Is using religion for political goals a violation of progressive values?

It is awkward for me.

which is a political action. As long as it is non-partisan.

If one uses their religion to advance any goal other than God's (the salvation of the whole world), they are guilty of idolatry, and they are worshipping a false god.

However, I would say that insofar as social concerns go, if one uses their religion to help people, that's a good thing. There certainly are going to be areas where religion and politics intersect.

Funny you should ask that, since I sort of preached on that this morning. The parable of the wheat and the weeds was the text. I focused on how Jesus said to leave the weeds in place, and let God sort it out in the end. We can leave perceived "weeds" such as Harry Potter, SpongeBob, etc., alone, because 1) we're not even sure if they are good or evil (probably not); and 2) they're distractions which keep us from our true purpose: to be good grains of wheat which God can use to feed the world. Our job is not to uproot the field, but to grow. We let God sort everything out in the end.

I did note how many religions have become over-focused on "weeding," uprooting the good and the bad together, because they're so sure they know what does or does not belong in the garden. Harry Potter? Let him stay. SpongeBob? Ditto.

When we become arbiters of "good" and "evil," then we, too, are guilty of idolatry - by trying to play God. O8)

If a candidate mentions their religion, are they using it? If they quote the Bible or religious writers, are they using religion?

I really cannot figure that out, what that means? To say that someone is "using" something implies a degree of insincerity doesn't it - they mention their religion, not because they believe deeply in it, but because they think it will sound good. Certainly, that is what I believe about Bush - he claims that Jesus is his favorite political philosopher. Good answer, however if that is true why isn't he more honest, more humble, more compassionate, and less of a warmaker? If he has seen the light on his own road to Damascus, why is he still acting like Saul on steroids?

But there is a certain cynicism in saying that every expression of religion is just "use" rather than a sincere expression. My religion is a part of me, not a hat I wear. If I am there working for political goals, then my religion is going to be there too.

In their original scriptures, alll the major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) talk about being righteous yourself (not forcing other people to follow your standards) and helping others who are in need.

I think it is useful when arguing with fundamentalists to point out that they're distorting their religions.

It doesn't do any good with the head fanatics (who may be just sociopaths bent on control) or with their stupider followers, but it can be effective with people who are less committed to fundamentalism.

There was a terrific example of fundamentalist stubbornness on an episode of Wide Angle a year or two ago. It was about a Pakistani pop singer who was in trouble with the Islamic fundies because he sang about love and allowed both men and women to attend his concerts, even though they had to sit in separate sections.

He went to one of the most fanatical imams, one who preached against all music and who was surrounded by distinctly freeperish followers, and challenged him to show where it said in the Koran that music was forbidden. He already knew that there was no such prohibition, but the imam would not admit it and just kept repeating, "It's un-Islamic" and "The Koran forbids it," while his freeperish followers backed him up.

every time I enter the voting booth I am relying on my faith beliefs and ethics and morals to help me decide on how to vote.. which in essence is a political goal.

Religion is personal and private. No politician needs to get upon a stump and announce a religious affliliation. Instead (s)he should allow him/herself to be known by his/her fruits.