I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin, by any stretch of the imagination. However, as a pro-life Democrat who voted for the Obama-Biden ticket, I found it disheartening that many on the Left attacked Sarah Palin for her religious beliefs.

Sarah Palin's religious identity and beliefs should have been completely irrelevant in the secular, political arena. It's possible to discuss politics without bringing religion into it. Secular arguments are religiously neutral, and thus applicable to everyone--including atheists and agnostics.

In her essay "Life and Peace," for example, pro-life feminist Juli Loesch describes her attendance at a Holly Near concert to benefit a local antinuclear group. She encounters literature tables for Native American folkways, Save the Whales, Ban the Bomb. Peace. Humanity. Abortion.

"ABORTION?" she writes. "It was as if I’d been handed a flowered note that contained a death threat. My hands went cold. I went back to my seat, my heart clogged. The irony was that I’d come to oppose abortion as a direct result of my own antinuclear activism."

Loesch writes that when she spoke out against abortion at an antinuclear gathering, she:

"...tried to present a meticulous secular case against abortion. I marshalled all the scientific evidence...I followed it up with the most basic principle found in every human ethical system...do not do to others what you would not like done to you.

"This was rewarded by a brief silence, which was broken by a single question:

‘Are you a Catholic?’

‘Am I a Catholic? That has nothing to do with...’

‘So you ARE a Catholic?’

‘Yes, but...’

‘Well, then. You’re imposing your religious beliefs...’

"And, therefore, I suppose, I lose."

I made a similar point in an interview with Abolitionist-Online in Australia. To argue (as some Christians do) that animal rights and vegetarianism are solely "Jewish" concerns is kind of like saying, "It's only wrong to own a slave if you're a Quaker." No. Suffering and injustice concern us all. Moral absolutes apply to everyone--including atheists and agnostics.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is 1.6 million strong (larger than any pro-life group), but try and discuss animal rights and vegetarianism with Christians apart from religion (since we're not trying to "convert" them to another religion--we just want them to stop being cruel to animals) and all they can think of is the MOVE !

I encounter "Christians," who, rather than answer the simple question: "Is it ethical to do to other animals what we would never do to other human beings?", focus on things like my religious identity as a practicing Hindu, whether we Hindus worship in "churches" or "temples," whether or not we have to "work" for our salvation, whether we refer to sinners as "dogs" or use half a dozen different animal words (dogs, hogs, crows, cows, camels, asses... and with reincarnation in mind!), etc. These have nothing to do with the issue at hand!

Absolute truths apply to everyone; only a bigot would see them as sectarian. Hitler, for example, made the mistake of thinking Albert Einstein's scientific discoveries were merely "Jewish science" and therefore not applicable to gentiles. (In this case, perhaps it's fortunate that Hitler had such a bigoted mentality, or the Nazis might have gotten the bomb before us!)

Some Christians understand this. When I pointed out to Catholic pro-lifer Jim Frey of Berkeley Pro-Life that animal rights and vegetarianism apply to everyone, including atheists and agnostics, he said, "Just like with abortion."

Usually, it's the right which obsesses over one's religious identity--not the Left.

Regardless of how one feels about gun control, for example, does it really matter which church Jim & Sarah Brady worship at?

Again, Sarah Palin's religious identity and beliefs should have been completely irrelevant in the secular, political arena. It's possible to discuss politics without bringing religion into it. Let's just focus on the issues at hand.

Liberals argue that principle of the separation of church and state (upon which the United States was founded) gives us freedom FROM religious tyranny and theocracy.

Conservatives argue (the other side of the coin!) that one of the reasons America's founding fathers established the separation of church and state was to prevent government intrusion into religious affairs.

chadborman asks: "Why do liberals hate Christians?"

I ask in response: "Why do conservatives interfere 'right now' in the internal affairs of minority religions and other social movements?"