"The 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed 138-34 by Republicans and 153-96 by Democrats. Nearly THREE TIMES as many Democrats voted against the act as did Republicans. The act itself was almost derailed by the Southern DEMOCRATS."

Civil Rights aren't about Democrats and Republicans, they're about liberals and conservatives. If you know anything about politics and the South for the past 150 years, they've been traditionally Democrats since after the Civil War, when the then liberal Republicans took away states rights & slavery. They clung to the title Democrocrat even after Roosevelt's reforms, but stuck with their conservative ideologies. They only began to associate themselves nationally with the Republicans with the Civil Rights Movement. Even today, much of the old Confederacy has Democrat controlled state and local governments, but routine elect Republicans to national offices. All this to say, Southern Democrats may have voted against Civil Rights, but they were in no way shape or form liberals.

I recently did quite a bit of research on the religious right's claim to 'Christian' roots. Two scholars, Derek Davis and Matthew McMearty, wrote the article, “America's ‘Forsaken Roots’: The Use and Abuse of Founders' Quotations,” found in Journal of Church & State, Summer2005, Vol47 Issue 3, p449-472. Davis and McMearty debunked many of the ongoing myths within the religious right about Christian claims of America being founded upon 'Christian' values. They cite much evidence that many of our early leaders were deists and that “Church membership was very low (less than 30 percent) among the citizens of the various colonies during the period between the First and Second Great Awakening” (450).

I found this quote from Davis' and McMearty's essay quite appropriate, and wish it could be mandatory reading for all Christians who buy into the current misinformation: “The Bible does not require that political and governmental affairs be Christian… [they] do not fail God if the negotiated products, even laws on such controversial areas as school prayer, do not meet their standards (471). If Christians want absolute freedom to spread the gospel, they must refuse to make America a religious state with the authority to define its religious character in ways that might impede their ability to determine God's truth for themselves and to share it with others” (472).

W. Green, you are so misguided in so many ways. First of all, this is not 1963! Let’s start by updating our dictionary:

Liberal Republican--a Republican who is liberal relatively speaking, i.e., when compared to Rick Santorum. A liberal Republican should never be confused with a liberal, however. They are more like libertarians.

Dixiecrat--A southern racist Democrat. These politicians do not exist at the national level anymore. These people were never "liberals." They eventually changed to Republicans and/or died. These people explain your misleading Civil Rights Act numbers.

Democrats may well be liberals, but not necessarily. You can’t make the mistake of saying all Democrats are liberals, and all liberals are Democrats. There are lots of liberals who are not Democrats. But they sure aren't conservatives, either.

So yes, the Democrats have a spotty history in regards to civil rights. Liberals do not. There is a difference.

The best example of what I mean when I say that republicans and conservatives are hostile to civil/human rights is Dick Cheney, who was the SOLE person to vote in favor of apartheid in the 80s. That is a much more relevant fact than your skewed Civil Rights Act fable.

I'm not understanding all of the feigned astonishment at equating Republicans with civil rights. Check your history, people! The 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed 138-34 by Republicans and 153-96 by Democrats. Nearly THREE TIMES as many Democrats voted against the act as did Republicans. The act itself was almost derailed by the Southern DEMOCRATS. Liberals love to position themselves as the defenders of Civil Rights, but history says different. Ask Robert Byrd.

Once again, Michelle Goldberg writes an excellent article detailing the right wing's power hungry tendencies. Articles like this is why I love SALON.

Just for the record, the agenda of right winged Christians is not shared by all Christians. Not all of us decry the existence of the "separation of church and state" principle, upon which this country was founded. Not all of us believe that we have the right to force our religious beliefs down the throats of non-believers. Not all of us believe that our narrow interpretations of the Bible (even if correct) render us Christians, and that those who do not adhere to such interpretations are ungodly. Not all of us believe that tax money should be used to fund church institutions such as schools and charities.

Some of us actually believe that Christians should reflect the teachings and example left by Jesus Christ - love your enemies, pray in your closet (don't make a show of your religious beliefs), help the poor, etc. Some of us also remember that Jesus actually said, "My kingdom is not of this world". Therefore, we don't feel the need to take over the political institutions of this country.

It will be interesting to see how far Mr. Falwell, and his ilk, take their agenda and to see if these Black conservatives will stomach his attacks on the well-fought civil rights that were gained in the 60s.

This is a perfect example of why religion and government have no business whatsoever being intertwined. And it also begs the question as to why these people are essentially allowed to make blatantly political statements and pronouncements in a tax-exempt house of worship. Isn't that illegal under the income tax code?

And is Rev. Lusk taking government funding - in the neighborhood of $1 million - to spew political propaganda? Just another example of why the "faith-based funding" initiative is not only unethical, but unconstitutional.

The thought that African-Americans, whose civil rights were secured because of "liberal activism", are now being essentially brainwashed to support the antithesis of their personal interests is, quite frankly, obscene. And these people call themselves Christians? Actually, they are awfully sad excuses for human beings.

How shameful!

http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com

Does the Greater Exodus Baptist Church claim tax exempt status? If so, this confluence of so-called Christian conservatives espousing political dogma and backing political figures from the pulpit is patently illegal! It is just another example of right-wingers thumbing their noses at the law and getting away with it.