Democrats are religious enough....

[Dookus]

I believe we need to stop playing with the notion that we're losing lots of voters because Democrats aren't "Christian enough" for middle-America.

By and large, ALL Democrats in high public office are religious - they are church-going, faithful members of their denominations.

The argument is NOT about whether they're religious enough, but rather, are the policies they support acceptable to the religious voter, and that's a very different question.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are religious - demonstrably more-so than Reagan or GWB. They attend church regularly, can quote the bible when needed, and sincerely seem inspired by their faith. But that's not good enough for most.

They're not the "right" kind of Christian because they support policies whose flip-side have been co-opted by the religious right as political issues.

We will NEVER out-Christ the fundies. Never. Give it up... it's a pipe-dream. Even if we accepted so-called pro-life Democrats, do you really think that would shut up the opposition? I don't think so. If we "go slow" on gay marriage, will THAT shut up the opposition? I don't think so. There is NOTHING the Dems can do that will convince a fundy to vote Dem, because there is ALWAYS another issue on the horizon for the radical-right to go after us on.

The argument needs to be made that religion is personal, and does not belong in the public square. We already have one political party effectively controlled by the religious, and I don't see anything to be gained by having BOTH parties so-controlled.

The radical-right would LOVE to see us adopt many of their positions - it means they could pass their legislation with our help, without it giving us any additional political power.

A lot of Americans are uncomfortable with religion in the public sphere, and the Dems are doing nothing to attract them. I believe it is an easy argument to make, and we should be driving it home: Separation of Church and State benefits both Churches AND States. Commingling them is a recipe for disaster, both for the country and the party.

[Bill McBlueState]

1. kick

Kick, because Dookus has a great point. Democrats can't win by acting like Republicans, whether it's religion or anything else.

[trotsky]

2. You're absolutely right.

The fundies have succeeded so well in unifying their message with the Republican party that MANY people now think that Democrats are Satan's minions - for real. There is no way you will reach them. Not until some issue affects them personally, and maybe not even then. Plenty of right-wing nuts can reconcile their personal choices - to have sex, to get an abortion, etc. - with the puritanical stances of their party. The word "hypocrisy" has no meaning with them.

This is further complicated by the common confusion between "secular" and "atheistic." Many people think that by being religion-neutral, you are actually PUSHING atheism. That's something we need to fix, too.

[bryant69]

3. One Quibble

While this debate has seen good arguments on both sides, one argument referenced above is the one about how we are never going to convince fundies to join our side. This is 100% true, but I don't know if it is the goal of people who support becoming more religious or more friendly to religion (or however you want to put it) to convince fundies to join our cause--that's not really going to happen. The goal is to convince people in the middle that we are a safe harbor.

That said, I'm not sure the way to do this is to adopt the rights positions on issues.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Dookus]

10. and my position

is that people in the middle are more likely to support a party that articulates the idea that religion and government are best kept separate.

[Quixote1818]

30. A few quotes from the Bible from time to time don't tear the wall down

We are not talking about tearing down the wall between church and state, we are talking about a candidate throwing in a quote or two about poverty in the Bible from time to time like RFK did on Bill O'Reilly's show. Getting the liberal Christian message out loud and clear. As long as religion stays out of policy the wall is safe but candidates are allowed to say what they personally believe from time to time. The middle will most certainly respond to that because the middle are primarily Christians.

[Warpy]

4. Very much so, out Christianing them isn't possible.

However, I've found out for a year or so that pointing out which policies of the GOP are wholly unchristian packs one hell of a wallop. They have no answer, and it's the one thing that will start those rusty, unused mental wheels turning.

[gratuitous]

25. Well, it again comes down to the framing

Out-Christing the fundamentalists is actually a pretty easy thing to do, and the Christian Testament is jam-packed with left-wing talking points. But the argument won't be won overnight, nor will it be easy. Religious progressives need first of all to get over their queasiness to citing scripture. So many times, I have seen perfectly valid liberal points made to the ordering of our society, but they are shorn of any Christian reference -- apparently in deference to the many liberals and progressives who aren't Christian.

This leads to the fundy point that liberals aren't true or real Christians, and I'm not about to abandon that point -- my faith and my political stances are inextricably intertwined. Liberals don't have to quote scripture or cite chapter and verse every time we make a point, but from time to time grounding those ideas in the Christian Testament takes a very potent weapon away from the Repressive Right. And once the point is made that the Bible does not speak with one authoritative voice, but that it presents a range of viewpoints on any number of social and political issues, we take away the Repressives' weapon of bashing us over the head with the Bible.

We'll get to the turning of the rusty mental gears next.

[ArcRabbit]

5. Great post, you got the right idea imho. Kick! n/t

[Tux]

6. Instead

Of speaking to the fundies, the best thing is to attract the moderates and the libertarians. Dems need to counter Reps by trying to lower taxes and reduce wasteful spending. As for religion, speak to those who follow Jesus and other religious philosophers like Buddha, Confuscious, or Moses. Let the Christian right own gay marriage and abortion but Dems need to speak against wasteful spending, increasing perks for elected officials, clear separation of church and state but a message that includes freedom of religion and not appear to support atheism (quoting Jesus, etc would help). Turn the issues to the economy, war on terrorism Bush forgot about, and the renewal of our tax code that Joe Sixpack can understand and means more money for him.

[Lindacooks]

7. I don't agree. The KKKristians now in power are NOT Christian.

They do not follow the teachings of Christ - in fact, their policies are the exact opposite of his message. Talking back to them, using the words of Christ, is one of our most powerful weapons. We just need a messenger or two and somebody in the fucking MSM to wake up and start telling the truth.

[Dookus]

8. nope

I disagree vehemently.

Arguing that they're not "real christians" is a losing proposition, and irrelevant. We are NOT trying to find out which party is "more" christian than the other - that's a dead-end road.

There is NO convincing evidence one way or the other that the Bible supports liberalism or conservatism. You don't think they're real christians, they don't think YOU'RE a real christian.

The whole point of my thread is that you will NEVER out-christ the fundies, and trying to do so will hurt the Democratic Party.

[hfojvt]

15. I agree with you on that point

but disagree on the other.
You cannot out-Christian the fundies. They are not open to either rational or theological argument, and they can answer most people verse for verse. At least most of them can. I speak from experience as a person who knows a little bit about the Bible myself.
However, an atheist takeover of the Democratic party would not be a winning strategy. Separation of church and state is one thing, separation of values and politics is another. Also, do not presume to tell me how to practice my religion and insist that I need to keep it "personal and/or private". I practice my religion the way I see fit.
The point is not to try to attract moderates by being "fundy-lite", the point is to avoid alienating moderates by being Jesus or religion bashers. After all, atheism is very personal and private and has no business in politics. And no, the questions cannot be avoided by some kind of "neutrality" - "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

[Telly Savalas]

20. Being secular isn't the same as bashing religion

And being secular doesn't require us to separate values and politcs. One of the core values of the Democratic Party is that it's the government's responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society (and I'm not talking about fetuses). Whether this value comes from a religious faith or an atheistic humanist philosophy is irrelevant. By keeping the discussion in the secular realm, we broaden the appeal of our message. That is:

"The Bible says X,Y, and Z" is not as inclusive a message as "as Democrats we believe X,Y ,and Z, because these values are what makes America great and if you are a Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Agnostic, or whatever, you will find a home in this party if you share our belief in these values."

[hfojvt]

26. that is not what the OP said

"The argument needs to be made that religion is personal, and does not belong in the public square."

Also, why should it matter where the X, Y, and Z come from? If an atheist, Muslim, Jew, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, etc. believes in X, Y, and Z they should be able to see past a few Bible quotes especially if it will advance a progressive agenda by bringing in some of the nominally Christian mainstream.
A secular candidate might do well, and I certainly would not oppose one who ran against the right-wing hypocrites in my districts. However, I would worry that right wing fundies would make the absence of religion into an issue and beat us like a drum. Atheism does not play well in Peoria.

[Quixote1818]

27. You are over estimating the American Public

The fact is that most Americans are Christians and to ignore that fact is political suicide. Since our founding guys like Jefferson and Washington were Deist in reality but Christian in the public square. Even Tom Paine an Atheist used the Bible to drum up support for the Revolution. It comes down to which side gets their message out better. The Nutty Christians or the loving Christians. To ignore that will only leave us loosing more and more elections. The loving Christians have been too quiet and we are loosing elections because 90% of the Country is Christian. It's not about saying they are "not real Christians" it's about getting a message out to the public that reminds people that many of the things Jesus taught were very liberal. It's that simple.

I am a Humanist but I don't have a problem with the liberal loving teachings of Jesus Christ and if talking about them a little more like RFK does or JFK use to do then FUCK yes we need to throw in a little more Spirituality into the mix.

[Lindacooks]

32. Nope. My dh wrote a book called

"God is Love and Other Fundamentals the Fundamentalists Forgot" which takes every single issue in today's politics and proves that the Democrats are right and the fundies and Repukes are wrong. Proves it by using Bible verses. This book is sorely needed in today's dark America. And I think it's time the true Christians, those who follow Christ's words, need to start standing up to those evil bastard Repukes.

[libodem]

9. you have a real good point

religion should be a personal issue and not a public or governmental issue. Separate church and state!

[FreedomAngel82]

12. Yep

To me, as a Christian, my spiritual beliefs are between me, God and Jesus. The religious right can say I'm evil all they want but it won't make it true. Remember that they've had years to get this down with super powers in religion like Falwell, Robertson and Dobson whether they are right or wrong. Because they claim to be Christian priest's in the public eye people listen to them. All we can do is if we're around and someone says something that is untrue about us to speak up. That's all I know to do. Like others have pointed out: the republicans have had years to get this "anti-democratic" message out. That we're all rich people who don't understand your basic average American and we're "evil" and for "sin" and whatnot. All they have to do is hammer it into people's heads a few times and in a few sermons. Look, for example, what Bush is trying to do with SS. He's trying to blame FDR for the plan and that it won't work and be around forever and it's failing and that, because he's a republican, he can be the one to fix it when he's never fixed anything before in his life.

[sandnsea]

11. who votes Republican

I made this point in a different thread, it pissed people off but too bad I guess.

Assuming people vote Republican in the Presidential election because of "Christian values" presumes that white males are "more Christian" than everybody else because that's who primarily votes for Republicans.

These same people will often vote Democratic for other seats. But suddenly in a Presidential election they worry about abortion and gay marriage and Christian values??? I don't think so.

It's the "we're #1" thing. Superior Christian values. Economic self-sufficiency. International military superiority.

Back in the 50's and 60's, it seems like the adults valued education, sophistication, enlightened thinking. They didn't want to be stuck in the rigidity of their religious upbringing. They wanted to be something better and that meant being generous to the rest of the world, working with countries towards peace and prosperity. Labor was respected. A different set of values meant "#1" back then.

The Republicans moved the country right with the most massive marketing effort in history. All these groups have a direct mail king or Bradley/Scaife/Mellon behind them. When Rush came on the scene, that was the nail in the coffin, although we didn't know it at the time.

I think by the time the DLC started doing their market research, the effects of all this marketing and Reagan had already done its work. Not to mention the image of Carter as being unable to handle Iran and with many, the loss of the Vietnam War. Nobody wants to be associated with a loser, and people tend to forget Nixon won over the anti-war candidates too. Although I think alot of young people voted for Nixon as a rejection of LBJ and the Democratic war too.

It seems to me the question is how to move away from this "you're on your own" society and back to a cooperative society. Religion only plays a part in bringing out the Christian values of helping the poor, the sick, the less fortunate. Humility. That sort of thing.

Death bed conversions on abortion and gay rights aren't going to fool anybody. That's how Hillary and Howard Dean sound right now.

[Dookus]

13. I see a difference

Hillary Clinton spoke about reducing abortions, but she has never wavered in her position that Roe v Wade be upheld. Dean's statements concern me more - not that I believe he wants to overturn Roe, but that he's willing to accommodate and support candidates who do.

[sandnsea]

23. This remark

She's made a couple of other similar remarks. It's the religious tone I'm talking about, not her goals. Research from looking around my small, middle America town, shows that teen-age girls abstain when they have hope for a brighter future. Their religion and "moral values" have absolutely nothing to do with it. To me, it seems to fly in the face of everything we've learned about girls and equality and opportunity the last 40 years. I hate to see her go down this bullshit road, and like I said, it isn't going to fool anybody anyway.

"Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values."

[hfojvt]

17. one backwards point

Some of it depends on people and the power of incumbents. Thus SD will always vote Republicans for President, but it will elect Daschle, Johnson, McGovern (some of that is perhaps being elected in off years, like 1974 where mobilizing your turn-out can swing the election), and Herseth to Congress.
However, in 2000 Gore won Nussle's district (R-Ia) by 60-40. Yet Nussle was re-elected by 60-40. Incumbentocracy is part of that, but I also see it as a failure by Gore to stump for Congressional candidates. In 2000 Gore also won Ryun's district (R-Ks) yet Ryun was re-elected by the same voters. Kerry got more votes in Kansas than Jones (the Democrat for US senate) did.
Also, you forgot one demographic - old people. Kerry won or ran even in all demographics except the over 60 voter. I do not have the numbers, but I think that 30% of white males voted for Kerry and probably 30% of white females voted for Bush. Kudos to black people though, who voted for Kerry about 90-10 which is why I made an effort to register black people.

[sandnsea]

22. Uhm, no

The only demographic that went for Kerry nationally was the 18-29 vote. White men went Kerry, 62-37 nationally. My only point is that this clearly isn't a "moral values" vote, these guys don't come out to vote on abortion and gay marriage. Conceding these issues only makes the far right stronger, seems to me. Why vote for people who are admitting they've been wrong for 40 years?

[Abelman]

14. God's Politics

by Jim Wallis

I just finished reading this, it was a very insightful book on the problems all Americans face. It discussed how the GOP claims to be the party of God but completely neglects any actual Christian decisions. It then discussed how the Democratic Party is almost scared for any of its officials to acknowledge they have any faith, even though the Christian faith would support many of their policies.

It named one of the largest problems facing the nation as poverty, and Wallis gave some interesting information on Americans polled and how most feel this is the most important issue. It wouldn't be very difficult to pull the rug out from under the GOP if we simply had someone who had a knowledge of the Christian faith.

Quoting Wallis, faith in God is "personal; but never private." We need more Democrats who are comfortable with their faith and aren't scared to state how they believe. Affirming that they make their moral choices partially due to their faith would comfort the majority of Americans.

It was a very good read, and one I would reccomend.

[Dookus]

16. well it sounds like that book espouses the opposite of

what I'm saying.

First off, Democrats are NOT shy about professing their faith. They do so ad nauseum.

Second, the idea that Democratic ideals are more Christian than Republican ones is a neverending, dead-end argument. The Bible argues both sides quite effectively. We may as well argue faith vs. works as a vehicle for salvation - it's just as likely to have a meaningful outcome.

As for poverty, the fact that Americans agree it's a problem has nothing to do with how Americans want to SOLVE the problem. Liberals say Jesus wants welfare... Conservatives say Jesus wants to teach a man to fish. My point is we should STOP considering the bible as a resource with answers to address these problems.

[quaker bill]

19. Jim Wallis has a great point

The worst thing that could happen to the right wing is for their supporters to actually read the Bible and actually become Christians.

The right uses the symbols of Christianity fairly well but does not govern as Christians. For one thing, the Bible spends very few words on sexual morality but there are hundreds of quotes demanding that the faithful take care of the poor.

[Quixote1818]

29. Absolutly, that kind of information needs to get out to the public

Americans are lazy and they believe only what is feed to them. We just need to feed them healthy spiritual ideas.

[dsc]

18. One out of four of this party's votes come from pro life liberals

There would have been no Civil Rights movement and no Abolition movement in this country but for the religious left. There would have been no nuclear freeze movement but for the religious left. Remember the 40 hour workweek and ending child labor again brought to us by the religious left. The majority of people in this country are religious and thus it makes sense that the majority of politicians are too.

[knitter4democracy]

21. I completely agree.

We just need to work on framing the issues so that the average voter knows what's really going on. Most pro-lifers I know care deeply about what happens after birth, and they just don't know or can't see that the Republican policies kill people. Once their eyes are opened, they vote Dem.

I saw it happen over and over in college (very Republican place--an evangelical Christian college) on mission trips. Get them out and listening to people, and the light turns on.

[freestyle]

24. We "out-Christ" them just by being decent people

The fundamentalists are modern day Pharisees and crucify Christ on a regular basis. The teachings of Jesus are primarily about social justice, and the fundamentalists stomp all over that. We can't let then hijack and twist the glorious example of Jesus Christ to their ends. We can't out-Levite them, out-Paul them, or out-Revelation them, but by actually healing the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and doing well by the least among us, we are closer to following Jesus than they ever could be.

[Quixote1818]

28. So when RFK talks about the liberal teachings of Jesus that's a loosing

game plan????? We are not talking about tearing down the wall that separates church and state we are talking about throwing in a little more liberal Christianity into the mix, thats all. As I said above I am a humanist but if we can get out the liberal message of Jesus I see that only as a huge plus for Democrats. Go back to just about any speech by John Kennedy and you will see quotes about poverty from the Bible. Have you forgotten that 90% of Americans are Christian and the Republicans are kicking our ass with their gay and lesbian Christian message. It's time for liberal Christians to speak up and get their message out. In an insaine society a saine man must appear insane, but at least we can appear a little less insane. WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE to get the liberal Christian message out because their are just too many Christians buying into the wrong Christian message. Look at how successfully Rove is! Why? Because they get their message out! This is a war of messages and ideas and to not think Religion plays a huge roll in that is being dishonest with yourself. Like I said, I am not a Christian but I am rational enough to see that we are getting our ass kicked based on promoting the liberal message. In a Christian Country who better to promote liberal values than Christ himself?

[American Tragedy]

31. The overwhelming majority of Dem officials are openly Christian.

Yet I heard so many people say they were voting for Bush because he was a Christian.

Maybe Catholics are still not considered Christians by many in the United States, I don't know.