-The religious were never *for* liberal values. They agreed to live by -liberal values whenever they were too weak to impose their views on -others without massive and prolonged bloodshed--and sometimes it -required massive and prolonged bloodshed to demonstrate to them that -they were to weak to achieve victory.
Most people, no the overwhelming super-majority, are religious in this country. The question is why the fanatic minority, which had miniscule cultural and political power in general mid-century, has been able to vault to the center of political power to the extent that the President states that Jesus is his favorite philosopher and critical biological research is disabled in the name of fighting cloning's assault on god's law.
I appreciate Justin's argument against religious coercion in schools and that is fairly fought in the name of free expression (I am far more favorable to that half of the religious clause of the First Amendment) but banning all government support for voluntary religious activity, especially when done in a multitude of diverse religious schools, does not seem like a liberal value. Trying to suppress religion just seems to encourage a counter-reaction looking for similar coercive activity against liberal values. It just keeps the cycle going.
There is a long liberal religious tradition in America that sought balance between secular government and tolerance for religion as a vital part of peoples lives. The hardline secular position just drives those folks into the arms of the fanatic religious minority.
--- Nathan Newman