I consider myself an evangelical though probably NOT a typical one. (Politically I don’t vote lockstep to the right, I’ll be voting for a libertarian-leading candidate in ‘08 barring any huge scandal or some great late entry into the field..I don’t have a problem with gays having the right to a civil union since I believe that’s a STATE function not a church one…and I probably have a little bit more sympathy with “green” positions than many evangelicals)

I have belonged to churches in the past that believed (and practiced) speaking in tongues, though I no longer do. (I believe the practice is Biblical but I’m so leery of the “prophecy” that goes hand-in-hand with that in most churches that I’d rather just steer clear of it.)

I found myself often cringing at this (the way too strong ties between specific political candidates and the church. I have no problem with praying for our governmental leaders, in fact I believe the Bible specifically COMMANDS we do so, but the “warfare” over the cardboard Bush cutout was creepy.) but I also found myself agreeing at times with this too.

If you have a vibrant defining faith that is meaningful to your everyday life, why would you NOT try and pass that along to the children you love? And why would you not also try to influence others (including children, who are at the camp at their parents’ permission) in that regard?

While I think the “religious Right” too often looks for a political Messiah to “fix” the cultural climate of the country (I think that’s the function of one-on-one change and persuasion not government fiat) I also think many in the secular left feel that ANY religious influence in the public square, be it Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc. is “dangerous”.

They have the right to feel that way but I’m baffled that they can’t realize the imposition of a “no religion” policy is in essence telling people they are not allowed to attempt to have their deeply held beliefs represented in public policy, something they themselves complain of in “tyranny of the majority” rants.

I guess the biggest value of this documentary for a committed Christian is to look, from the outside, at how the non-churched might view us. Getting that understanding might help us reassess whether we’re really doing what Jesus wants us to do and whether we might find different less combative ways to achieve the same ends. (For something similar in book form, I’d suggest reading “Jim and Casper go to Church” by Jim Henderson and Matt Casper, a “church tour” by a church growth guru and an atheist.)