As much as Weinstein is right about the principles he is upholding, and I am glad he is doing it, he is absurdly wrong in his description of the people who violate them.

fundamentalist Christianity--it's actually got a longer technical name, called pre-millennial dispensational re-constructionist Dominionist fundamentalist evangelical Christianity

There is, of course, no such thing. There are many groupings and belief sets under the wide category of evangelical Christianity; some of them disagree with one another quite strongly. Weinstein lumps them all together as though everyone believes in exactly the same things. This is a not uncommon error among people who come to be rightly concerned about the religious right. (That, along with unnecessarily inflammatory language.) Such errors undermine the credibility of all of our efforts, and often backfire as well.

... American fundamentalism really has to be understood as two movements - the Popular Front of televangelists and mass rallies and voter drives, and the elites of groups like The Family.

... they've done an end run around the Democratic process.

Sharlet clearly has little or no clear understanding of historic evangelicalism, or if he does, he decided to set this knowledge aside in order to complete this convoluted attack on Hillary Clinton.

I don't think it is a far stretch to say that the efforts to attack Clinton might go to this extent.  After all, anyone can publish a book and some publishers will print anything for a buck.  But in context, Clarkson seems always to be looking for a way to attack or otherwise humiliate anyone who looks like an orthodox Christian, or, in this case, who would dare associate with them.

This casserole is expected to be finished sometime in late Summer or early Fall.

By Jefferson's standard, per his letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptists, separation meant that the government would not establish a state church.

By the standard of the First Amendment, the government is prohibited from interference in or active participation in religious life:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (italics mine)

Now that we have the simple stuff out of the way, let's talk Biblical standards. The particular question that I want to address is this:

Is it right for the church to confront the government?
Is it right for the church to confront candidates?
Is it right for the church to speak to election matters?

To the first question, yes. John the Baptist confronted Herod and paid with his life. Values in government, even in law, has a place. The promotion of these values can be see in I Tim 2:1-8, where we encourage a justice to allow for peaceful existence (giving the Gospel more opportunity).

To the second, yes. Matters of sin deserve confrontation. Matters of destructive policy deserve equal confrontation. But let's not be too selective. There is as much sin and bad policy in one party as another, from any one candidate as from the other. We must be clear and theological in our approach, not partisan.

That said, I'll be specific. Clinton is willing to use the FBI as a private police force. Those 900 FBI files is suiable evidence. Obama is too close to Hamas and some other questionable relationships. McCain's willingness to limit speech (McCain-Feingold) is an idea that should be corrrected so that it does not go further.

To the third, yes. But we must be ready to pay a price. Some laws are unjust, and the 501(c)(3) rules that were put in place (to limit what LBJ saw in the 1950s as interference to his agenda) are as direct a violation of the First Amendment as is McCain-Feingold. Unjust laws require a response. But our response should not be mere disobedience, but tempered with a call to reform (that is, legislative repentence) for the sake of justice.

There is no separation of church and state when the church is placed under state authority. Do not be intimidated by the Left. (It's pretty transparent -- they want to speak to political issues, and even promote candidates, and get their values into law, but say that somehow "separation" prohibits us but not them. It's so shallow, so hypocritical.) We must respond to that; we should work to maintain liberty (for all) of the heart and mind. Not for the sake of partisanship, but sake of the Gospel.

Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.

To be Evangelical, and to define our faith and our lives by the Good News of Jesus as taught in Scripture, is to submit our lives entirely to the lordship of Jesus and to the truths and the way of life that he requires of his followers, in order that they might become like him, live the way he taught, and believe as he believed.

1. Jesus Christ is the God-Man.
2. Reconciliation to God is through the pental-substutionary work of Christ.
3. The necessity of regeneration.
4. The Scriptures are the final word for faith and practice.
5. The disciple is by nature engaged with the needs of the world.
6. The personal return of Christ and the consumation of history.
7. Disciples will grow in worship and maturity.

All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world.

We must find a new understanding of our place in public life. We affirm that to be Evangelical and to carry the name of Christ is to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good. Citizens of the City of God, we are resident aliens in the Earthly City. Called by Jesus to be ?in the world but ?not of the world, we are fully engaged in public affairs, but never completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, class, tribe, or national identity.

Responses:
All in all, it's a good document but it falls short because of what it leaves out.  It is broad enough to include the Anglican evangelicalism of the Wesleys and C. S. Lewis but seems to broad, lacking adequate exclusivity from the neo-orthodox, existentialist, emergent, and other modern phenomena.

I also believe that too much credence is given to the political criticisms of evangelicalism.  While our involvement in politics is (and I agree with them) misguided, the ones who offer this criticism are themselves largely engaged in the political world and their criticism is driven more by a desire to eliminate competition than to place Christiainity in a proper frame.  Liberals may not acknowledge its value, but nothing would please them short of Evangelicalism's demise.  Bruce Prescott sees it as something outside of reality, as though liberals are faultless, despite the history that they've been married to politics for a far greater duration (several decades) than evangelicals.