Jerry Springer is basically saying Obama is right.

[iconoclastNYC]

Another reason to dislike Springer... he's just clueless on framing.

[xultar]

1. OBAMA is right. If no one can see that religion is important to

Progressives as much as it is to nazi righties then we've got some serious problems.

There are religious people in Liberal/Progressive ranks. To deny that fact is stoopid.

The cool thing about us is we should be diverse and open about it but we aren't.

Where the fuck is the big tent. Apparently some one has torn it down and packed it away.

[bryant69]

5. Hmmmm

He's right in that the Democratic Party should not be hostile to religion. But he's wrong in the suggestion that it is.

Democratic Underground is occasionally hostile to religion - but the Democratic Party isn't.

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

[rocktivity]

21. DING DING DING! Bryant69, you're our grand prize winner!

He's right in that the Democratic Party should not be hostile to religion. But he's wrong in the suggestion that it is.

I believe Obama's intentions were sincere, but he mis-framed the issue. Instead of describing the Dems as being on the defensive when it come to religion, he should have spelled out the real problem (the religious right's control of the GOP and the perception they have created at Dems are anti-religous), and what the solutions are (driving a wedge between the political religious right and the religious, and supporting the freedom of all religions and the separation of church and state). His speech was more off-target than it was bad.

:headbang:
rocknation

[goclark]

7. I agree with you after reading the full text

of his speech and seeing the video clip of him in Church.

He has roots as a Christian and I'm sure he sincerely wants to find a way to have the RIGHT WING not own Jesus!

STICKIE: Falwell Does Not Own Jesus!

Keep it going!

[IndyOp]

14. I am with you Xultar. I am not Christian and I believe

Obama's speech *is* really good - he is reclaiming values as being the possession of liberals in the tradition of Dr. King and Dorothy Day. He makes his tent *huge* - he stresses that these values belong to Christians, Jews, Muslims, and to the secular as well. He stresses that separation of church and state should be most important to the people who are most religious - as was true when the country was founded.

He is not pandering - he is looking at this issue from a progressive perspective.

The text of the entire speech is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1528922

Xultar - I think people who are reacting strongly against what Obama has to say are not reading/listening carefully or they are having a kneejerk reaction against the word 'Christian.' To some extent, I have that reaction, too. But I, as a progressive, am desperate for truly MORAL leadership. Al Gore is making HUGE inroads on getting people to pay attention to the climate crisis by stressing that it is *not* a political issue, it is a moral issue. To me that is what Obama is trying to do with social justice issues - they are moral issues, no matter what religious affiliation someone does or does not have.

I have not liked Obama's actions since he has landed in the Senate, but I do like this speech.

:thumbsup:

[RufusEarl]

22. Obama

I think this is the type of christian that Obama is addressing, and imho this is the type of christian we want in the democratic party.

Christian Minister's speech regarding "moral values" .....One of the few...........................em
Edited on Wed Jun-28-06 04:02 PM by RedEarth
Subject: A Christian Minister Speaks Out with Clarity and Conviction


Dr. Robin Meyers' Speech to students at University of Oklahoma... back in 2004..


As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, an Open and Affirming, Peace and Justice church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor.

Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian.

We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about? Because we don't get to
make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does.

Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:

1. When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not
moral, but immoral.


2. When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world, you are doing something immoral.


3. When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword), you are doing something immoral.


4. When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are doing something immoral.


5. When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral.


6. When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.


7. When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called "enemy combatants" of the rules of the Geneva convention, which your own country helped to establish and insists that other countries follow, you are doing something immoral.


8. When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorists -- and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to
kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.


9. When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing something immoral.


10. When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn't matter what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.


11. When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn out record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral.


12. When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral.


13. When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the earth which is God's gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral. The earth
belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.


14. When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.


15. When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a "compassionate conservative," using the word which is the essence of all religious faith-compassion, and then show no compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something immoral.


16. When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral.


17. When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral.

I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian, I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith. I'm tired of people saying that I can't support the troops but oppose the war.

I heard that when I was your age--when the Vietnam war was raging. We knew that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong--the only question is how many people are going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed from power?

This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can turn things around are people like you--young people who are just beginning to wake up to what is happening to them. It's your country to take back. It's your faith to take back.

It's your future to take back.

Don't be afraid to speak out. Don't back down when your friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real
Buddhists--so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious.

Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith.

And war -- war is the greatest failure of the human race -- and thus the greatest failure of faith. There's an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more, that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed? How many wars does it take to know that too many people have died?

What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we will find out.

http://www.mayflowerucc.org/listening/PeaceMarchSpeech1...

[rocktivity]

27. DING DING DING--THIS should the Dem religious strategy!!!

...I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian...

...When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorists -- and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.

...I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian, I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith...

link (pdf file)

This is EXACTLY what I mean by the GOP "creating the perception that Dems are anti-religious" and by Dems "driving a wedge between the religious right and the religious!" More important, it's a message EVERYONE can send the religious right--"You ARE not Christian, you do NOT share my values, and YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME OR ANYONE THAT I WORSHIP!"

:bounce:
rocknation

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Absolutely agreed. nt

[rocktivity]

41. NO ONE is saying that religion isn't important to the Dems

except the Repubs.

:headbang:
rocknation

[GregD]

2. what's up with Obama now?

[Warpy]

3. Dean is right and struck the right balance when he appeared

on CBN. I think the video is still out there. I watched it at their website. Dean linked Democratic economic policies to Christian doctrine and did it well. He refused to let himself get drawn into the rigid, hateful social bullshit. There was an outcry about gay marriage and PART of a remark he made that ignored the fact that he signed a civil union bill into law, but he struck the right note on that, also.

I heard Obama's speech for the first time today. He sounds like he's pandering. I was horribly disappointed in him. He would seem to be tone deaf.

[still_one]

9. he is pandering

[goclark]

11. I disagree

I am speaking now as a Christian and an African American.

When I saw Obama at that Church truly rejoicing in the singing with the choir, I felt wonderful.

We should not alow Falwell to own Jesus!

He was not pandering IMO, he was telling the truth to a group of people that needed to wake up from a RepubliCON trance.

[jwirr]

4. If you are talking about the Sojourner thing then you are wrong.

This group is the liberal evangelical churches that support Democrat goals and most of them are black churches. Why would we not want to approach them?

[iconoclastNYC]

10. You don't reinforce Right-wing Frames EVER!

[rocktivity]

35. You don't reinforce Right-wing Frames EVER...

...especially not when the right-wing frame is a frameup!

:mad:
rocknation

[jwirr]

44. These people are not rw. Go and read the Sojourner Magazine

if you don't believe me. They are listed on many progressive sights. I think there is a link on Common Dreams.

[baldguy]

6. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat.

I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink,
I was a stranger, and ye took me in,
Naked, and ye clothed me,
I was sick, and ye visited me,
I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Evangelical Christianity is not a conservative ideology.

[still_one]

8. It is just his opinion, we are all entitled to that

the reality is that obama is a whore, who will NOT get the dividends he expects to get. Any right wing evangelist who supports bush now will not be swayed, and the moderate to liberal evangelists were already on our side

The democratic party is in for some rough times if it continues to captitulate

[iconoclastNYC]

12. Bingo

To think that the right-wing is going to suddenly come around if we agree with them that liberals hate faith is insanity.

[IndyOp]

19. I do not believe Obama's speech is capitulating - he is re-framing

some important issues and communicating that liberals DO NOT feel/think what conservatives say that godless liberals feel/think. Yes, he starts from the conservative perspective on what liberals think & do -- but he MOVES from there to communicate about social justice, secular morality, and separation of church and state. Also, I think the speech is right for the Sojourners' liberal Christian audience.

Please read the entire speech:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1528922

[still_one]

26. I respectfully disagree, I think this is pandoring pure and simple

[jobycom]

13. Springer's right for a change, so's Obama. Hate is bad policy for liberals

My favorite part of Obama's statement was that if Democrats showed some respect towards Evangelicals, they would have options other than Falwell and Robertson. I didn't agree with every part of what he said, but the gist is right--we pretend to be the party of equality, and yet too often our leaders and voters get just as divisive as the Republicans. For every gay-bashing thread on FR, we have a Christian-bashing thread here. For every racist and sexist comment there, we match it with a slam against "rednecks," who used to be called blue collar workers and were the heart of our party. The hatred hear against Southerners is unbelievable.

And when we get a leader who remembers that the Democratic Party is about inclusion and equality, that leader gets trashed. Obama, Clinton, even Howard Dean with his comment about appealing to southerners.

Why would the mainstream vote for us? The only reason most of us can even offer is because the Republicans are screwing up so bad. "Vote for us! We hate you, but we don't fuck up as bad as the other guys!" So in 2008 they'll run someone smarter than Bush, and that excuse will be gone.

There is too much hatred in this party right now. In both parties. In the country. I'm not a Democrat so I can hate. I'd be a Republican if that's all I wanted to do. There should be more to our party than just who we hate.

[iconoclastNYC]

15. How do liberals show respect?

Outlaw Abortion?

Hate Gays?

Put Women back in thier place?

Merge Church and State?

Deny Evolution?

Censor sexuality in the media?

Liberals respect evangelicals. Republicans pander to them, use them, and manipulate them.

That's what's being lost in this whole thing. The Republicans built a power base by using evangelics playing to thier base insticts and getting evangelicals to blame and hate liberals.

Osama is giving them an assist on this, he's reinforcing thier frames that liberals are at war with religion.

[Cocoa]

17. no

of course the answer to all your questions is no. The fact that you asked them suggests that you misunderstood Obama big time.

And "liberals respect evangelicals" is too broadly stated. In fact some liberals despise evangelicals.

[iconoclastNYC]

42. Well you didn't answer my question.

How do liberals respect evangelicals and fundies?

While you are at it how do we mis-respect them?

I'm sorry but a lot of these fundies want to strip me of my rights. I respect thier religion to the extent that it keeps it's claws out of my government and my rights as a human being.

[jobycom]

20. By not attacking

By not starting posts claiming Jesus is fiction. By using the language and imagery of Christians to support OUR views. "Jesus is about charity. Jesus is about equality. Jesus is about peace. Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."" By not screaming that a Democrat like Obama who says something concilliatory about Christians is a fraud, a traitor, whatever. By not having our leaders say things like "The Republican party is the party of white Christians," in a way that makes both sound bad.

Our party has people of strong belief. Carter, Gore, Jackson. But when these leaders talk about their beliefs, we get nervous, we back away from them on those comments, we act as though we should be ashamed of their beliefs.

Liberals don't respect Evangelicals, and no one believes they do, least of all Evangelicals. Scan a few posts. Look for words like "Talibornigain" or "Christofascists." They are all over our board. They are all over our LTTEs and our columns in papers. We can fight the policies of Evangelicals without attacking there religion, or their personal faith. We can explain why school prayer is offensive to some (and illegal) without attacking the religion of those who support it. When someone like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell make their outlandish claims we go right for the religious jugular, rather than attacking only the statements they made.

Yes, Republicans pander to and use Evangelicals. And Evangelicals know it (they aren't stupid, despite our bias towards believing so). But they prefer that to our hatred of them. Claiming we respect Evangelicals then blasting what they stand for is exactly like the Republicans who say they love gays but hate their sin. We don't respect them.

[endarkenment]

24. I'm confused, was Obama talking about DU posters?

Somehow I do not think that posts here regarding the divinity or historical existance of one Jesus of Nazereth were the problem that Obama was addressing. So exactly what problem was Obama addressing, and more importantly what remedy is he proposing?

'Look for words like "Talibornigain" or "Christofascists."' - the problem is that there really is a religious right, it really is working inside the Republican Party to effect a theocracy here, it really is our own taliban, they really are christofascists. So if your prescription is that we should shut up about all that, no thanks.

[jobycom]

33. Yes

Your first point: yes, DU is one of the images the Democratic Party shows. Us, Bartcop, and all the other websites devoted to liberals, as well as the various neutral websites where we argue with conservatives. Our politicians look for support on sites like this, and frame their positions with the "blogosphere" in mind. So yes, we do have a big impact on the debate in our party, and I do believe that's part of what Obama was talking about. WE are the party. Shirking responsibility for what we say because we don't think anyone is listening is not a good solution.

Second, I specifically answered your question in my previous post. Read it closer. We can attack the positions of people with extremists views without working religion into it, or by acknowledging their religious view without attacking them for it. Someone says "God hates fags," we choose to call them religious slurs, when we could choose to say something like "Religion is a personal matter, and no one is telling you what you have to believe or accept. In terms of law, the Constitution gaurantees equality of all people before the law. yadayadayada." Take away their religious argument by acknowledging it and moving on.

Neither I nor Obama was saying "Shut up and give them their way." If that's what you think either of us said, go back and read his speech.

[endarkenment]

37. But their religious extremism is the problem.

"We can attack the positions of people with extremists views without working religion into it"

I'm sorry but the problem with RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS is their religious extremism. I cannot attack people proposing theocracy without attacking their religious beliefs: they believe their deity requires them to establish a theocracy, their religious beliefs are the problem.

Obama touches briefly on this point, noting that the falwells and robertsons hold the religious voter in thrall, but then avoids it. His prescription is to remove the phrase 'right wing extremist' from his web site for fear of offending the religious anti abortion voter who is not a right wing extremist but is merely in thrall to right wing extremists. I am fine with Obama editing his website so as not to offend the misguided christian voter, now is he going to go head to head with the religious extremists or simply avoid mentioning that they are hell bent on theocracy in hopes of splitting off some fraction of the religious voter from the Republican Party? Hard to tell from his essay.

[jobycom]

38. I'm sure he's not expecting to win many crossover votes

His point is more that we don't have to anger people so much. Obama doesn't avoid Falwell and Robertson, he says that Christians turn to them because they are the only options, because we treat Evangelicals the way Republicans treat gays. We feel they are morally wrong, and we can't tolerate their existence. That's why they hate us, and that's what Obama is getting at (and if I'm reading too much into what he says, I'll say it's my point). Evangelical Christians have as much right to exist and pursue happiness and be respected by our government as any other group of people do. Mostly we get that, mostly our views aren't an attack on them. But sometimes they are.

How do you feel when you hear Coulter talk about "Godless Liberals," or anyone else talk about "the liberal war on Christianity?" Our war isn't with Christianity, so we all (even atheists like me) get upset by such attacks. That's what Obama is saying. We attack just like that. Attacking an individual for a specific policy belief or statement isn't the issue. It's the more generalized attacks that are.

As for someone proposing a theocracy, you can isolate their views from their religion. It's not only less likely to offend other Christians, it's also a more effective debate tactic, since they lose the support of people who might identify with their beliefs only because of similar religious beliefs.

[AndyTiedye]

31. We Use Those Terms To Distinguish them from Real Christians

Liberals don't respect Evangelicals, and no one believes they do, least of all Evangelicals. Scan a few posts. Look for words like "Talibornigain" or "Christofascists."

We use those terms for a reason. It would not be fair to use "Evangelicals" or "Christian" in their place, because the contexts in which we use them do not apply to most
Christians or even most Evangelicals. If you think we should be respectful to the likes of Dobson or Ralph Reed, I will have to respectfully disagree.

The problem is that any criticism whatsoever of these right-wing pseudo-Christians gets framed as an attack on Christiantity, no matter how we phrase it.

[jobycom]

36. As an atheist

I don't really feel qualified to judge whether a person is a true Christian, or true Muslim, or true Jew. I also don't see how it matters. You can attack the views of someone who says "God wants us to nuke them all" without attacking their religion or using religious slurs. "I doubt God wants us to kill anyone, but the real question is whether this is good foreign policy." Or "That's an extreme view." Or, if you feel the need to be smart-aleck about it, "God didn't tell me that, and until he does, I'm doing what I believe he wants."

The moment insults like "christofascist" start flying, we loose the argument from any perspective of making a positive change in this country. I guess if the purpose is just to see how mad we can get them, maybe we win. But I don't like "moral" victories. I want to see us quit killing innocent people. I want to see us with a decent nation again. That means more to me than knocking an opponent speechless with a well-placed insult. I can do that. I could have approached your post that way. But it wouldn't have gotten me anything I wanted.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

39. This Is an Outstanding Post

It (perhaps an expanded version) deserves its own thread, IMO. Great job, Jobycom!

DTH

[jobycom]

40. Thanks

I was feeling a bit battered there. :) Glad for a break in the blows! :rofl: (yeah, I know, we all live for the blows or we wouldn't be here).

[iconoclastNYC]

43. Name one mainstream Liberal who has done any of that stuff you cite?

I'm sorry but the fact that there are some people who hate religion is a NON PROBLEM. And Obama is aiding and abetting the Republican lie that liberals (as a group) misrespect religion.

This is total bullshit.

Christians are a super majority in this country but yet they think the evil boogey-men liberals are out to ban thier bibles.

It's crap and Obama should spend his time reinforcing OUR FRAMES instead of Republican frames.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Not in his speech, he isn't. Reread it

[jobycom]

32. Exactly. He added that last line after I began typing my response

so I didn't see it, but Obama specifically criticized Falwell and Robertson, and said we should be an option for Evangelicals to turn to. That's a far cry from helping them frame their issues.

[endarkenment]

23. Get your false dichotomies right here!

The choice is not between reaching out to the non Democratic religious voter and hating christians.

[Joe Chi Minh]

30. Good post. Though I may depart from your view in that I feel for

the "ordinary" person, who appreciates the importance of moral values in sexual matters as well as in economics. Until recently, Christianity and Judaism were never the smorgasbord of Judaeo-Christian or Judaic beliefs that prevails today, in the name of tolerance.

I can assure you that the UK is the perfect laboratory for learning about the spiritual war that's going on between sexual (and of course, economic) libertarianism and Christianity.

While there was plenty of homosexual literature on display in the offices of a council here, Christians were not allowed to leave their literature there, as it was deemed to be divisive. Well, of course, in a sense that's true. But I think most people would prefer it to the current alternative, since the latter is now acting as a cuckoo in our traditionally Christian societies. I dare say there are many other such councils here.

Christmas cards were banned from Oxfam and some other shops. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, not as bad as under Thatcher's terms of office as PM, when, if I remember correctly, you couldn't even buy Christmas cards with a Christian theme in a card shop. Certainly, my local sub-post office. The far right... Always blazing the trail.. Things have never been as bad though, as under Blair and his cronies, who are some way to the right of Thatcher.

In primary schools, children are apparently being taught how to engage in homosexual copulation. But then, why wouldn't they, given the beliefs of the promoters of these tutorials? Tolerance on the margins, it seems, could never be enough. It has to become mainstream - the mainstream.

[Cocoa]

16. framing is overrated

people are sick of spin, they want leaders to talk straight.

[endarkenment]

25. Yeah I've noticed how it hasn't worked at all for the GOP. nt.

[OneBlueSky]

18. unfortunately, supporting the separation of church and state . . .

has been bastardized by the right to into being against religion . . . nothing could be further from the truth . . .

in this day and age, of course, the truth doesn't seem to have much relevance, particularly to the right . . . what with the truth being the essential component of reality and all . . . these folks, after all, like to create their own reality -- which seldom has any place for the truth . . .

guess I better get with the times, huh . . . :shrug:

[Skidmore]

34. Doesn't Springer have a trailer trash video or a PayperView

trash show to hawk somewhere?