Few publications, commercial or non-profit, routinely or even occasionally, publish good reporting about the religious right.  But even when a ground-breaking piece of investigative journalism about the religious right is published, it is often difficult for us to cope with it -- let alone allow the story to inform our understanding of, and political approaches to, the religious right.

Today, many ideas, concepts, and frames of reference in modern American society are legacies of the history of Protestantism as it divided and morphed through Calvinism, revivalist evangelicalism, and fundamentalism.

Even people who see themselves as secular and not religious often unconsciously adopt many of these historic cultural legacies while thinking of their ideas as simply "common sense."

"The Christian Right wants a halfway house between democracy and theocracy," writes Gary North in "What Went Wrong with the Christian Right," an essay published in January 2006 on the Chalcedon web site. "It also wants a halfway house between theonomy and autonomy, revelation and rationalism, creationism and evolutionism. It wants equal time for Jesus, which means equal time for Satan."

North, a cofounder of Christian Reconstruction, is admitting that the full arrival of theocracy means, necessarily, the death of democracy. It is not possible for both to exist together, and he is willing to tolerate no halfway measures. North's view of a Christian Nation is not a democratic nation; his fundamental Christian country is fundamentally unAmerican.

In making clear that his vision of a Christian Nation is fundamentally unAmerican, North surfaces and shines a light on a powerful message frame. North's vision of a Christian Nation is a nation without democracy. And without democracy, our nation cannot enjoy freedom and liberty, cannot pass along America's history and heritage to our children's children.

The debate over the casting of a gay actor in the movie "The End of the Spear" has spilled over to the pages of the New York Times.

The movie is based on the true story of five American missionaries who gave their lives in 1956 trying to witness to an indigenous tribe in Ecuador. When the movie was first released, Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY criticized movie makers for casting a gay actor in the lead role.

John Danforth, a mainline Episcopal priest, former US Senator and diplomat, continues to speak out for religious moderation in the Republican party. His is a voice we all need to listen to.

Jack Danforth wishes the Republican right would step down from its pulpit. Instead, he sees a constant flow of religion into national politics. And not just any religion, either, but the us-versus-them, my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, velvet-fist variety of Christian evangelism.

Rodney Clapp, like Brian McLaren and Donald Miller, is another example of an evangelical Christian voice that is challenging the Christian Right. Clapp has written important articles and books since the 80's, but unfortunately his influence is minimal when compared to the more popular and politically driven conservative Christian leaders. One can only hope that in this age of decentralized media, the power of Clapp's ideas will have a better chance of influencing the Christian church and therefore paralyzing some of the political control the Christian Right has over these churches.

Framing or "reframing" has been the buzz of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party since the publication of George Lakoff's book, Don't Think of an Elephant.  The book was endorsed by Howard Dean, and made the New York Times best seller list.

Framing is an approach to politics and public policy in which conversation is based on "values" more than "issues" and the wonky details of public policy. It is a helpful way of making politics more widely accessible and persuasive, and of understanding the deep resonance the religious right movement has enjoyed across a broad swath of the American public.

Framing and reframing is an essential ingredient of any political and communications strategy -- and it has broad implications for thinking, communicating, and movement building in response to the religious right.

Why does the Lieutenant Governor's race in Georgia matter? It matters to Republican primary candidate Ralph Reed because his supporters view his first race for political office as a crucial test of his ability to capture the Governor's mansion and then eye a run for the White House. And it matters to everyone concerned about preserving a constitutional democracy -- including freedom of speech, freedom of association, and separation of church and state -- not only because Reed's agenda is anti-democratic. It matters, too, because Reed is right now conducting a clinic in how to organize political campaigns. Would you like to learn how to organize and win? Study this candidate; pay attention to this race.

The media is jowling about Reed's vulnerability because of his hypocrisy in preaching against gambling while "humping" major money as a lobbyist for Jack Abramoff's casino industry clients. But even as his critics jaw about defeat, Reed is planning to snatch a victory. He is building a massive grassroots network statewide on a scale never before seen in a down-the-ballot Georgia primary race. Reed's race may be lower down on the ballot, but it's far from insignificant. Reed may be lower down in the polls, but he's a long way from out; in fact, he's planning to win a remarkable victory -- and keep on running for higher offices. Anyone who wants to learn how to win an issues campaign or a campaign for elected office should study his methods.

Great to see the AP pick up on the fact that at least a quarter of all of Bush's international AIDS funding is going to religious organizations--with an emphasis on groups with no experience administering HIV grants. Many of these recipients, such as Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse, are well-connected players on the Christian right. Not only do most of these religious grantees put a dangerous emphasis on unproven abstinence-only initiatives, but this pattern of grant-making is part of a long-term effort to defund the left (in this case, traditional family planning and AIDS organizations) and shovel money the far right.

The Christian Right has, over the past two decades, become the best organized and one of the most powerful factions in American politics. It has gotten there primarily through engaging its constituencies of various stripes of conservative Christianity into electoral politics. Yes, there are many ingredients in the electoral stew: money, media, churches, mega churches, theological changes, alliances with neocons and corporatists, and much more. All of these ingredients have helped to create the political movement that enjoys substantial -- but far from dominant -- political power in the U.S.  

I am often asked what to do about this.

Unfortunately, the answers I have, are the ones people usually least want to hear. The reason for this is that in order to better contend with the religious right that concerns us so much, we have to change many things about the way we think; what we say; how we say it; what we do; how we spend our time; how we lead our lives.  

If you are not willing to entertain making any changes, stop reading right here please -- this essay is not for you.

After Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was a punishment from God for dividing the Holy Land, Robertson first denied that he made the remark, and then, after videotape proved that he had made the remark, he apologized. That's a pattern that Robertson has - making outrageous remarks, denying them, apologizing for them, and then explaining them away, only to reiterate them.

Robertson's pattern is effective, because it allows Robertson to broadcast his true thoughts and feelings, and then refuse to take full responsibility for them or stop making them. The media - and even other evangelical groups who are embarrassed and offended by Robertson's remarks -- have also gotten into a pattern of responding to Robertson by trying to minimize and marginalize his importance. But that pattern is ineffective, and even harmful, because it underestimates Robertson's power, and distracts people from undertaking more serious exposes of Robertson's international operations.

The Establishment Clause is a lot like the weather. People talk about it a lot, but not many know much about it, and why it was created.

If you explore our history at any length, you will discover many surprising things.