The outcome of the 2004 presidential election will depend partly on what happens between now and Election Day in Iraq and to the U.S. economy. But it will also turn on the religious wars -- fueled by evangelical Protestants, the ground troops of the Republican Party. The conventional wisdom is that these issues are sure winners for the right. But Democrats can hold their own in these wars -- if they respond vigorously to the coming assault.

Either Reich didn't do his homework or he doesn't have the courage to be honest. The truth is that only 14% of Republicans are evangelical while 17% are Catholic. Catholic Republicans are not only against both abortion and gay marriage but they are a larger segment of the party than evangelicals. Why doesn't he consider Catholics to be "ground troops" in the "religious wars"? Could it be that he is afraid to offend the large contingent of Catholics who are Democrats?

Democrats should call all this for what it is -- a clear and present danger to religious liberty in America. For more than three hundred years, the liberal tradition has sought to free people from the tyranny of religious doctrines that would otherwise be imposed on them. Today's evangelical right detests that tradition and seeks nothing short of a state-sponsored religion. But maintaining the separation of church and state is a necessary precondition of liberty.

Can Reich provide one example where evangelicals have sought to establish a "state-sponsored religion?" Does he even understand what evangelicals believe? Evangelicals are a sub-set of Christianity, a religion that includes Catholics, Episcopalians, liberal Protestants, Greek Orthodox, etc. Maybe he isn't familiar with American history so someone should inform him that "evangelicals" left Europe in order to *avoid* state-sponsored religion.

Public opinion sides with the Democrats. Even though a slim majority continues to oppose gay marriage, polls show that most Americans believe that homosexual relationships between consenting adults should be legal, that the choice of whether to have an abortion should be up to a woman and her doctor, that stem-cell research should be legal, and that religion should stay out of the public schools.

Public opinion in Europe also believes that the Jews are the greatest threat to world peace. Does that mean we should stop supporting Israel? I understand that Reich worked under a President whose morality was guided by opinion polls but that doesn't mean all Americans do so.

But unless Democrats focus the public's attention on the larger ongoing assault on religious liberty, the evangelical right will whittle away these freedoms.

Let me get this straight. Reich wants to limit the influence of evangelicals in order to protect religious liberty? Doesn't The American Prospect have editors responsible for catching this type of nonsense? Where was Matthew Yglesias? Surely he would have pointed out the irony in this statement.

The evangelicals' victory on "partial-birth" abortion proves only that gruesome pictures and inflamed comments can persuade a majority that a particular procedure is inhumane.

The "gruesome pictures" were of partial-birth abortions. Obviously, Reich prefers that the public remain ignorant of the details about abortion in order that the truth doesn't interfere with a woman's "right to choose." Unfortunately, the truth is often messy and when people see the pictures for themselves they tend to be repulsed by infanticide.

It has no bearing on the more basic question of whether the evangelical view about when life begins should be imposed on the rest of America.

Reich appears to be as ignorant of science as he is of history. There is no question of "when life begins"; it begins at conception. That is a scientific fact. The question is when should it be legal for a woman to exercise a "right" to end this life for her own purposes.

Democrats should be clear that the issues of abortion and stem-cell research are about religious liberty. Tar the Republicans and the evangelicals with William Pryor and other nominees who want to overrule Roe. Show that the Senate Democrats' filibuster of these nominees is another front in the same religious war. Likewise, Democrats should hold evangelicals accountable for what they're trying to do in our nation's schools -- promoting the teaching of creationism, demanding school prayer, pushing "abstinence until marriage" programs, and opposing sex education. This is all about imposing their religious views on our children.

Why don't we debate these issues publicly and let the people decide? Isn't that the way we should handle such issues in liberal democracy?

The religious wars aren't pretty. Religious wars never are. But Democrats should mount a firm and clear counter-assault. In the months leading up to Election Day, when Republicans are screaming about God and accusing the Democrats of siding with sexual deviants and baby killers, Democrats should remind Americans that however important religion is to our spiritual lives, there is no room for liberty in a theocracy.

Reich's attempts to equate evangelicals with the Islamo-fascists will backfire. Most Americans, even Democrats, do not want abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, and sex education in kindergarten. Most Americans are not like Robert Reich. They aren't anti-religious fundamentalists