Since there's been so much talk here lately on the issue of religion and our approach to this touchy issue, I figured I should weigh in. Having grown up in Texas with a minister grandfather, I've had some exposure to these issues from the other side and my experience has led me to my conclusions, not bias or social bigotry. The issue comes down to "faith."
More on the flip.
In a nutshell, faith comes down to forgetting all the questions and embracing that what you are told is truth. Nowhere in recent, provable history has faith saved anyone from disaster (except maybe from the uncomfortable depths of their own minds), yet millions of people in this country put all the big issues of their lives in the hands of their "faith."
This is where science and religion have the big head on collision; Science is based on impartial observation and the willingness to accept that your theory might be totally wrong. If it is, you learn from the results and move in a different direction, but you are always observing and taking careful notes. While it may have started out as such, no sound science is purely "gut feeling" without tangible, conclusive evidence to back it. As a result, "accepted" scientific theory is very difficult to dispute, and those theories that are open to question eventually get proven wrong by other scientists. Scientists value truth over all other, and will not resist the urge to pursue that truth simply to save a colleague or highly regarded figure of their institution some embarassment. "Scientific truth" is derived from observation rather than gut instinct or emotional bias. In addition, when putting forth theory science relies on and expects a rational and cautious state of mind in its audience, and tailors its message accordingly.
Religion, on the other hand, embraces the notion that asking such questions is unnecessary and that faith rules the day. Don't ask, believe. It really is a beautiful construct from the dominionist point of view, in the sense that no real answers need ever be provided and any questioning is viewed as a deviation - to question the non-answers religion gives throws your faith into question, and therefore your ability to get into heaven or your value as a follower. Guilt is laid heavily upon those with questions that can't be answered, and they are either abandoned by the church or decide to forget their need for answers and fall back into line. Faith is unyeilding, even in the face of fact. Unlike science, religion relies on an irrational and emotional state of mind to put forth its conclusions, using over-the-top ornate churches, bright lights, emotionally charged music and appeals, and bizzare yet fantastic ceremony. It is truly a "man behind the curtain," smoke and mirrors approach to win over believers.
People so used to relying on faith, that is, the mindset that asking questions questions your faith and that relying on gut and emotion is an acceptable way to derive answers, tend to extend this to all areas of their lives. This, my friends, is what puts us in our present situation.
Our recent battles with religious zealots on the issues has less to do with science and more to do with emotion, so all our research and "proving" of the facts falls on deaf ears with them. The wingers win through emotional appeals, after all ("think of the children!!"). In that light, I think we're a bit foolish to think we can win over a significant segment of this voting bloc given that most of our values, and indeed our party's platform, are based on those pesky and uncomfortable facts - not easy emotion and gut reactions.