Centerfield

Short answer: Yes.

The views on church/state issues you're talking about are about where mine are, and I'm a strong proponent of church/state separation.

You have to understand the first amendment protects a person's right to express his religious views in addition to prohibiting state "establishment" of religion.

Thus, when Bush talks about his faith ... or Lieberman talks about his ... that's not a violation of church/state separation. But when Roy Moore says he prefers God's law to man's, that could very well be a problem. Erecting the 10 commandments in the courthouse suggests a mixing of biblical laws with secular laws. Not a good idea.

The other specific views you mention -- pro-life, pro-gun -- are somewhat conservative. But you also mention being an environmentalist. There's actually several fairly conservative Republicans who are also environmentalists. And a lot of folks who draw those values out of their spiritual views.

I think your overall attitude is essentially centrist. You're not inclined toward the extreme, heated rhetoric -- the stuff that often dominates in the blogosphere. You listen, seriously, to both sides.

I hope folks like you are one of us.

Hmm. I'd say yes, as long as you're open to considering broader perspectives that incorporate your views and beliefs, and maybe allow them to expand. Just "open to," not "promising to..."

For me, a huge thing is that every belief you have is at least somewhat open to re-examination, even if the re-examination just makes you feel stronger about your views. This means that you don't just start with a belief and hunt out rationales for it. You hunt out all sorts of ideas and viewpoints and test your beliefs against them. I'm very much a JS Mill marketplace of ideas guy. If you have faith in your beliefs, you have no fear about examination of them and testing of them.

To me, it's important to recognize that both liberals and conservatives have some insight to offer. I very much enjoy having conversations with people whose beliefs differ from mine. And when these conversations are undertaken with respect, and in a genuine spirit of cooperative inquiry, then the impulse to "win" the conversation tends to go away. I'm lucky to have a few co-workers who are more conservative than I, and I learn from them, and hope they learn from me.

So where do I stand compared to you? I belief people have the right to carry guns if it makes them feel more secure, and in general I think we have adequate gun rules now. Banning would be a huge mistake (as well as unconstitutional), butI am not troubled by rules that try to keep guns out of criminals hands. On abortion, I am both pro-choice and pro-life, both are good. That's a whole essay of its own, but I know I can write it. Religion? Nativity displays don't bother me at all, and separation of church and state should not be construed as banning religious expression. But Roy Moore was trying to pull a fast one. Anyway, come again.

It may help you to know that there is no such thing as the "separation between church and state" clause. The words do not appear in the Constitution.

Wendy Kaminer had some useful distinctions in the church/state arguments which I will try to paraphrase here. When Bush talks about God, that's fine. Religious people who enter politics should not be expected to be politically celibate.

The real danger here is *sectarianism*: the idea that some sect or another has a better claim to the government; that they have the "God Franchise". This IMHO was the real danger in Bush's faith-based programs.

As an atheist, I don't care so much about the religious dimensions of whoever I vote for but I care very much about their sectarian views.

Take care,
Dave