only, and may well not be the last, non-state group that will turn to violence in an attempt to stave off the inevitable intrusion of the modern world.

My deep hope is that those of us who value Western civilization and the values on which it is founded find ways to affirm our commonality. It's a commonality that isn't exactly the same thing as being a Republican, a Christian or a conservative - as witness members of the WoC team.

And yet it's real and I deeply hope we work together as this decade and the next unfold. For all that we are celebrating a rainbow of democracy movements, it's not at all certain that the near future will be a bright one in Europe, the Middle East, or elsewhere.

It's not that I'm against the role of evangelical belief in the last election or in this upcoming conference. It's that I don't want celebration of that identity, or of Christianity itself, to swamp (and perhaps sink) the wider coalition that is emerging after 9/11 -- but which I'm not at all sure is as solidified as I'd like it to be.

Robin- I think you are trying to convolve two separate threads of US politics into a common phenomena, when in fact they act with far more independence than you seem to appreciate.

There are Americans who:
1. Think that active federalism is good in an issue, and those who don't. Call this the "statism" thread.
2. Think that "good vs bad" is based on absolute moral bases, or don't. Call this the "evangelic" thread.

Now, classic Democrats were all statists and most were evangelic, or at least in the early 20th century portrayed themselves as such. JFK, Wilson, or Bryan come to mind. Classic Republicans were less convinced of both, being more dissenting and Protestant and economically libertarian.

Lately the Democrats have dropped the evangelical component, almost entirely, but that doesn't make Republicans exclusively evangelicals. Far from it. The active foreign policy+moral evangelism alliance you note is merely of convenience due to GWB's careful posturing and the Democrats' total blindness to what they've lost in their exercise in moral agnosticism. But all this could become unraveled due to social trends not appreciated today. Western civilization encompasses all of these motifs, and I doubt if any US political party is going to veer too far from these basic philosophical concepts. The GOP has won elections lately because it seized the moral and political high ground in several ways since 1994, but don't count out the Democrats ad infinitum. They simply are not that stupid.

Answer: If I had to guess I'd say it's probably the Disney Corporation, through the diligent efforts of its copyright attorneys. You never know when that might come in handy.

But seriously...

Religious conservatives need to take a page from William Bennett. You can rail against the culture among your own, or you can go pen The Book of Virtues to deliver your message across cultural and even political lines, and enjoy huge success you can then leverage into your next change project (like K-12.com - which now supports many Christians in their home schooling efforts).

Look closely at The Book of Virtues and K-12.com, folks.

The book is not a story of Christian tales - indeed, many come from pagan cultures. But all of the stories are about the message that there is a right and wrong, that position or ethnicity doesn't confer moral immunity, and that people who act on this understanding are important and make a difference. That's attractive to parents of all religions, and leaves their children far better equipped to face the academic nihilists and casual attitudes of a culture many religious Christians see as hostile. If enough people absorb that message, the wider culture will even become less hostile, and more receptive to the kinds of public discussions religious conservatives want to have. It won't create agreement with conservative politics, but it will help get some discussions started and that's big progress.

But it only works if its message reaches and resonates beyond the conservative Christian community.

Now look at K-12.com, which is subversive in 2 ways. One, it places quality material within easy reach of parents who despair of the public school system's educational standards and political slant. So it gives people options, and in so doing it weakens a socio-political structure that many rightly see as questionably efective and hostile.

Of course, it also gives a driven Chinese Buddhist parent options, and its positive lessons about the immigrant experience and America as a good place, use of classical literature, and unashemed introduction of enduring values go down without a hitch. Same goes for the Orthodox Jew over there, and the Catholic mom yonder, and the family from India over there, and the Mormon mom here. Each will use it from their own point of view - and in so doing, each is reinforcing values and beliefs that bind them to each other and lift them beyond mass culture.

Let's imagine for a second that Bennett was Rev. Bennett instead. Let's also imagine that his desire to teach proper values and to give parents new schooling options using educationally-accepted materials were burning in him solely because of his faith in his Saviour Jesus Christ and Christ's message as the Rev. understood it.

In that alternate-reality future, he should do the exact same thing with the book and with K-12.com.

Sure, he could do this stuff for a solely Christian audience, using explicitly Christian references throughout. Most of our readers would be amazed to find out that (a) there is a Christian publishing and entertainment industry out there; and (b) it's huge by any standard. It would be a locked-in market.

Had he taken that route, of course, he would have constrained his business opportunities unnecessarily. He also would have vastly constrained the influence that both of these efforts would have had.

The Orthodox Jew who read The Book of Virtues to his kids every night, interspersed with Hasidic stories and fragments from the Talmud? Gone. Was it worth it to miss that opportunity? The Mormon mom who wanted to use K-12.com as a source for home schooling? Not sure her church would approve. Was her loss worth it? The Chinese Buddhist mom? Sending her kids to a non-religious private school, and now you can kiss the news program in 10 years about her home schooling success story goodbye. Too bad, because that story would have turned around an important ballot initiative that ends up restricting Christians' (and indeed, everyone's) home schooling options.

But that's what happens again and again if they focus on Jesus Christ as an icon, rather than their our understanding of his message and the friends it can find them in the world. If this stuff really is The Truth, then aspects of The Truth can be seen by people who don't necessarily believe as you do. Their seeing is still grounds for welcome, and celebration. (A good lesson for libertarian-leaning conservatives like myself, too).

Useful political maxim for anyone inclined not to push the comfort zone in the face of disagreement, whether liberal or conservative: Unless the wider culture changes too, it's going to cost you. Marketing and packaging can help, but it's not the foundation; you have to build that beyond your group, and it happens one at a time.

The ghetto sucks as a place to live. Kick down the walls, and make some friends. Give respect based on common ground, and demand it in turn. Come out and play...

Many already do. More ought to.

Tom Roberts:
I think the Democrats are that stupid.

Robin:
Here's what I don't understand -- why would anyone (Jewish or otherwise) have the audacity to tell any component of Christianity that it is somehow inappropriate to associate an activity they are organizing (which is founded on their faith) with the center of their faith, namely -- "God" ???

I don't get that.

We all have our faith. If Roman Catholics (or Muslims, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Russian Orthodox, etc.) organized something similar, with a similar name, it would not occur to me to suggest to them what seems to be suggested in this posting.

"But I have some quiet discomfort at the way in which evangelical Christian identity and conservative political identity are equated a bit too easily by some in the blogophere and the electorate."

Can you really write that -- and mean it -- and truly state that you respect their faith? For, in all honesty, isn't the "discomfort" you note based on a certain lack of tolerance for the very same evangelical Christians that are the subject of this post? Because their presence seems a bit too broad, too majoritarian?

And if this is the case, shouldn't the focus of the post really be on those folks who aren't evangelical Christians and their tolerance or lack thereof vis-a-vis evangelicals?

Evangelicals who are libertarian puzzle the H. out of me. How they reconcile the Money=Ethics cant of of Ayn Rand with the teachings of the guy who whipped the money changers for making a little innocent agio is beyond me.

BTW, the correct translation, after correcting for a missing diacritical mark, is "rope through the eye of a needle."

I am interested to know further why you think a conference like this might alienate other members of the "coalition" (as you call it). I've also posted other thought here

Correction: I've also posted a defense of the ecumenical nature of GodBlogCon here.

Brian H,

I, for my part, am puzzled by people who think libertarian thought starts and finishes with Rand.

RattleGator, I wrote (and meant):

it's natural for those who sincerely hold Christian beliefs to lay claim to the name of God when discussing their activities as Christians.

Keep that in mind when you read the next paragraph:

But I have some quiet discomfort at the way in which evangelical Christian identity and conservative political identity are equated a bit too easily by some in the blogophere and the electorate.

Matt raised the question of the conference's name out of his own identity as a believing Jew. I moved that question to the political sphere because I do see signs that many evangelical Christians, in particular, see themselves as being the core and/or the main part of the conservative movement - and blur the religious and political spheres.

Am I bothered that people vote based on religious conviction? No - that is both right and good.

Do I believe that this country was founded, in the various original colonies, on a variety of JudeoChristian traditions who share many beliefs and values? You bet. Some of those founders are my ancestors.

And that's exactly why I am cautious about making too explicit a link between one such tradition and political events. Those ancestors of mine who settled in Pennsylvania well before the Revolution braved the dangerous and expensive voyage, risked settling in a new world without friends or family and built their church before they built their houses - they did this to get out from under a government that was identified with a single Christian denomination.

So when I go to CPAC, for instance, I'm not bothered by expressions of faith among attendees. But I start growing cautious when the official prayer (singular) at the awards banquet is openly Christian, quoting the New Testament and otherwise using exclusively Christian doctrine while just barely avoiding an open invocation of Christ's name.

And I grow cautious when I hear evangelicals speak about God's will for George Bush in terms that suggest God is a Republican and the Republican party is Evangelical Christian.

I think that's bad theology and, at a practical level, a political stance that will quite likely cause many centrists to vote the other way next time.

Now, evangelicals are free to do as their conscience directs and I will help them fight for that right. But is it wise not to hear the concerns that Matt and I, in different ways, raise?

FWIW, an open disclosure. I hold a Master of Divinity degree from a well known Christian seminary (although I am not ordained and my professional paid career has been wholly secular). My theological concerns are not lightly adopted or stated casually.

The issue of whom has the best claim on "God" is one of the reasons I don't think the right/conservative (r/c) will last as a political movement much longer especially one capable of political leadership. The r/c inevitably pushes people away because there is no distinction made between "god" and conservatism. Everytime I find myself agreeing with foreign policy or economic issues that the r/c presents I look into the background of the organizations supporting these issues to often it is run by Christian theocrats whom intend to push their view of social policy(If you doubt me look at the organization of the local Republican party where you live). And with it comes a smug moralism that we are better than you.

The nexus point is always on social policy. Even now we see the debates about your observations of the CPAC almost a civil war between the libertarian right and the religious right. People disliked what is to often called the "PC" speech of the left because it identified moral issues like racism and sexism in common everyday life and attempted to change the way collectively we looked at these issues. We didn't buy the idea it was just "God's" blessing that made America great but over two hundred years of internal struggle, for the most part untouched by the military strife in the rest of the world and certainly not on our shores after 1865. And during which vicious ugly things were done in the name of "God".

Everyone has always called for and appealed to people in the "rightousness" of their beliefs but what is so scary to many moderate and liberal members of the left is the conviction of "rightness" on the part of the r/c. Even when we agree with the r/c over a particular issue their is a demand that we repent and become true believers. It's repugnant and offensive.

I think that is what you see when a blog conference is called GodBlogCom and ask correctly that it at minimum recognize a plurality in the belief of god or whoms "god" they are referring to

Lets be honest here....

Although the use of God's name in a religiously exclusionary context is offensive enough to many people, "GodBlogCon" goes much further.

Despite officially proclaiming that the gathering will not be centered in "one brand of politics", a quick perusal of the topics and "facilitators" (not to mention the "special evening" with far-right winger Hugh Hewitt) shows a decided far-right wing political bias.

One looks in vain for discussion of Christianity based blogging for the promotion of peace or social and economic justice -- instead we find workshops on "pro-life blogging" (there are many pro-choice Christians) and "Blogging Christian Philosophy" facilitated by a Creationist.

Even the workshop on political blogging, where you would expect to find some balance, features one progressive Christian (Good luck, Debi!), one relatively sane conservative Christian, and a notorious wingnut.

Even Jeff Jarvis, whom most progressives find an anathema, feels he would be unwelcome at this conference because of his "unorthodox" beliefs such as support for the First Amendment.

In other words, its not "Christians" that are trying to hijack God's name, but a specifically political brand of "Christians" that are doing so.

Is it just a naming issue? If so, then get over it.

Evangelical Christians believe in God so the label works. The issue is whether you believe it is "your" God.

Besides, a Jewish God won't refer it to name. You'll get G-D instead.

If you follow the recent issues of the 10 Commandments and religion in public life, God is often referred to as the Judeo-Christian religion. Make no mistake, references to God is usually assumed to be Christian.

On another note, why do we still have the Democratic Party? The names means nothing to me. Democrats don't seem to promote democratic values anymore.

Make no mistake, references to God is usually assumed to be Christian.

and people wonder why Evangelicals are so often accused of anti-Semitism...

I originally said "Make no mistake, references to God is usually assumed to be Christian."

You said "and people wonder why Evangelicals are so often accused of anti-Semitism..."

Gee, I wasn't accusing Evangelical Christians as assuming the term GOD means Christian, but everyone else like the Democrats and the secularists. This is often easily documented.

Howard Dean used the term "God, gays, and guns." Surely he is referring to Christians.

Evangelicals are strong supporters of Israel. You can't say the same for the liberal Democrats or the liberal elites or liberal Christians.

Howard Dean used the term "God, gays, and guns." Surely he is referring to Christians.

in fact, if you bothered to understand what Dean was talking about, it was pretty obvious that he was not talking only about Christians. Instead, he said that voters should not decide who should be president based on "God, gays, and guns" and was speaking to the GOP's use of "wedge issues" because on the issues of real importance to the nation, (the economy, education, social security, foreign policy) the American people overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party agenda. It is only by exploiting hate, fear, and bigotry that the GOP can win elections, and Dean was pointing that out.

"Evangelicals are strong supporters of Israel. You can't say the same for the liberal Democrats or the liberal elites or liberal Christians."

complete nonsense. Support for Israel is not, as you would have it, support for the genocidal policies of Ariel Sharon and the Likud party. Democrats and "the liberal elite" advocate ensuring Israel's security by ending the cycle of violence, not supporting the murder of innocents under the auspices of the state of Israel.

Is GOD a "wedge issue"?

Of course, Howard Dean is assuming God believers are Christians who are concerned about issues of values. These Christians won't vote for Democrats.

Instead of saying the Democrats share those values and religion, you jump mighty quickly on bigotry, fear, and hate like a talking point.

Howard Dean knows how to use a phrase. He did it so effectively in one soundbite.

God is a neutral term, but I get the feeling it isn't so neutral in society. There is a God gap between the political parties.

Your position on Israel is disappointing.

Evangelicals are strong supporters of Israel. You can't say the same for the liberal Democrats or the liberal elites or liberal Christians.

This was not always so, and the reasons why it is so today are deeply misunderstood.

The thing that most people don't understand about the evangelical churches is that they focus on religious matters, and generally think it very uncool to talk politics, or any other non-scriptural matter, from the pulpit. Abortion is probably an exception here. Apart from that, if you want a political sermon you have to go to a "liberal" denomination.

The evangelicals of 30 years ago were no more likely to be political conservatives than any other American, and included a high percentage of Democrats. They were, however, overwhelmingly social conservatives. Today they are more Republican and more politically conservative, because it has become much harder to reconcile political liberalism with social conservatism. For that sea change, you can thank the Democratic Party first and foremost - especially because of its eagerness to go charging after the abortion issue like a bull at a gate.

The drift towards pro-Israel sentiment came from a number of currents. The Republican Party, with which evangelicals increasingly identify, drifted that way. So did the country as a whole, and evangelicals are heavily patriotic, identifying with America's friends and opposing America's enemies. Finally, it was part of a long-overdue ecumenical revival in which Jews, Catholics, and Protestants decided to get along - again, the catalyst was social conservatism. Again, the Democratic Party served as the unwilling midwife.

There was another movement as well, which the enemies of evangelicalism like to seize on in order to spread suspicion. Pro-Israel sentiments were heavily pumped by televangelists, notably Jerry Falwell, and by people who are obsessed with prophecy and apocalypse. This had a generally positive effect in helping to squash the old anti-Semitism, but it hardly explains the pro-Israel sentiment of the major evangelical congregations who are opposed to millennialism.

Liberals like to pound a wedge in at that point, telling Jews that evangelicals are all Hal Lindsey fanatics who are not to be trusted. Instead, they tell them to trust liberals who blame Israel for the "cycle of violence" - even if they don't go as far as lukasiak, throwing murder and genocide into the indictment.

For that sea change, you can thank the Democratic Party first and foremost - especially because of its eagerness to go charging after the abortion issue like a bull at a gate.

actually, the "sea change" occurred when Nixon employed his "southern strategy" to encourage the racist Wallace Democrats to abandon the Democratic party (which had made racists unwelcome) and vote for the GOP.

To suggest that "values" were really the issue, when the real divide between Bush and Kerry was that of free states and slave states---well, it certainly suggests that the "values" that the GOP has been pushing are those of white supremacists. (I mean, really....explain to me how a culture that still celebrates its war in defense of slavery can consider be considered to have "values").

Glen Wishard: You overstate the influence of televangelists in the support of Israel.

I think many Christian conservative support Israel because we believe in the same God. Jesus Christ isn't the same God that Jews worship, but they have the same origins. The God of the Hebrews evolved into Jesus Christ as the Savior.

Jews should be respected. They are our friend. They also fight the same enemy, which is Islamic extremism. In the past, the Islamic hatred is mainly directed towards Israel, but with 911, we could not ignore it so we see ourselves as being in the same fight against terrorists.

Liberals don't see this fight as a just war. They are against Israel's methods just as they are against the War in Iraq. I see the Middle East war as the same thing whether in Israel or Iraq.

Culturally, the movie "Passion of the Christ" reinforces the bond between Christians and Jews. Christians are not at war with Jews. In fact, we want Jews to realize the savior is The Christ as God intended. Despite our religious differences, we support our Jewish friends.

One day we will all be in the same boat spiritually. Until then, we will be in the same boat on Earth.

Robin:

You said, "it's natural for those who sincerely hold Christian beliefs to lay claim to the name of God when discussing their activities as Christians.

Keep that in mind when you read the next paragraph"

And I assure you that I understood you the first time and did, in fact, keep that modification in mind. That was the very reason for my response, in fact. Unfortunately, it seems to me that you've given a detailed response but not addressed "what I don't get." Do you or do you not suspect the discomfort you feel is based on the perceived majoritarian ascendance of evangelicals?

You seem to place great weight on a bifurcation of 1) activities undertaken as Christians, and 2) activities undertaken in the political sphere. In fact, you state "I moved that question to the political sphere because I do see signs that many evangelical Christians, in particular, see themselves as being the core and/or the main part of the conservative movement - and blur the religious and political spheres."

It occurs to me, however, that an evangelical will not make that bifurcation and you seem to want to deny said evangelicals that viewpoint. That's the extremely curious thing to me. That non-bifurcation viewpoint is likely central to their understanding of their personal faith yet there is expressed in this thread "discomfort" with evangelicals organizing accordingly.

"And that's exactly why I am cautious about making too explicit a link between one such tradition and political events." Fine, Robin -- from the outside keep that caution. Who would begrudge you that right? It likely will prove to be a good counterbalance. However, all politics reduces down to multiple coalitions of the willing. And from within, evangelicals (as one part of the coalition) must consider it mighty strange indeed that a discomfort from outside their faith tradition but inside the political coalition, and based on a bifurcation of faith and politics that they likely don't ascribe to, should require a change in naming protocols so that non-evangelicals in the coalition won't be made to feel discomfort.

Respect their faith -- that is my point. "But is it wise not to hear the concerns that Matt and I, in different ways, raise?" Of course not. I'm simply requesting (and it seems entirely reasonable to me) that you and Matt consider the possibility that your concerns first and foremost require further personal introspection.

"My theological concerns are not lightly adopted or stated casually." Of that I have no doubt. All the more reason, it seems to me, for my question. Because in this one quote:

"At least in its current nascent form, it appears that it's really pretty much just EvangelicalProtestantBlogCon. A perfectly fine and good thing to have. But maybe under some other name than the one being advertised."

I think you betray the need for further personal introspection. Pretty much just? Evangelical Protestants, I'm fairly certain, have a personal relationship with God and to them and many others your initial question, "Who owns God in politics and the blogosphere?" no doubt seems inapposite.

We all own God. Including Evangelical Protestants. So there is no "pretty much just," right?

Re: "friends" of Israel

Congrats to p.lukasiak for claiming to be a friend of Israel, and then dropping the mask all by himself by the time he was finished his comment.

"We really love you, you murdering bastards who deserve the violence you receive."

Sounds like a winning sub-text to me.

Some thoughts for the moderate liberal-left

This was interesting, from Robert M. (#15)

"...what is so scary to many moderate and liberal members of the left is the conviction of "rightness" on the part of the r/c. Even when we agree with the r/c over a particular issue their is a demand that we repent and become true believers. It's repugnant and offensive."

Actually, this paragraph is an excellent explanation of why the Christian groups are involved in politics at all - they've been on the receiving end of that very dynamic for 30 years now from liberals and the left, who see and use many public institutions (schools/universities, municipal services, etc.) in those very terms. Repent of your faith, and become true believers in ours. And just to make sure, we'll put your kids through "sensitivity training" or whatever the fad of the day is to convince them we're right, and also work to drive you from the public square. While celebrating other religious traditions as "diversity." Now throw in snobbishness and hostility toward "unenlightened" religious people.

The inevitable reaction to all that didn't surprise me one iota, and still doesn't. If liberalism and the left creates the impression that destroying this group and converting its kids away are de facto priorities, it kind of makes sense that those who feel targeted would see the struggle as one between rival religions (which it is, for the most part) and set up +/- columns for conversions.

I say this with amusement, but no irony: perhaps it's worth asking yourselves: "why do they hate us?" - and removing the irritants in question.

You may even find that the religious conservatives will trickle out of politics completely, once you're no longer playing the midwife role to their movement.

Some thoughts for religious conservatives

While acknowledging that many on the liberal-left ARE hostile to religion and WILL use the power of the state to further that hostility, I'll take a moment to ask my religious friends if conversion is necessary, or just insistence on genuine tolerance for a religious lifestyle (which certainly isn't felt these days) and acceptance of common values without requiring common beliefs. These 2 pillars would then become the central tenets of an asymetrical response, vid. my points in comment #8

Useful and deeper conversations can happen along the way of course - and they'll be many-way, not even 2-way. Indeed, they must be many-way. for 3 reasons:

First of all, because there are other faiths who feel the same lack of tolerance you do, and they ought to be welcomed into the discussion. Stuff that sounds like "God" is owned by one denomination divides those who are interested in a moral society with a strong foundation of principles that you find important, at the very time when they ought to be brought together. "GodBlogCon" is fine, IMO, but there should have been a wider invite list to make that clear and build a better foundation. Don't leave your friends outside the door, it isn't nice OR smart.

Second, because ethics may be guided by faith, but politics is a matter of works at its deepest heart. It's possible to harmonize that, but NOT by collapsing the conflict to "faith, always." While I'd agree that your personal choices must be guided by faith, political coalitions are at heart guided by works. Which means they aren't about conversion to a faith, just acceptance of common principles around specific issues, followed by agreed-upon action. Thus groweth the tent, that we can stand together of many beliefs but one heart.

Third, those conversations need to be many-way because your allies will want to be listened to and taken seriously... just as you yourself will want to be listened to and taken seriously. If that happens, they'll hear some wisdom that maybe they weren't expecting - and so will you.

For instance, I (and I think Robert, too) have some values of my own around science that I'd like y'all to pay close attention to. I think they're bound up with the very foundation of America's political order in a way that goes every bit as deep as the Judeo-Christian tradition (indeed, America's foundations are a meld of both), and in a way that protects and defends religious conservatives to this day.

I think it might behoove you to listen to that, and be more cautious about taking swings at science. Just as you (rightly) point out that it might behoove some libertarians to be more cautious about being careless with the moral legacy and foundation upon which the durability of their political freedoms ultimately depends.

So, my thought to both sides of this one. "Nuff said.

"Culturally, the movie "Passion of the Christ" reinforces the bond between Christians and Jews. Christians are not at war with Jews. In fact, we want Jews to realize the savior is The Christ as God intended. Despite our religious differences, we support our Jewish friends.

One day we will all be in the same boat spiritually. Until then, we will be in the same boat on Earth."

Wow.

Wow indeed. Even this heathen can recognize a sincere expression of faith when he sees one. The only threat is the one of enternal damnation. Most Christians leave that decision to God. Echoing the earlier chorus: "I call that tolerance", which you'd think could run both ways. We should not expect Christians to be silent about their beliefs, nor should they.

Perhaps I misunderstood the "Wow"?

Maybe I'm reading something into the line "One day we will all be in the same boat spiritually" that isn't there.

Something like the Spanish Inquisition perhaps?

Joe Katzman (#8, #24):

For an example of a social and religious conservative alienating potential social (but not religious) allies, consider James Dodson's spate of books on child-raising from the 1980s. (Yes, that James Dodson, but this comment refers back to when he was writing as a child psychologist.) The books contain some hard-headed good advice, along with some not-so-great prescriptions--and along with heavy doses of fundamentalist Christian justification.

I got a lot out of these books, but I don't think many of us non-fundy-Christians would stay with him through the alienating sermons. Per your aphorism, his approach wasn't necessarily either nice, or wise. (I won't hijack this thread by getting into whether his advice is actually good or not; most parent-readers would agree with YMMV on that point.)

#27, #28, #29:

"Wow" (referring to #24, Christian/Jewish mutual tolerance and Passion of the Christ)

Perhaps there is a back-story I'm missing? Said tolerance between and among religions rates as a good thing in my book. The point Tim FG was making from a Christian point of view, as I read it.

I misunderstood.

praktike, I think I would be willing to trade my track record of misunderstanding for yours :-)

Given the fact of no direct response to my question -- I am left to conclude that a recent statement from Slate's Mickey Kaus of March 2nd, in response to the ridiculous transgendered objections of Jada Pinkett Smith's address at Harvard, applies here as well:

"Part of being a minority in a democratic society with a clear majority is that you don't find yourself validated and celebrated all the time everywhere, no?"

And you know what's a big deal and what isn't, and what respecting the faith of another means.

It's quite possible that I missed it (quite possible) but I haven't seen any indication that the GodBlogCon folks are excluding Jews, Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc.

Who owns God, indeed.

You missed it.

From the Smart Christian:

The CHRISTIAN Blogosphere Convention (GodBlogCon 2005)

INVITED GUESTS: We invite all Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christian bloggers. GodBlogCon is a Christian Convention which is rooted in historical Biblical faith and Christian creeds ... And so the Convention will not include individuals from other religions or other self-proclaimed distinct groups such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science.

Which is, as I've mentioned more than once, something they have every right to do. Moreover, I agree with where they draw the boundaries of Christianity.

The rest I won't rehash here.

Much obliged, Robin. I think my opinion stands; they've explicitly made it Christian (obviously, I see no issue with that) and this Christian-centric emphasis, apparently, is your issue -- not the evangelical angle that your "pretty much just" comment implied to me.