As it happens, life has intervened and I am going to be unable to make it to Netroots Nation.  However, Ryan Valentine of the Texas Freedom Network has graciously agreed to stand in, and to read my panel presentation for me.

For those of us who are unable to be there, all is not lost.

NN has announced that much of the Netroots Nation agenda will be video taped and live streamed via ustreamtv -- including the panel pastordan and I organized:  Whatever Happened to the Religious Left?. It will also be archived and available after the convention.

I usually speak only with a rough outline and notes because if I write a speech or a presentation for myself -- its boring. But because I could not be there I had to write a 12 minute speech for someone else to read for me!  I have been a writer, editor and public speaker for 25 years, but have never had to do that before.

We will all get to find out whether it worked -- or whether it was weird -- or just boring -- on Saturday at 4:30 Central time.

As many of you know, one of the most striking differences between Canada and the United States is in the strength of religious feelings. Despite cheerful whistling past the graveyard by the usual suspects, religion in Canada is on life support. The commonly quoted proportion of Canadians who attend church weekly stays within a few points of 20% according to surveys, but there is hard evidence, provided by on the spot head-counting, that such surveys over-report actual physical presence at church by up to 100%:

Hadaway, Marler, and Chaves repeated their Ohio study in Oxford Country in southern Ontario, Canada. Most polls show that 20% of the adult population say that they go to church weekly. Again, half were lying, as only about 10% actually attend church weekly. [source]

However, fifty years ago, the situation was very different. In the early 1960s, church attendance in Canada was not only as high or higher than in the United States, it was steadily increasing.

Is the "surge" succeeding?  If we stick with the "surge" will we "win?"  If we leave Iraq will we lose?  Implicit in each of these questions are more fundamental questions, like: who are we fighting and why?  what are our goals and why?  These are strategic questions that should dictate our policy and someone should give kudos to Obama for having the judgment to appreciate the need for a comprehensive strategic vision.

Focusing on the "surge" in Iraq is a misplaced focus on "a" tactic and not necessarily a meaningful measure of long term success in the wider war.  The "surge" is simply one tactic we've employed in Iraq, but whether it is "succeeding" or not does not answer the bigger questions of whether we should be there at all, how long we should be there and what we are hoping to accomplish while there.  

Obama's speech yesterday was the first to define a broad strategic vision for true security and a leadership role for this Country at the dawn of the New Global Age.  The following is a discussion of guerilla tactics, Iraq and the implications of each with respect to our broader global objectives.

Or, most likely, not mentioned at all...

The 199 corpses.

And the depth of someone's religious belief undoubtedly makes their beliefs true.

Unless they conflict with laws regarding trafficking in illegal reptiles.

There's been a lot of talk about faith-based initiatives lately. Some of us favour giving tax money to churches, and some of us favour not giving tax money to churches. I've always been one to favour giving one's personal money to religious organizations if one desires, but keeping taxpayer money out of the equation. The issue generates strong feelings on all sides. I wonder - how many of us actually give to the poor?

I doubt if the results of this poll will be useful to Senator Obama. Maybe Markos (or his advertisers) can get some use out of it. I will certainly learn something from it, and perhaps anyone who reads it will also learn something from it.

crossposted from unbossed

Lest you think that NIOSH is not on board with faith-based initiatives and the role faith can play in health, O! Ye of Little Faith!, think again.

In the past few weeks we have learned Obama is putting together a program reaching out to Christians as well as a faith based initiative with an Obama spin. Most seem to believe this is a good thing and it is, yet some too are concerned about the separation of church and state or churches using this money for other than charitable works. Obama's plan clearly spells out restrictions as well as expectations and is worth a read before deciding its merits.

Progressivism and religion are a good fit, one of the core values of each is social justice. So it isn't surprising a progressive candidate would reach out to people of faith. Obama understands the importance of churches in the fight for social justice during his time as a community organizer in South Chicago. What is also true, is many people don't realize what a powerful advocate for progressive change churches can be and have been in the past. Follow me below the fold for a look at religion and politics, the good parts.

Pam Spaulding has ann exlusive story on Obamas faith based program.

In short, the campaign is saying that there will be no money for proselytizing or "reparative" therapy.

A source with Senator Obama's campaign (Director of the LGBT Vote, Dave Noble) has now confirmed to Pam's House Blend that under no circumstances will funds from the program will be granted to FBOs for proselytizing or reparative therapy.

Source

More after the flip.

What makes Obama tick? This seems to be the most pressing question of the day because, as David Broder insists we "don't elect enigmas to the oval office."

The challenge is that Obama is unique in American politics. He's trying to pull off something that doesn't fit preexisting models, and all the political experts out there (of which there's no shortage), who take great pride in knowing "the rules" of politics, are determined to explain Obama in the facile language of an old paradigm. Now that his shine has worn a little thin, now that we've grown accustomed to the idea of this "new kind of politician" who seemed to come out of nowhere, the debate has devolved into overly simplistic dichotomies like whether or not Obama is centrist or Machiavellian. There's far too little appetite for actually trying to better understand the guy on his own terms.

I am going to piss off some people I respect here, but I think PZ's conduct is reprehensible.

I like The Huffington Post. I really do. They've got a lot of excellent writers and the comments are usually interesting. They do seem to have a wee bit of a problem with inconsistent rules, particularly in regard to personal attacks, but they moderate comments and it usually works well.

Generally, HuffPo is a liberal blog. They've got pro-Obama folks and pro-Clinton folks, not to mention occasional comments from the pro-Kucinich, pro-Paul, pro-Barr, and pro-Nader contingents. There are atheists and religious people there, too. Their writers include former evangelical Frank Schaeffer as well as current evangelist Jim Wallis. However, the bias of HuffPo towards religion is pronounced.

Yesterday I posted a diary which discussed a P. Z. Myers article that denounced the overreaction to a college student stealing a communion wafer.

Today, Dr. Myers is receiving DEATH THREATS and is the target of a campaign to get him fired over writing this article

That could well have been the headline back in 1925.  For it was on this very date of  July 10, 1925 that the trial of a high school football coach and substitute biology teacher – John Scopes – began after he was arrested for teaching Evolution in Dayton, Tennessee.  It became known as the Scopes Monkey Trial – but many of us may be more familiar with it after being memorialized on Broadway and in film as "Inherit the Wind".

The pundits are always telling us that our candidates need to move to the center to win over voters.  What they never explain however is how it is possible for a member of congress to take a centrist position on a bill.  When a bill is voted on our members of Congress either vote "yes" or they vote "no", but there is no option to cast a vote half way between yes and no.

Because there is never a centrist option when it comes to voting our pundits have came up with a simple solution to define what the center is, to them the way to be a centrist is to vote for the Republican position.  It doesn’t matter where the American people stand on any particular issue, if a Democrat votes with Republicans our media considers them to be a centrist even if their votes go against what the vast majority of Americans want.

There was a time when I wondered that people like Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) was being harsh when he used the word "delusion".

Yes, I know about people flying planes into skyscrapers, religious murders, people killing each other (e. g., Muslim-Hindu riots, Shiites vs. Sunnis, Northern Ireland) but I wondered:  what about HERE, in the United States?  We might have a few nutcases but the rank and file from the major religions are ok right?  What harm is there in "believing"?

CNN had a lead story for a few hours early this morning on a newly minted atheist filing a federal lawsuit against DOD and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. He claimed that his rights to religious freedom under the first amendment were violated and suggested that the US Military had become a Christian organization. The Justice Department is expected to respond to the lawsuit this week, which is I suppose why it appeared on CNN.

Troutfishing, among others, has done some excellent diaries on Christian infiltration in the military, so I don’t intend on covering the same ground. What I want to do here is relate my own experiences and pontificate on why things have apparently changed so drastically since then.

The story can be found here

and I am sure other places.

If you do not know the story the article provides a decent, though CNN-based summary of it

<more after the break>