... why is it that in France, the mere evocation of God in a political setting sends the people into paroxysms and fills the streets with protesters?
What you are saying is that religion is an integral part of
American politics, and guess who made it that way?
The founders (or some of them) did intend to keep the two separate. Jefferson and Madison certainly did, both in office and in their campaigns.
But, if you think it's a good idea, recommend it to every progressive candidate you know. But, be sure to let us know the results afterwards. My guess is that they will be branded as hypocrites by the religious right for platform planks that are inimical to the religious right as "unChristian."
I speak of candidates, and you say it's not about that, it's about building a movement, so I have to ask: a movement in what direction and leading where? Political change, you'd likely say. Who makes that political change? Politicians. How do they get to make that change? By being elected. Ultimately, this is about candidates and how they campaign, because the will of the masses isn't swaying the likes of the Frists, DeLays, Brownbacks and O'Connells in Congress today.
Religion, as it's practiced in politics today, is a particular branded image--a registered trademark--and the Republicans own that, lock, stock and barrel. It's used to put people in office who then turn around and pass huge amounts of legislation favorable to big business and the wealthy. (If you have not read Thomas Frank's
What's the Matter With Kansas?, it would be wise to do so. In the end, he makes some of the same arguments about religion as do you, but offers no constructive means of how to do so, either.)
Religion in politics
is dangerous, and as practiced now,
does resemble a cult.
Most progressives/liberals/whatevers would be better off showing the ways in which big business is tying itself to religious causes for its own political ends. Here's an example:
http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-05-17-05.htmScroll down to the description of a Eureka Springs, Arkansas school assembly. Then ask yourself why the likes of WalMart and Sam's Club are pumping money into such a program. What's in it for them?
No, religion isn't a
necessary or an
inevitable part of politics. But some fraudulent and greedy people have made it so.
There are some 70 million disenfranchised and disenchanted voters in this country, people who don't vote because the process offers them nothing, in their view, and yet, politicking for the last fifty years has been a desperate chase for the undecided swing voters. The root of that disenfranchisement is the power wielded by corporate money in the political process for the purposes of enriching corporations and the wealthy. Until that's corrected, all the desires in the world to form a movement, using religion as a tool, is so much wishful thinking. The corporations, in conjunction with the Republicans, own that tool.
There was a mass movement once before--during the 1930's, when people were suddenly forced to examine the economic state of their lives and how the political choices they'd made affected them. They then voted in people who were willing to make the changes which would fix their problems and implement the regulations necessary to prevent a reoccurrence of economic calamity--and religion didn't play a part in that. Roosevelt was elected four times in a row, not by evoking God or building a religious constituency, but by promising, and delivering on his promises, to heal the economic wounds of the country.
Liberals/progressives/whatevers should be doing exactly the same thing now.
Cheers.