Some responses

Jones asked about this rationale for voting for Obama, from a conservative perspective: “Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism,” from this post.

This addresses a concern that many left-leaning Christians (like yours truly) have had for quite some time. The mindset that Sullivan (the author of the top-10 list and himself a Catholic) is talking specifically about is the super literalist-fundamentalist thinking that characterizes a large portion of the religious far-right (think James Dobson or the late Jerry Fallwell). In it’s more extreme (and, I would say, absurd) form, this line of thinking leads to a harsh denouncement of anyone who strays from the very narrow, theologically questionable dogma its leaders champion, which (again, in its most extreme forms) is characterized by an obsession with homosexuality, abortion and end-times, fire-and-brimstone fear mongering. In many cases, any dissent (be it from a religious or secular point of view) is heresy, even if it is a valid critique that could ultimately strengthen the fundamentalist cause. I personally have been subjected to this kind of treatment more times than I’d care to remember.

Thankfully, this camp is in the minority, however vocal they may be. They just happen to occupy many influential posts in the GOP and religious right establishment (for the time being, at least). The more widespread and thus more problematic issue with this line of thinking is what has turned out to be an incredible level of built-in cynicism. Some right-wing culture crusaders have used these same social concerns related to religious thinking (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) as nothing more than wedge issues to exploit to ensure the election of their candidate. George W. Bush, for one, campaigned on these platforms, on the advice of one of the pioneers of this tremendously manipulative and opportunistic style of thinking, Karl Rove. Upon winning office, he promptly ceased all discussion of those very issues. The same strategists have branched out from these few topics to bring more standard conservative concerns (taxes, defense spending, size of government) under the same religiously-themed umbrella, even if these concerns are of a secular nature. (This still is to say nothing of the quasi-populist, anti-intellectual, small-town-elitist bile we have heard over the last few years from many of the same people.)

This is what Sullivan would characterize as “Christianist”, as near as I can approximate: a mindset and a campaign style comprised of a laundry list of issues, both religious and secular, to be used as wedges to divide the electorate along religious and cultural lines while blurring the distinction between the two, and stoking mistrust and resentment of "outsiders" who must be fought and defeated. The only real goal is to win the election at all costs. “Christianism” is inherently political and only marginally theological. It is divisive, judgmental and completely intolerant of outside critique, let alone self-reevaluation. Anyone who sees things differently is not only wrong, but in clear opposition to divine mandate, even on issues as relatively trivial as tax or welfare policy. I realize this last statement borders on hyperbole, but the culture of blind submissiveness to established religious authority spawned by absolute certainty in the justness of the Right's stances on abortion or same-sex marriage can very easily trickle down the hierarchy of issues until the entire list becomes non-negotiable. In many cases, I would argue that this has already taken place.

The sooner this style of thinking gets pushed to the fringes, the better. Only then, I believe, can a conciliatory and inclusive theological message be advanced. This is especially key to addressing the “new atheism” Sullivan (among others) have referenced, championed by thinkers like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, that feeds on the excess and ignorance of this protracted and self-destructive culture war.

I don't mean to say that all politically-minded Christians fall into this camp, or even that the issues they wish to address do not warrant close attention. My critique is simply of the methods employed to gain political favor. Most people, including the majority of evangelical Christians, I firmly believe, are able to see this cynicism for what it really is. But, unfortunately, it draws enough support and enough votes to be problematic.

Marcus, to clear up something you said about the African American population in the States:

One of the biggest concerns at the beginning of Obama’s candidacy was whether or not he was electable enough in the black community -- is he "too white?" (an absurd question in and of itself). He doesn’t play into the stereotypical narrative of the black politician, a role that Jesse Jackson has been characterized to fill for years now (hence all of the concerns for Obama heading into the South Carolina primary). In this sense, the fact that he still drew a huge portion of the black vote, as well as voters from across generational, economic and cultural lines speaks to his overall electability and the draw of his “change” mantra. I believe, like many others, that the election of Obama is a huge step forward, but by no means an end to the question of race in America.

One more thing (to be anal about some statistics): African Americans make up only about 12% of the population, not 20%.

Regarding the Phelps Troupe at my old high school: I hope someone ran them off the campus the minute they showed up. Their venomous, hateful and bigoted message has no business in any school, in any town, at any time. But, Bubba said it better:

"Don't worry too much, there is already a special place in Hell awaiting Fred Phelps."

Keep the comments coming, I enjoy thinking about them and, eventually, responding to them.