It would make more sense if there were only two religious denominations.

[More Than A Feeling]

One liberal, and the other conservative. It seems that no matter what your faith, you probably have more in common with liberal believers of other faiths, than you do with the conservatives of your own tradition, including the willingness to focus on your similarities rather than your differences. In this day and age, such mundane, human concerns as tolerance, equality,and justice matter more than theological controversies over the nature of God. What prevents liberal Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, UCC'ers, and those of all the non-christian faiths coming to common understandings, and tolerating differences where they cannot be reconciled to create one large organization. Is there really any barrier other than "that's the way it has always been"?

Meanwhile, conservatives of every faith may dislike other faiths on theological grounds, but they are united in their desires to institute a more authoritarian world. The religious right contains right-wing catholics and right-wing baptists, even though historical and doctrinally, the two loathe each other. Right-wing Jews don't even appear to mind that their political allies think that they have to convert or be destroyed before the rapture can come. The problem with this group would be how to design a worship service that would n't bring accusations that this or that group was making the rest go to hell.

Isn't that really what religion has boiled down to, at least in its objective and organized manifestations? Just take a look at the issue of gay marriage, which is causing the Episcopalian church, relatively unified for centuries, to break apart. Will the fate of the other mainline denominations be any different?

[Crazy Dave]

1. Jesus said give aid to and help the poor....

...which someone who is a true christian would probably agree with but most christians that I know or have met say that God only helps those who help themselves so therefore they only help themselves. "Screw the poor, let me help myself by buying a Hummer or some Halliburton stock".

[MADem]

2. Gee, that old separation of church and state thing ain't working out for ya?

I kind of like it, myself. I guess the atheists and agnostics would be a bit fucked, not having any real representation, as the faiths would ally with the churches in an effort to grow their power in mutual fashion.

How many unelected members would serve on the respective Guardian Councils? Who would be the Supreme Leader on the right? Falwell? Graham?

No offense, it's a hideous idea.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. What are you talking about?

I don't know what "faiths would ally with the churches" means. In fact, I don't know where you are getting Guardian councils and Supreme Leaders from, either. None of that needs to have anything to do with what I am saying. And who said anything about getting rid of the separation of church and state? Not me. I'm talking about how the denominations and faiths as organized today reflect old controversies about the nature of God that are nowhere near as potent as the social controversies that threaten to split them between liberal and conservatives. Given that, there is no reason why people can agree on the social controversies shouldn't join together, except a tradition of schism and separation, which doesn't have to be followed, necessarily.

[MADem]

4. You don't know much about religion then, if you don't get the references

Shi'a Iran is run by a Guardian Council and they choose the Supreme Leader. They are a group of unelected assholes who choose who can go on the ballot for the schmucks to "elect." There IS no separation between Church and State, see? And that is a one-party state, in essence, because you don't get on the ballot unless the Guardians allow it.

A similar type outfit holds sway in Saudi Arabia, only they don't HAVE elections, and it is more of a dance as to who is in charge. The ruling family has the weapons and the dough, and the religious police have many, though not all, hearts and minds. Again, it's church and state, all in together.

Your little construct would lead, in the US, to a complete dismantling of the wall between church and state. There would be, at the end of the day, a GOP church and a Democratic Church, and the Independents and Atheists could just go straight to hell. The Pagans and Wiccans will have to go over the hill to do their thing, because they wouldn't fit in, either.

I won't even go into the whole "messenger" difficulty. Who are your messengers in these churches? Is it the ghosts of politicians past, or will we draw straws for Jesus, Muhamad, Moses? Shall we choose more modern figures? Abraham, Bobby, Martin and John, and all the saints? Or recent pop stars? Do we await a Messiah? Is the babe in the manger named Obama? Which Holy Book to use? Koran? Bible? Encyclopedia Britannica?

When churches adopt political-social agendas, and politicians adopt religious agendas, you are going to see a merge happening. Power is attracted to power. And you aren't even considering the High Church/Liturgical and Low Church divides--those liturgical guys would rather be caught with a dead child in their bed than be affiliated with the stompers or snake handlers.

It's totally unworkable. It's a bit icky, too, frankly. Kinda like the Catholic Church of The People's Republic of China. Not a place to find your spiritual center without looking over your shoulder in abject fear.....

[struggle4progress]

5. I thought you'd suggest "two bits" and "five bucks" as the denominations

since a real question is whether folk will put money where their mouth is.

But I think I disagree with you. I'm not a religious conservative, but there are some in my church, and I don't mind them being there. It forces me to listen to a different point of view and forces them to listen to me in a context where we're all morally obligated to admit we don't know everything. And the gospel really does transcend politics.