quote: WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.
In general, he's right. It's a mistake to ignore the faithful. Faith DOES do a lot of good for a lot of people. You CAN display your faith without violating the first amendment (despite what the KOMs among us think.)
But I'm worried that dems, especially from red states, will take this as an excuse to go gay bashing. Or change their stand on the anti-gay marriage amendment.
We get enough crap from republicans pandering to the dark side of faith. We don't need it from dems too.
quote: But I'm worried that dems, especially from red states, will take this as an excuse to go gay bashing. Or change their stand on the anti-gay marriage amendment.
See, what I think is a shame is that "religious morality" has been so twisted by marketing that it's now conflated with the Republican platform in the minds of many people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: The democrat platform isn't all sunshine and roses on gay marriage either. Even in heavily blue states like here in california they pass laws against equal marriage rights.
But they prefer to slip the dagger carefully into our backs rather than come out and announce their disdain for us.
If Obama gets his way, I'm worried it might turn into a "Who Hates Gays More" contest.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, what I think is a shame is that "religious morality" has been so twisted by marketing that it's now conflated with the Republican platform in the minds of many people.
Swampjedi's comment is a perfect example of why this is the case.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I don't understand is why acknowledging faith in politics supposedly entails hating gay people or being pro-life. Christianity is only vaguely related to either of those issues.
I think the more important thing that Obama is saying is that Democrats need to recognize that religion has a place in politics. The separation of church and state does not mean that our religion should not influence our politics. Any religious person very much should let their faith influence their voting! It is the reverse that is the problem - when political institutions try to influence our religions. I've complained about that for a long time... it's good to know that at least Obama is on the same page, even if not the Democratic Party as a whole.
But the key will be, once again, for Democrats to illustrate why they truly think their faith supports liberal beliefs better than conservative beliefs. They can't fake it, and they certainly shouldn't just become conservatives in order to court Evangelicals.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I remember sitting watching some news network back when Passion of the Christ and Farenheit 9/11 came out--no, wait, it was on NPR (not that it matters)--and they were talking about how it was a political war at the cinema, because none of the people who watched one were really watching the other.
I had to smile, because I have a lot of friends who loved both movies. Most of them are black Christian Democrats. And I knew then that the Democratic party is eventually going to make them choose between their party and their God, and they are going to choose God.
Obama's nailed it with this one. Lucky for conservatives that the ivory tower liberals won't "stoop" to listening to him.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I knew then that the Democratic party is eventually going to make them choose between their party and their God, and they are going to choose God.
Odd, then, that the Republican Party has identified in its strategy memos exactly this approach, don't you think? Can it be fairly said that the Democrats are forcing this issue if Republicans are in fact deliberately using the legislative agenda to pander to religious elements?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that it is not nearly as easy for Republicans to draw religious Democrats over by invoking God as it is for Democrats to push their religious party members out by dismissing religion.
It will continue to happen as long as they feel its neccessary to keep lumping attacks on religion in with their attacks on conservatism.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Obama is spreading the right message. They need to find their balance between religion and their politics.
It might take awhile for them to do it, and for it to be genuine, from the heart, and still on policy. It could take years. But at least one of them is finally starting to light a fire under their butts to do it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm saying that it is not nearly as easy for Republicans to draw religious Democrats over by invoking God as it is for Democrats to push their religious party members out by dismissing religion.
Ah. That's where I disagree with you. I think the Republican Party quite specifically attempts to draw religious Democrats over by making religious Democrats think their party "dismisses" religion. By arguing that only one side of any moral issue is the "godly" one and framing the argument to make it seem like it's impossible for anyone of faith to disagree, they deliberately isolate the Democratic Party's platform of conscience from so-called "religious" values.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:By arguing that only one side of any moral issue is the "godly" one and framing the argument to make it seem like it's impossible for anyone of faith to disagree, they deliberately isolate the Democratic Party's platform of conscience from so-called "religious" values.
Only insofar as they succeed in convincing people of that argument. And the Republicans can't convince people of things unless there is at least some truth to work with. The Democratic Party can only be convincingly painted as godless because they do choose to act in that manner in certain ways. I have heard few prominent Democrats draw any attention to religious reasons to support their political positions and they give the impression that they want to divorce religion from politics entirely. That approach by the Democrats allows Republicans to spin it into "The Democrats are anti-religion."
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have absolutely no idea why abortion and gay rights have been brought up in this thread. Obama is saying that people of faith shouldn't be afraid to talk about their faith even if they're in positions of authority. Where does the pro-life, anti-gay marriage thing come into play? The Republican party has done an excellent job of making it seem like you have to be a Republican if you are religious. This is exactly what Obama seems to want to change.
Politicians shouldn't have to hide who they are. Personal beliefs should drive your agenda. If those personal beliefs stem from religion, so be it. Let me see why you believe what you believe so I can decide if I want to vote for you. It makes sense to me. I admire people who don't hide who they are in an effort to pursue a party ideal. (In this same vein, I don't like those who pretend to be something they're not for the same end.)
I'm not religious, but as long as having a religious politician does NOT mean having religious beliefs imposed on other people, I have no problem with it. In fact, I think Obama's right. Separation of church and state, in addition to meaning we do not favor one religion over another, means that we favor neither religion nor irreligion. This is something that I think both parties should work on.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a different take on what it means to be evangelical, I recommend picking up a copy of Sojourners magazine and reading some of what Jim Willis has to say.
If Willis is right, the evangelical movement is going to become more and more concerned with social justice issues and not just be viewed as caring about one or a few hot-button issues (abortion, gay marriage, and maybe prayer in school).
If that happens, I'll be happy no matter what party the religious folks of America most identify with. Because they've already shown that they can make the leaders listen. Imagine if that power was used to address things like poverty or inequality in the justice system, or prison abuses, over-concentration of wealth, access to affordable health care, ...
I look forward to it.
If the Democrats are wise, they'll try to recast the debate as more complex than it currently seems. And if they become the party of social justice, it might be advantageous to them in coming elections.
But really, I care more about the agenda of the religious folks who are going to be politically active. If they were all like Jim Wallis, I think we'd be a better country for it.
If the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of this world hold sway, then I'm worried.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I don't understand is why acknowledging faith in politics supposedly entails hating gay people or being pro-life. Christianity is only vaguely related to either of those issues.
It doesn't. However, the republicans have found that they can scare up a lot of support (and I mean scare in the litteral sense) from their religious wing by screaming about gay people.
I'm worried that if the dems take Obama's advice they'll figure out the same thing and we'll get homophobia in stereo from the two major political parties.
posted
I'd like to see the Dems focus on the parts of religion that talk about inclusion, love of your fellow man, care for the sick and elderly, honesty in all things, etc. Let the Christianist Republicans (to use Andrew Sullivan's term) be pointed out as the fearmongers that they are.
It shouldn't be "hey, we're religious, too," it should be "this is what religion is for."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If Willis is right, the evangelical movement is going to become more and more concerned with social justice issues and not just be viewed as caring about one or a few hot-button issues (abortion, gay marriage, and maybe prayer in school).
Man I hope he's right. However heing raised inside the evangelical church I highly, highly doubt it.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man I love Obama, BTW he converted from Islam to Christianity growing up. I love the fact that he is so good at getting people from the left and the right to cooperate. He is a self made man and I really feel like he is genuine and has yet to be corrupted. He nailed his election in Illinois so solidly he had time before election day to campaign for neighboring democrats in neighboring states.
I really feel like were he to try now or in 4-8 years (as the case may be) that he would be a VERY solid presidential candidate. I am registered as a republican but voted democrat last election and if Obama ran for president (he would obviously take McCain along as VP or even vice versa) I would vote for that ticket like THAT.
I really think that Obama knows how to keep a good seperation of church and state without asking the religious to try and vote without using their religion as an influence.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's where I disagree with you. I think the Republican Party quite specifically attempts to draw religious Democrats over by making religious Democrats think their party "dismisses" religion.
That used to be true. But it's like how some Republicans eventually bought into the Democratic line that Republicans have an "Every Man For Himself" mentality, defending it instead of rebuffing it.
It wasn't until I started hearing the push the other way from the left that I had any hope of it actually working to get Christians to change parties.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to see the Dems focus on the parts of religion that talk about inclusion, love of your fellow man, care for the sick and elderly, honesty in all things, etc.
Problem: these are the boring parts of religion. Someone screaming about something will always get more votes than someone saying "I think we should all be decent to each other."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a big agnostic, and I think Obama is right. I think this also dovetails nicely into the valedictory speech and testing the limits, virtues and vices of pluralism in a country. I'm a Democrat who believes that God should be taken out of the Pledge. But I also believe that if a young woman wants thank Jesus profusely for giving her the wherewithal to become the school valedictorian, she should be able to.
I also don't think this issue should be merely about how to bolster the party. It's about government in a free society.
____
As to getting votes, who knows how this will play. Dean was upfront about his religion. I don't know what to say about red state conservatives. I'm ashamed of them. For all the Bush voting-- I voted for him because he is a conservative who shares my values-- conversatives out there, I simply don't have too much respect for you. Strong family? Did you see his daughters before you cast your ballot? Are those the daughters of a good father? Are they the product of a good family? Fiscal responsibility? Foresight? Anybody whose spent any time in any ghetto in the US could have told you how hard rebuilding a country is going to be. I don't have a big enough heart to forgive unapologetic Bush voters, but I don't think that people should have to hide their faith in political discourse.
Hopefully, what will come of this is that when a doofus who shares your faith runs a candidate of a different faith, the American people will have the security in their religion not to vote for the doofus.
_______
As to the voters who only vote for the pro-life candidate. Well, those are your principles, and it's your vote. I can't blame you for voting your way, but I can blame you for all of the other things that happened because you voted your way.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.
posted
There was a clip from the Colbert Report that showed a strong conservative Representative that had been demanding the 10 Commandments be put up in every public building in the country. It was his big issue.
Then Colbert asked him to list the Commandments.
He got 2 to 3 of them, and none in order.
It is people like this that we need to remove from office. People I call Wolves In Shepherd's Clothing.
If a Democratic contender could read the Commandments out loud, and use them to refute parts of the Republican agenda, policy, or recent history, I think a lot of Evangelicals would have to listen.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sure, I'm somewhat of a one-issue voter. That doesn't make me stupid; it just means I think that issue is of paramount importance.
The point of my first post was to say that I'd welcome the change. Just because I'm a "fundamentalist" doesn't mean I'm born-again Republican / conservative. I know that idea is common (both inside and outside the group).
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, although I am a Christian, I have a hard time being in favor of a government in today's world that attempts to set policy according to any interpretation of Christianity.
IMO, the gospel of Christ was presented as a personal thing, not intended for government policy and administration.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Personally, although I am a Christian, I have a hard time being in favor of a government in today's world that attempts to set policy according to any interpretation of Christianity.
IMO, the gospel of Christ was presented as a personal thing, not intended for government policy and administration.
Usually when you mix religion and politics, religion usually comes out the soiled corrupted loser. It gains nothing from combining itself with politics and yet it has so much to lose by doing so.
This is not to say that a persons religious convictions cannot help him establish the ideas that he backs in politics, but when you use politics to reinforce religion, often times its done completely wrong.
I can stand behind everything Obama was quoted as saying in the article.
Also Bao Qing Tian do not forget that within the Bible and Book of Mormon there were plenty of examples of theocracy that God had willed into existance. But I imagine you are saying what you are within the context of a democracy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: For a different take on what it means to be evangelical, I recommend picking up a copy of Sojourners magazine and reading some of what Jim Willis has to say.
Couple things -
First - the name is Jim Wallis.
I second Bob's recommendation of Sojourner's - not just for what Wallis has to say but for the rest of the commentary. And, no, I haven't suddenly gotten religious - I'm still an agnostic who's not hostile to religion. Wallis and Sojourners is reminiscent of the kind of Christian viewpoints I grew up hearing during the heydays of the civil rights and anti-war movement (Vietnam).
Sadly, as at least one other has commented, I can't really recommend Wallis's book with the great title: God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It
As one or more people said, the book is way too repetetive. Wallis would have benefited from a strong editor who would have cut the length of the book down by cutting out the repetitions.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, I am referring to democracy BlackBlade (and also had Millenial prophecies in mind too). Also, just to clarify, I mostly agree with what Obama was saying and was responding the the exchange about Republican & Democrat treatment of religion.
I'm just as uncomfortable about Democrats using religion to gain power as I am about the Republicans currently doing so.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Personally, although I am a Christian, I have a hard time being in favor of a government in today's world that attempts to set policy according to any interpretation of Christianity.
If by this you mean enforcing Christianity on the "heathens" then I completely agree. It's not my business to tell you not to do such and such with so and so. That's putting the cart in front of the horse.
God doesn't need any help enforcing His law.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the more important thing that Obama is saying is that Democrats need to recognize that religion has a place in politics. The separation of church and state does not mean that our religion should not influence our politics.
Exactly. Harry Reid's sincere religous beliefs are a big part of his character. And, his character is what makes him a such an attractive and powerful representative of the citizens of Nevada. Not that they all share his beliefs. But, they recognize his strength of character fostered by those beliefs. EDIT: And put Jimmy Carter on that short list too.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've never watched the Colbert Report-that story sounds so amazing I have to wonder if it was staged or not. I mean, first the Rep. would have to simply not know the 10 Commandments. Then he would have to nott have staffers who would warn him such questiions might come.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that a goodly chunk of politicians who appear on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report have no clue what they're getting into and only do it because their aides told them it would help with the teen-to-thirty demographics.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I believe that over 50% of regular church goers in this country could not recite the Ten Commandments on demand. Most of them could probably come up with 8 or so, but they'd be counting on their fingers and trying to figure out which ones they'd missed.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I learned a little rhyme in high school semenary to help me with it that's stuck with me for over 10 yearsdkw. So there's 1/200,000,000 church goers that can recite them off the top of his head Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmm, most important two..... Wring the heads of the pidgeons before burning it on the alter and be sure to walk 100 paces away from your tent before relieving yourself?
quote:Someone screaming about something will always get more votes than someone saying "I think we should all be decent to each other."
quote: the evangelical movement is going to become more and more concerned with social justice issues and not just be viewed as caring about one or a few hot-button issues
quote:Where does the pro-life
quote:I'd like to see the Dems focus on the parts of religion that talk about inclusion, love of your fellow man, care for the sick and elderly, honesty in all things, etc.
Just a sampling to set the tone for my post.
Many, many, many of us see abortion as a social justice issue. To us, the mere existence of abortion on demand is anathema to the idea that "we should all be decent to each other." Talk about the rights of the unborn is talk about inclusion, love of your fellow man, and care for the defenseless.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: If you believe that life begins at conception anyway.
See, this is why I get pro-life and feel emapthy with it. If you believe life begins at conception you can't POSSIBLY be pro-choice unless you're a monster.
But if you believe life begins sometime later, then you have to be pro-choice(*). You have to respect the life of the actual person instead of the potential person.
.... And now the thread derails...
Pix
(*) until the second you think life begins. Then you have to be pro-life from that point on.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that a goodly chunk of politicians who appear on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report have no clue what they're getting into and only do it because their aides told them it would help with the teen-to-thirty demographics.
Chris, I agree. Illinois Gov. Blagojevich was on Colbert and obviously whatever staffer set up his appearance hadn't warned him about the style or content of the show. He appeared totally clueless - kind of like a deer in the headlights, but a deer with the power of speech.
Makes me wonder how many of those aides are now "ex-aides."
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many, many, many of us see abortion as a social justice issue. To us, the mere existence of abortion on demand is anathema to the idea that "we should all be decent to each other." Talk about the rights of the unborn is talk about inclusion, love of your fellow man, and care for the defenseless.
My main beef with Christian Conservatives is that for many, abortion is, for all intents and purposes, the only social justice issue. Some of the same "passionate" champions of the unborn aren't nearly so compassionate when it comes to the "defenseless" that have already been born.
There are uglier elements to both the right and the left - I've gone on record in regard to some of my beefs with what passes for the "left" these days. The ugly element of the "right" seems to fall into this pattern of draconian solutions which hurt people who are already vulnerable. I've seen it in the states, when both Missouri and Florida (both Republican administrations) enacted Medicaid changes that resulted in the cancellation of funding for nutritional supplements used by children and adults with various disabilities who use feeding tubes. (the irony should be obvious regarding Florida) Luckily, in Florida, anyway, some outraged medical people raised enough of a stink that the regs are on hold - for now.
My impression is that a lot of "pro-life" people are only "pro-life" when it comes to abortion and will forgive almost any assault on the lives of ill, old, disabled and poor people if it's done by politicians who pay lip service to being anti-abortion. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My main beef with Christian Conservatives is that for many, abortion is, for all intents and purposes, the only social justice issue.
I don't think this is true in general of those who work as pro-life activists as opposed to the run-of-the-mill anti-legalized-abortion politician. As to the typical pro-life voter, I'd bet the problem is more ignorance than lack of caring. I certainly do care about the medicaid issue, I try to stay reasonably informed, and I haven't heard of either issue.
Not that ignorance in such situations isn't a moral failing. But it's a different one than the one you describe.
Not that "for many, abortion is, for all intents and purposes, the only social justice issue" isn't literally true, for any reasonable definition of "many." I'm sure there are millions who fit that description. I'm contending that the strange alignment of the parties and the association of "Republican" with "pro-life" (and not the other way around - my order is intentional) has caused some Republican positions to be viewed as more typical of the pro-life crowd than I believe them to be.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem isn't with Christians who vote pro-life as their main reasoning. Its with the Democrats for not offering them a truly Christian choice.
I await the brave politician who stands up and says:
"I am not Pro-Life. I am not Pro-Choice. I am Pro-Gressive. I am tired of this paralyzing entrenched yelling. I want to move the debate forward, to progress to solutions that the majority find acceptable.
There are intelligent, caring, passionate people on both sides of the issue. Each is striving to do what they think is best. I refuse to gain votes by channeling these good people, their passions and their energies at each other, but instead want to channel them together, to progress forward.
The goal of both sides is to lower the number of abortions neccesary in this world. I have yet to meet a Pro-Choice person who does not call abortion an unfortunate neccesity. Then again I have yet to meet a Pro-Life person who thought to harm the mothers involved.
Let us work together to limit abortions, not by voting for law makers who promise to legislate it away, but by removing the causes and the neccesities behind the need.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
