How often have I heard my left-leaning friends and associate accuse Republicans of cynically manipulating the "religious right" into supporting their platforms?

Of course, there surely are some Republicans who do so -- men who publicly appear to support some faith which has little impact on their private nor policy decisions. But the real question is whether these cases are the exception or the rule.

Recall Ronald Reagan. Whatever we may be hearing how from his son or others, I recall Reagan was frequently accused of catering to, and being in bed with right wing religious "exteremists" (translation: any religious conservative).

And now George Bush has the same charge levelled against him. Or, somewhat indirectly, it is alleged that the uber-scary "neo-cons" (queue "Psycho" shower music) somehow manipulated people's religious sentiments to muster support for the dethroning of Saddam.

I find it amusing but understandable that the left accuses the right of cynical manipulation of religious themes. Allow me to explain why I think this is:

First recall that a majority of the left do not assign importance to a traditional theistic faith. Since many leftists (in my experience anyway) seem to have a high view of their own level of intelligence and/or morality, such a profession of faith would apparently then be either: (a) unfathomable for an intelligent person, (b) a cynical ploy.

That means, to these folk, anyone found discussing religion in public must either be an idiot, or an intelligent conman duping the other idiots. Thus, this is a classic case of projection: The right must be cynically manipulating religion because it's what they would be doing, if caught saying the same things.

Another, smaller segment of the left has a genuine faith in God, which they want to put into action through leftist means. Since they are convinced their faith tends to imply a leftist agenda, they can't help but see rightists as being theologically wrong, or worse, hypocritical "pharisees" who preach a public morality, based in a distortion of the faith, in order to gain political power and a thin veneer of morality. (And remember, true morality is found in publicly-visible leftist "deeds" , or "works", without which, any profession of faith must surely be "dead".)

So the charge of cynical manipulation of faith by the right resonates well within both camps of the left.

Yet it is clearly the left who is actually, openly advocating that its members harness the power of religion in order to seize political control. And it is clearly the left who elevates power politcs above any religiously-inspired principle.

In "How Democrats can talk about religion", sociologist Amy Sullivan gives advice to the left on how to sound like faith matters to them:

Seventy percent say they want their president to be a man of faith. But 50 percent say that they don't want him to talk about it too much. That leaves politicians with very little room to maneuver - they need to give voters a sense that they are personally religious without using heavy-handed rhetoric.

Note the near-freudian slip: Politicians using religious language are "maneuvering". They must "give a sense" of being religious.

Be sincere. For some candidates, that means not pretending to be incredibly pious.

Note her language again: She's not cautioning Democrats against being too pious (apparently that's not a threat), or even letting such piety show through by sounding too pious.

No, instead she's apparently concerned the level of pretending will move too far into "pious" territory. A Democrat should only use phrases which imply normal, acceptable level of faith.

She prefaces this with a caution to "Be sincere." How ironic: She has to tell them exactly how and when to "be sincere" about a faith which is so important they formerly haven't professed it. But how sincere can such a profession be, if it will only be elicited by Amy's columns which warn one must do so in order to gain political power?

Resist the temptation to use religion as a political tool for particular situations. During the primary season, Democrats have traditionally "found" religion just before the South Carolina primary and have somehow lost it soon after.

It's a mistake to assume that religion appeals only to people in one geographic region or in one racial group (Democrats lose their religious inhibitions in black churches; perhaps the novelty of syncopated hymns loosens them up).

I'd love to think the above simply meant "resist the tempation to use religion as a political tool". But unfortunately, she goes on to clarify that it shouldn't be trotted out for certain demographics only. Apparently, it's still a political tool, but one which should be used consistently, not selectively.

To be fair, there are a few points at which Amy warns Democrats formerly without deep convictions to avoid suddenly sounding as if they have them, such as in her article "Getting Religion", where she uses Howard Dean's mistakes as a cautionary tale.

But since she wasn't writing such cautions before the Dean campaign, and the distinction seems blurred in so many of her other columns, I can't help but see her advice even here as being more: Don't do this because we found out it doesn't work rather than Don't do this because it's wrong. Pragmatism, not principle. And indeed, Amy's columns consistently focus on "getting" religion or "talking" about religion: hers is a superficial, pragmatic approach.

I have no idea what Amy's own faith is (apparently, it's primarily in leftist politics, since I see her cheerleading for "Democrats" over any particular faith or principle), but I suspect this mistake is telling:

The President's catchphrase for the war on terrorism - "If you're not with us, you're against us" - is very similar to a verse from the Gospel of Mark, with one important distinction. Jesus says, "Those who are not against you are with you." That's an entirely different perspective - and it's one that could be marshaled in defense of multilateralism by Democrats who know their Scripture.

Contrary to what Amy implies here, the President is undoubtedly referring to a different verse than the one she cites:

[Jesus said:] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." (Matthew 12:30)

The President apparently knows his scripture much better than Amy Sullivan.

And that should tell you something: Amy must tell Democrats to master the language of faith and tutor them in it because it's not something that comes naturally to them (or even her, apparently). Their use of such is frequently cynical and unnatural, the very charge they project upon conservatives.

And I believe this is even true for the religious among them, for reasons I intend to touch on in a future column.

Meanwhile, I'll leave you with this insightful prophecy and warning from the Apostle Paul, concerning those who want to look religious:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God -- having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. (2 Timothy 3:1-5, emphasis added)

I can't help but think that conservative atheist blogger John Ray (who is utterly honest in his own stance towards religion) would probably see leftism in many of those other traits, too.