Well, actually, the phrase “people of faith” is another problematic quip.
According to those in the politicized Religious Right, a “person of faith” is only someone who is “born-again,” and then only according to their definition of “born-again.” One must adhere to a their particular understanding of the meaning and application of Scripture, and one must adhere to their political and social philosophy, which they claim is God’s also. If we do not adhere ourselves to their principles, then we are not “people of faith,” despite how we may order our whole lives around faith in God. At best, they may grant that we are “people of faith,” but our faith in corrupted and in violation of God’s precepts.

Isn’t it true that “activist judges” is a code phrase for “accepting of gays?”
If a judge is at all willing to accept equal protections for homosexuals, or supports gay inclusion, etc., then he or she is automatically an “activist judge” who wishes to discriminate against “people of faith.”

There isn’t really any thing more I can say or want to say concerning the new pope, Benedict XVI. Andrew Sullivan say said many good things, and he is one who wants desperately to have hope.
I think we are now approaching a time that is very similar in some specific ways to that of England during the reign of Elizabeth I. The Reformers and the Catholics were warring against one another, and what emerged was the Elizabethan Settlement. A forced settlement, but one that enabled war to be averted.
Today, we are certainly in a different situation. I do think, however, that idea of Via Media, of the spirit of the Elizabethan Settlement, can be reasserted. To the Evangelicals who are sick of their leaders making an idol of America and political power, and to the Catholics who are very disturbed by the direction their church is taking (and perhaps the even faster push for a new inquisition), I say “come to the Via Media.”
Of course we have our own profound problems right now, but within Anglicanism we allow the problems to exist and we allow our dirty laundry to be aired-out before all. I have no desire to steel sheep from other flocks, but many Roman Catholics and Evangelicals will come (and are coming) to a point where they will not be able to abide by the continued politicalization of the faith or a new inquisition of questioning and differences in espoused theology.

Christi Todd-Whitman (the former Republican governor of New Jersey and former Bush appointee to head the EPA, who resigned) has written a new book: “It’s My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America.” She writes that the Republican Party is being “dictated to by a coalition of ideological extremists.” This group is made up of the Religious-Right (religious fundamentalists) and “social fundamentalists” (her term).
She is calling for “radical moderates” to reassert themselves and rescue the Republican Party from the fundamentalists, religious or social. This is a very sensitive time for internal Republican dynamics. The “fundamentalists” who are feeling flush with power, and in their minds vindication, are advancing in their attempt to purge the party of RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only). Any Republican who is moderate, traditionally conservative (proponents of fiscal restraint, limited government, individual liberty & responsibility, etc.) and who disagrees with their “fundamentalist” view of Christian theology and socio-political requirements are targeted. Who will ultimately win?
We see this dynamic repeating itself not only in politics but also within the country’s religious life. Religious fundamentalists are attempting to redefine what is meant by “Christian” (or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, etc.). They are determined to instill in the public’s consciousness that only their understanding of theology, Scripture, and social dynamics are correct and therefore “Christian.” Only they are “people of faith.” If you are a religious progressive or liberal (even moderate), by definition you cannot be a Christian or a “person of faith.” In the public’s mind, will the word “Christian” come to mean only the faith of Dobson, Perkins, Kennedy, Farwell, and the like?
We see this dynamic being played out in our Church. If one is not a reactionary fundamentalist then one is not an Anglican. These people are squatters in Anglican-Evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism and perverted both of these well-established traditions, in my humble opinion. Will the concept of the Elizabethan Settlement, Hooker’s justifications, and the Via Media prevail?
You are not an American unless you accept the understanding of America as a nation instituted by God “himself” to accomplish God’s specific dictates and plans. You are not a Christian unless you agree with the theology and scriptural interpretations of James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Jerry Farwell, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robinson, and the like. You are not an Anglican unless you agree with the theology, ecclesiology, and tradition of Akinola, Duncan, Harman, and the like. You are not a German unless you agree with Hitler. You are not a Russian unless you agree with Stalin. You are not a Cambodian unless you agree with Pol Pot. You are not a Korean unless you agree with the Dear Leader. You are not a Muslim unless you are Arab (if you live in Darfur, that is).
“Radical Moderates” need to reassert themselves in all areas of our lives in this country, or else the fundamentalists (religious, social, or Anglican) will win, even if for only a short time. They understand themselves to be on a Crusade, a Jihad, and because they will to implement God’s plan the end justifies the means. What are we going to do?

The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendment narrowly passed by voters declaring marriage to be between two people of the opposite sex only.
James Dobson from Focus-on-the-Family comments:
“”This ruling underscores the appropriate role of judges:
to uphold and affirm the laws enacted by the people and
their elected representatives, not to foist a radical
social agenda on society. It is a welcome — and, sadly,
rare — example of judicial restraint.”
Dobson and his compatriots continue to attempt to twist and spin in the public’s mind what the role of the judiciary truly is, especially on the level of various Supreme Courts. The role of judges is not to “uphold and affirm” the laws enacted by the people or the people’s representatives. The constitutional role of the judges in these types of cases is to determine whether the laws passed by the people’s representatives or instituted through the people’s referenda are constitutional or not!
It seems to me that Dobson and his cohorts want us to believe that judges are to only approve and support (or rubber-stamp) the laws passed by the state assemblies or Congress. This is not the role of the courts – they are a check and balance to make sure the legislatures and executives of this country, or the people through the tyranny of the majority, do not act unconstitutionally.
If the courts declared Row v. Wade unconstitutional or if they declared homosexuality to be unlawful, Dobson and his ilk would hail the courts and their judges as acting in noble, Godly, and patriotic ways, not as judicial activism. Perhaps, since they believe abortion and homosexuality were forced upon the country by the out-of-control courts originally, this would restore their vision of the proper conduct of the courts.
I find it ironic, however, that most Religious and Social fundamentalist groups hailed the Supreme Court decisions that forced civil rights upon the country for the sake of blacks when most of the country – including anti-integration laws passed by legislatures – opposed it. They also supported court-ordered integration of schools, etc. Why do they not oppose these past acts of the courts as “judicial tyranny” and to be declared by “activist judges,” but do make such declarations against judges who strike down laws that deny homosexuals equal treatment under the law? It is simply hypocrisy, and they know it.