Very interesting article in the NYT Magazine about evangelicals and politics

[Skinner]

I know many people here on DU think they know everything they need to know about evangelicals, and have little interest in forming a more nuanced (or informed) opinion. But for everyone else, I strongly recommend this article. It shows that Christian evangelicals are not monolithic in their views of theology or politics. While many tend to share the same opinion on abortion, there is a vast yawning chasm in their views on issues like the environment, helping the poor, and even the Iraq war.

From a political perspective, this means 2008 represents a rare opportunity for Democrats to appeal to evangelical voters. If you immediately assume this means pandering to conservative views on abortion or gay marriage, you are mistaken. To be clear, we will never get the votes of hard-core conservative evangelicals. But there is a historic split taking place in the evangelical movement, and many evangelicals are questioning their commitment to the Republican party -- and the Republican party's commitment to the things that matter to them. It may sound crazy, but it appears that the the key to appealing to these disenchanted evangelicals in 2008 and beyond may be to emphasize our party's commitment to peace and social justice.

Here are two excerpts:

Some claim the falloff in support for Bush reflects the unrealistic expectations pumped up by conservative Christian leaders. But no one denies the war is a factor. Christianity Today, the evangelical journal, has even posed the question of whether evangelicals should “repent” for their swift support of invading Iraq.

“Even in evangelical circles, we are tired of the war, tired of the body bags,” the Rev. David Welsh, who took over late last year as senior pastor of Wichita’s large Central Christian Church, told me. “I think it is to the point where they are saying: ‘O.K., we have done as much good as we can. Now let’s just get out of there.’ ”

“We have just pounded the drum again and again that, for churches to reach their full redemptive potential, they have to do more than hold services — they have to try to transform their communities,” he said. “If there is racial injustice in your community, you have to speak to that. If there is educational injustice, you have to do something there. If the poor are being neglected by the government or being oppressed in some way, then you have to stand up for the poor.”

In the past, Hybels has scrupulously avoided criticizing conservative Christian political figures like Falwell or Dobson. But in my talk with him, he argued that the leaders of the conservative Christian political movement had lost touch with their base. “The Indians are saying to the chiefs, ‘We are interested in more than your two or three issues,’ ” Hybels said. “We are interested in the poor, in racial reconciliation, in global poverty and AIDS, in the plight of women in the developing world.”

It's a long read, but well worth it.

The Evangelical Crackup

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html

[DuaneBidoux]

1. Very long read, extremely worthwhile, and it gives me optimism,

[AlinPA]

2. I agree with you. I read the article and it surprised me. nt

[acmavm]

3. Exactly. For many conservative Christians, the mess that the

bush** administration has made of this country and the untold dying and killing in Iraq (not to mention a whole new war in Iran) does not sit well with a lot of people. They are appalled.

It's just like here, people denigrate those with religious beliefs and call them names. They don't have a clue what they're talking about. Not everyone belongs to Dobson's little bunch of whiney hypocrites or Fred Phelps horrible church.

Too bad some don't have the smarts to tell the difference.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. about time. They proudly

supported the president through thick and thicker (or should one say dense and denser) without questioning his policies, his goals or his arguments. There were no apparent splits or internal arguments in 2001-2003. The first schisms did not arise in public until early 2006. That does not mean that there were no disputes on policy grounds, just that there were no public ones.

Some of that is no doubt due to the leadership that took over so many religious organizations. Some of it was the natural response of Americans to a tragedy. Some of it was being brain-washed by Condi and George and their mushroom cloud arguments. A serious split would be a very welcome thing.

[MiJaMu]

5. Something i've been saying for a long time, but

good luck getting the posters on du to listen. Bigotry works both ways and they have no interest in reaching out to dirty Christians.

[slowry]

101. You gave up after 2 posts? Where's the effort! n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. One of my fears is now being realized - the evangelicals have found social justice.

Stuff that my church (The UCC) and some other mainliners have been working on for fifty years and more are finally becoming attractive to the evangelicals: environmentalism, racism, poverty, and the broken systems that allow them, and so forth.

And while we have been somewhat successful, the vast power of the evangelical/conservative base has made progress difficult.

But I have known for a long time that eventually the evangelicals would get hold of these issues, and, because of their vastly superior funding and zeal, will do in ten years what we've done in fifty or a hundred, and then they're gonna get all the credit.

x(

I'm glad they're finally, albeit slowly, getting on board - the world will be better for it. But the ego part of me is sad that the UCC and other progressive churches will get little credit for it.

Oh, well - all for the good of humanity!

The Democrats could have had them decades ago, but refused to speak their language and ignored them, considering them nothing but a fringe group of religious loonies - which gave them plenty of time to build up an incredible arsenal and fuck up the country for the past 27 years.

The evangelicals might be slow to change, but once they lock onto a cause, they are an almost unstoppable juggernaut. It's gonna be them who will be the final key to getting universal health care and better help for the poor, as well as cleaning up the environment and driving environmental regulations.

[ellacott]

10. Your church indeed has a rich history of social justice

I also wish many on DU would understand that not all Christians are "right wing fundies".

[zabet]

7. Excellent Post!

Not all Christians, even evangelicals, fall into the
hard-core right-wing fundamental Christian mindset that we
see emphasized.
I hope any one who thinks otherwise, reads this OP in full.
:thumbsup:

[ret5hd]

8. My questions are (i'll have to read the entire article later) :

what is their idea helping the poor?
of educational injustice?
of racial reconciliation?
helping women in the developing world?

Is it charity while cutting the gov't sponsored social safety net?
religious classes in schools?
Seperate but equal?
Trade your burkha for a bible?

Just askin'.

[jwirr]

22. As a liberal Christian this is what worries me also. They have almost

destroyed our constitutional form of government with their "understanding" now what are they going to do with our social agenda? All too many of them think the church should be given the money and be left to handle the problems. I am also one of the poor - Lord, protect me from your followers.

[Yael]

89. Or another way of looking at this

is that they are waking up to the fact that they were duped and liberals were on the right track all along.

[Coexist]

9. I love this Carter quote;

"what a human being ought to do is what Jesus Christ did, who was a champion of peace.”

I had never heard of Evangelical Christians until Jimmy Carter was elected President.

In my mind they were peaceful - I think I conflated them with Quakers, the closest thing in my mind, something I was familiar with.

When the abortion wars began, I was jolted, they were so mean and angry - how could someone as giving and humble as Jimmy Carter be associated with such hatred. Until I moved to the southeast, they were a study of opposites for me. I still don't understand preaching intolerance.

It will do much for the image of Christianity if the pendulum continues swinging back toward a loving theme, helping those who need it most.

[ellacott]

11. That's something that baffled me also

Many of them are so mean and angry. They are showing no love and are not good witnesses.

[Richard Steele]

12. K&R

[The Wizard]

13. The Evangelical rank and file

are getting the message that the leadership is more concerned with Republican politics than doing the work as prescribed by Christ. The Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons, et al are political hucksters disguised as clergy. That Bush has dedicated federal funds to the bank accounts of the clerics tied to Republicans is getting some attention, and the faithful are realizing the Republicans and their enablers in the clergy are a death cult bent on world domination much in the same fashion as the mustached paper hanger who stars on the History Channel.

[malta blue]

14. I found this article to be a worthwhile investment of

my time to read.

I sent it to my evangelical mother-in-law...she replied with "it's too long, and I don't like the little bit I read." What an intellectual sloth.

[info being]

15. I'm not sure you understand Evangelicals

They can claim to care about many issues, even have a nuanced view on a few, but all that really matters to them, come time to vote, is which candidate is part of "their club".

They don't really care about issues because they don't connect the dots.

[Skinner]

18. I do not claim to understand evangelicals.

But after reading that article, I have learned one thing: There are a whole lot of people in this country who consider themselves evangelicals, and it would be incorrect to assume that they all think or vote exactly the same way.

[Pale Blue Dot]

16. You post very rarely, Skinner. That's why I'm disappointed that you entered the fray on THIS issue.

I beginning to believe that the only rational thing to do right now is to call attention to irrational beliefs, not pander to them. No matter what good religious belief can do, it is still far outweighed by the harm. The bottom line is that it should have no place in American politics.

[Skinner]

19. I have not said anything about pandering to irrational beliefs.

In case there is any question, I am not myself a Christian and I am certainly not an evangelical.

But if a large group of voters can possibly be persuaded to vote Democratic by emphasizing our party's commitment to peace and social justice, I guess I don't see why we wouldn't want to do that. This is a block of voters that is open to a progressive message. Their votes are worth as much as anyone's. Should we refuse their support simply because they hold religious beliefs that are not rational?

[Pale Blue Dot]

20. No. But we should support those issues because it is the right thing to do.

Religion and evangelicals need not, and should not, be part of the conversation.

[Skinner]

21. Should Democrats campaign in African-American churches? (nt)

[Pale Blue Dot]

23. That depends on if you're asking me, or a political consultant.

My answer: No. There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state in this country. Most of the major candidates (and most Americans) seem to have forgotten that.

I believe if the message is strong enough, there should be no need to pander to the religious.

[Yael]

27. Pander to the religious?

Are you saying that there is no room on the left for people of faith? That our opinions and support of the candidates are not welcome?

Thanks for letting me know now. :hi:

[Pale Blue Dot]

36. That's not quite what I meant.

I'm saying that if your vote is ONLY based on your faith, then there is no reason for a Democratic candidate to pander to you. If your faith informs how you feel about other issues, then the Democratic candidates should be talking about those issues, NOT faith.

[LanternWaste]

72. It's my faith that prompted me to become a Democrat....

It's my faith that prompted me to become a Democrat. Stewardship (environmentalism, Peace Corp., etc) and Charity (Social Security, The Great Society, WPA, etc.) were the driving issues that convinced me to trade my GOP membership up into being a Democrat during my college years.

And as long as I see the Democratic party mirroring my own personal faith so much more so than the republicans, I'll continue to vote for the D.

Many issue overlap both the political and the religious. Recognizing that to achieve a greater consensus appears to me not so much "pandering" as it is utilizing a pre-existing tool and gaining cross-over votes.

[spoony]

78. I feel that way too

I had much more conservative views before I became a Christian, I think it was rooted in a general apathy and I credit those brilliant words in red with waking me up to the responsibilities we have to our fellow people, and other living things.

I wish I could bring everyone who felt the same together in one place to show people that religion has at its heart a core of liberal values.

[Yael]

86. Well, we are here and speaking out.

:hi:

[spoony]

87. Hi Yael :-)

:hi:

I've enjoyed your posts here!

[Yael]

83. My faith is important to me

and believe it or not, it puts me IN the direction of the left, not away from it. I am so repelled by the political positions of the (R) party that I can't even describe it.

All that I am asking for here is that people don't stereotype based on an impression they have from Bob Jones University (or others).

There are plenty of evangelical Christians in this country that support progressive ideals based on what those ideals stand for. I will say though that this is likely the first election where this will be visible/vocal as opposed to being behind closed curtains.

You can thank the pretzendent for that. He has lost so much trust that now there is an entire voting segment ready to stand up for what they believe and be vocal in promoting it.

Jesus taught peace -- who are we to start wars for profit?

Not this flower child.

[Skinner]

31. I was asking you.

But essentially, my question is one about political strategy. So, I guess I'm asking the question to you, if you were acting in the hypothetical capacity of political consultant.

Perhaps in an ideal world, no candidates would mention religion. But here in this world, every Democratic candidate with a significant African-American constituency does campaign in African-American churches. I am not asking a question about ethics. I am asking about political strategy. Do you advocate that Democratic candidates refrain from campaigning in African-American churches?

[Pale Blue Dot]

37. There is probably a very good reason I'm not a politcal consultant.

If I was a political consultant, I would tell my candidate to campaign wherever he or she could. But, as a person, I still don't see the point. If someone is going to vote purely based on who shows up to their church, what is their vote really worth?

Look at the example of Obama. He was trying to attract religious voters purely on the basis that they ARE religious voters. His actual message has suffered greatly because of his pandering. Why not have a peace tour? A social justice tour?

I know I'm railing in the wrong place. It's just that if evangelicals need to hear that candidates support their religion, first and foremost, then they really don't care ENOUGH about peace and social justice. If those really are the important issues for them, then we can talk about those issues without ever mentioning religion.

[Skinner]

45. I have a post below about Obama.

Basically, he blew it.

[jwirr]

25. Very good point. Many African-American churches are evangelical

in their teachings but liberal in their interpretations.

[Dorian Gray]

80. I don't think that anybody should campaign in churches

but I do think that Democrats should campaign TO those who attend churches. Just not in church.

I do agree that embracing those who embrace social justice is a good thing. Thanks for sharing the article, Skinner. It was an interesting read. I also find the knee jerk reaction when you mention evangelicals to be interesting.

[kwassa]

33. Then there are many potential supporters that you will lose

Religion is part of American life. Separation of church and state does not mean that people can't talk about their religion in political life. If a politician is not allowed to speak about anything he chooses, including his/her personal religious beliefs, that is a violation of his first amendment rights. You may not want to hear about it, but it doesn't mean the politician has to shut up.

Being religious is not necessarily a marker of whether or not one is rational or irrational. It is not a marker of liberalism vs. conservatism. There are many progressive people of faith that are liberal Democrats, as well.

Now, if you want to alienate those voters, you demand their silence, and their votes will go elsewhere.

[Pale Blue Dot]

38. Really? I support peace and social justice.

A woman's right to choose. Universal health care. The Fairness Doctrine. Seperation of church and state.

I'm also an athiest.

Would you vote for me?

[kwassa]

49. Sure.

Assuming you are competent.

[Pale Blue Dot]

53. Cool! One vote down, 50,000,000 to go! nt

[Yael]

88. If you were competent, you bet.

And please don't assume that because someone is a Christian means that they disagree with the seperation of church and state.

The founding fathers didn't escape one theocracy in order to set up another one.

Some of us out there will be the first to shout from the rafters that faith is a PERSONAL thing and that the government has NO BUSINESS dictating how people should believe or feel.

[spoony]

39. Yeah, fuck those millions of voters and citizens!

If some of you had your way where only the pure could join your ranks, there wouldn't be a Dem left.

[Pale Blue Dot]

43. If I had my way religion would be a non-issue.

There would be no need to talk about a person's beliefs because what would matter most would be the issues.

I am going to be voting for someone of faith in November. Not because of their faith, but because their views on important issues most closely match my own.

If I, as an athiest, was running, would you consider voting for me if we agreed on every other issue? Should my athiesm matter in that case?

[spoony]

46. If you were hostile to religious voters, hell no.

I don't vote for people who consider any other Americans inferior because of their cosmology, theology, or any other -ology, -ality, or -ism.

Frankly I'd love it if people stopped dragging religion into politics, then I wouldn't have to spend half my time defending religious people every time the topic comes up and people decide they need to take swings at them.

[Pale Blue Dot]

48. So the most important issue for you, above all others, is religion?

So if it was an athiest running against George W. Bush, Bush would be your man? Do I have that right?

By the way, I'd like you to point out where I said that I "consider any other Americans inferior because of their cosmology, theology, or any other -ology, -ality, or -ism."

[spoony]

50. No, the most important issue is respect.

How am I to vote for someone who thinks I'm an idiot for believing in God or ghosts or whatever?

And you called us irrational, which is presumably not a compliment.

[Pale Blue Dot]

52. So, again, you would vote for Gerge W. Bush, who would definitely respect your beliefs,

over an athiest, even if that athiest agreed with you about every single other issue?

I'm going to let you have the last word here. I think I've made my point.

[spoony]

56. That's the single worst twisting of my words I've ever encountered

How the hell you take me wanting to not be called dumb for my beliefs and conclude that I'd vote for a war criminal is way beyond me. I can't follow that a single lick. By the way, Bush doesn't respect believers either, he uses them.

The bottom line is that many if not most theists of all religions want the same things non-theists do. We're normal people. We aren't psychos. We aren't morons. We see the Democratic party as the best bet for improving things. It hurts, though, to feel like we're simply "tolerated" by the rest of you. Not really liked or welcomed, just put up with. It's not a good feeling.

[LanternWaste]

75. I think you confuse 'Agree' for 'Respect'. n/t

I think you confuse 'Agree' for 'Respect'. n/t

[RandomKoolzip]

97. If you believed in ghosts, then you WOULD be an idiot.

I'm not sure why a Democrat should defend or uphold a belief in the supernatural. :shrug:

[spoony]

99. Have a nice day now.

I've had my fill of arguing that issue.

[eridani]

109. What about just saying that faith is irrelevant because it is divisive by nature?

Some Protestant sects think that the Pope is an agent of the devil, while Catholics think he represents God on earth. It is flat out impossible to believe both things at the same time.

When you look at what Catholics and Protestants have in common, you have to turn away from faith and go to elementary ethical standards. And when you do that, you find that those standards also give you common ground with Jews and Hindus and Muslims, and people of every other faith, and of course people with no faith at all. So why not just talk about that instead of about faith?

[Skinner]

44. You could have made your point in a less inflammatory way. (nt)

[spoony]

47. Probably

though that's essentially the message I get from some people regarding religious voters. It becomes tiring.

[JerseygirlCT]

95. While you're certainly entitled to your opinion

I think you're quite wrong. I'll bet many others do, too.

[RiverStone]

17. I'll believe it when I see it...

The irony is I'm not listening to my own best advice here as I hesitate to broad brush any group.

However, I have yet to meet an evangelical who has not drank the Kool-aid. Maybe it was my upbringing -surrounded by evangelical, fiery-Baptist, or rolling on the floor Pentecostal types in the southland; but too many see the Bible so literally - that they can't bridge simple reason or science because it challenges their notion of how things were created. They believe in absolutes per the scriptures. World created in 7 days stuff...

It is a very simple way of thinking. Of course, I detest the judgmental pious bullshit that suggests their way is THE way. Not much room for diversity of religion in that church.

I have yet to meet any true evangelicals that hold any kind of real progressive view. Nice caring folks - sure, but a Democrat/progressive...???? I just have not met any.

Though I'm open to the possibility. It seems Obama may be trying to tap that with his Gospel tour; though as other threads have suggested, he is getting slammed by the Gay community. There is the "religious left" movement, but from what I've heard - this includes a very eclectic view - the opposite of an evangelical view (which is very specific and narrow in definition).

[Yael]

28. Well then, nice to meet you

I always wanted to be a 'first' of some sort. :D

[RiverStone]

32. Like I said, open to the possibility....

Though skeptical.

Actually, it would be refreshing to find that somehow - progressive views and evangelical views could co-exist. Shrub claims to base his lame ass decisions from a higher source linked to his evangelical views.

I'd be grateful for any insight Yael which elaborates how the circles of evangelical religion (and associated beliefs) overlap with the circle of Democratic/progressive views? :hi:




peace~

[stranger81]

55. it happens.

My Dad is a liberal evangelical -- he's got a doctorate in biochemistry, is a hardcore scientist, believes in evolution and not creationism . . . . . in other words, he's a rational person who was brought up in the church and never drank the kool-aid.

So don't write everybody off just yet -- there are at least some voters out there who are liberal, evangelical AND itching to vote for a Dem in 2008 (I know my Dad is).

[Yael]

61. Thank you, Stranger81

The stereotyping is just mind boggling. I am glad to see that someone else has made the same connection.

[RiverStone]

63. ummm, maybe I'm getting stuck on terms

How can your dad be a "evangelical" and NOT believe the earth was created in a week stuff. I thought you had to swallow that the planet was 10,000 years old with Adam and Eve kicking off the party lingo? Don't evangelicals believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible?

[Yael]

65. There are many interpretations

Many believe in Theistic Evolution -- a cross between creation and evolution based on time. It is Old Earth vs Young Earth.

Complicated stuff.

[stranger81]

73. Yeah, I ask him this question a lot too, but he always reminds me

that evangelicals (christians who feel compelled to evangelize to others) and fundamentalists (those who purport to believe in the "literal" interpretation of the Bible) are two different animals. He's an evangelical, but not a fundamentalist. He doesn't believe the Genesis creation story or Revelations were written to be read literally, and believes that god could have chosen evolution as his way to create the earth (over millions of years, of course -- not seven days). And he strongly disagrees with the fundamentalists that will stick to every literal word in Exodus but ignore the Beatitudes and most of the four gospels.

[RiverStone]

79. interesting --- I always thought them the same

evangelical = fundie

That has always been my interpretation.

Good to hear a new spin on it, and I find it encouraging that your dad has broadened his horizon to the degree you suggest.

I will add that if I use your term that (christians who feel compelled to evangelize to others) are evangelical - then I'll say that equals intolerance anyway. I mean, people who "try" and convert me or anybody else simply bug the hell outta me.

But I'd enjoy a thoughtful talk with your dad I'm sure...:)




peace~

[LanternWaste]

77. To be honest, I'm not sure of ANY mainstream Protestant...

To be honest, I'm not sure of ANY mainstream Protestant churches that adhere to Literalism. As far as I know, room for metaphor, poetry, allegory, creative licensing are all part and parcel to Protestantism.

[Yael]

59. Heya RiverStone

Lets say that raping and pillaging the weak are not biblical principles. The RW has held Christians (evangelicals) hostage by their threats of the abortion boogeyman for close to 40 years now. Like I said to my mom -- what exactly have they DONE about it? Answer? Nothing. Not a damn thing. They use this carrot to brainwash people into believing that they are the "party of God" or some such nonsense.

Jesus stated that it would be harder for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

If you look that passage up, you will find the RNC logo next to it in the study notes.

JMO

[RiverStone]

67. Maybe "liberal Christians" are not the same as...

...evangelicals?

Really, no need to get stuck on the terms.

I believe that good and caring people of ALL faiths (or no-faiths at all) have equal access to bliss on earth or elsewhere. Judge not eh?

JMO as well :hi:

[wildeyed]

Great article.

I sat down and read the whole thing as soon as my paper came.

There is a lot of diversity within the evangelical movement. I know a fair number of Evangelicals. Some are outright liberal on issues as diverse as gay marriage, poverty and the environment. They are all against abortion, but some are more nuanced than others in their understanding of how best to reduce the number of abortions that occur. If you tell me that you want to stop abortion and the way you intend to do it is by empowering women economically and providing things like childcare and healthcare to low income mothers, well then, we might be able to discuss the issue in a sane manner.

I do a lot of local political organizing and volunteering. Recently I have been involved with a group of churches interested in organizing politically around the moral issue of poverty and its accompanying ills. I don't know where the individual churches fall in their religious ideology, if some consider themselves evangelical or not, but there is definitely a push by some religious groups to move the discussion away from abortion and toward things like the environment and homelessness. The meetings are great because the membership is so diverse. We are a good social representation of what my city actually looks like demographically.

[Yael]

24. I AM a Christian and thank you for posting this

Here on DU, Christians are daily boiled in the proverbial oil for even admitting what they believe. Seems anything goes but "I believe in Christ as messiah". Some tolerance.

Do know that there are a LOT of us out there (including on the DU team) who believe that Jesus was all about helping the poor, not robbing to poor to enrich the rich, and in keeping the war machines out of other people's business. Those of us who fall into this camp tend to be left of left, but the minute you say, "I am a Christian" the calls start for your head to be impaled on a stake in the center of town.

Like Skinner said, many have already made up their minds and damned if facts will be getting in the way of that -- but thank God that there will be many more who have an "interest in forming a more nuanced (or informed) opinion".

Flame away.

[kineneb]

60. even some of us who do not "believe"

have great respect for what Jesus taught.

I hang out with the U. Methodists, even though I am Buddhist. If the less nutty of the fundamentalists would just come back to practicing what Jesus taught, instead of hallucinating on Revelations and "The End Time", then we might be able to do something about poverty, etc. But so far, they have simply been victims of charlatans who want them for their money, and have no interest in their souls.

The radical fundamentalists (of any variety) need to spend more time practicing their religion, and less time preaching about their religion.

[Yael]

62. Ding ding ding!! And we have a winner, folks!!

Thank you for saying what I am apparently not hitting on. Needed to be said.

Peace,

[TahitiNut]

26. Only 1/3rd of 'evangelical' Protestants are Dispensationalists.

Dispensationalism is the label applied to the 'theology' (hatched in bible TRADE schools) of the Rapture, End Times, and associated fringe beliefs.

[Toasterlad]

29. Obama's Already Wooing Them.

At the expense of the GLBT community. Apparently, Democrat is the new Republican: we'll compromise any belief we have to to get the fundie vote.

[Skinner]

34. Obama blew it.

He did not need to associate himself with a bigot. I do not think he did it on purpose. My guess is that his campaign did not do their homework, and now they're stuck with their mistake. But that is just a guess.

[Toasterlad]

54. Truth Be Told, I Just Don't Think He Cared Very Much.

I find it extremely hard to believe that a candidate for the presidency in 2007 did not have a staff capable of discovering that Donnie McFundie is an "ex-gay" hate-mongerer. I find it much MORE likely that Obama simply didn't consider the impact it would have on the gay community, because he doesn't give a shit about us. I'm sure he was honestly surprised by the uproar, because to him, it didn't make a bit of difference what McClurkin has said about gays. All he cared about in this instance was the African-American fundie vote. And I could easily see Clinton or Edwards making the same call.

[qdemn7]

57. Skinner....

I have a number of co-workers who are African American. They are Democrats, they opposed the war from the get go, and are quite religious. And many of them are intolerant of gays. Unfortunately, this intolerance is part and parcel of many AA Churches.

[Yael]

64. Obama blew it because pandering is a losing proposition

These politicians all seem to believe that they have to get everyone to agree with them in order to garner their votes. Had he stood up and said, "I disagree with that position, but here is what I am standing for in order to better this country", he would have gotten a lot more respect from everyone rather than the ones happy that he shot himself in the foot with the ex-gay guy.

What he will see now is that the LGBT community will write him off for pandering to the right and the RW will write him off because he never had their votes in the first place as a left-wing-pinko-commie.

Lose-lose.

[terrya]

85. I see it as a crass political decision.

The Obama campaign decided, apparently, that the vote of evangelicals was more important than that of the GLBT community.

That's a guess on my part. I'm very disappointed and angry about this.

And yes, Obama blew it. Big time. There are religious people out there who do not subscribe to this "ex-gay" nonsense that this gospel singer advocates, religious people who do not condemn homosexuality. I wish the Obama campaign would have showcased those people at the event last night...instead of getting a gay minister at the last minute in an attempt at damage control.

[Skinner]

90. It is certainly possible that this was a crass political decision.

And I agree that it is very disappointing. You have good reason to be angry.

I guess I find it hard to believe that Obama would have deliberately made such a huge blunder. He really stepped in it.

[terrya]

93. Thank you.

Thank you for understanding the anger some of us feel right now. And I do thank you for posting the article. It is an interesting article and hopeful, indeed.

[McCamy Taylor]

30. Church leaders have to reflect the views of their members, who want peace and social justice

Just look at all the recent polls that show that Americans hate the War in Iraq and are willing to pay extra taxes to provide education, health care etc. for the poor.

Since we do not have a state sponsored Church that can do whatever the hell it wants and tell the people "It is my way or the highway", Churches have to reflect the views of their members or they will go bankrupt--financially as well as morally.

The right wing wants to create a state sponsored Church in order to eliminate the humanizing effect which people have on religion in the United States. They want to create the Church of England--call it the Church of Cheney---here in the U.S.

[LiberalArkie]

35. An excellant article, thank you Skinner.

I liked the Huckster's comment
"I think they are going to have a hard time going out into the pews and saying tax policy is what Jesus is about, that he said, ‘Come unto me all you who are overtaxed and I will give you rest.’

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Aw Geez, Skinner. There ya go. Tipping those damned sacred cows again.

How can we continue to hate when we find the hatred misplaced?

Blind hate is so much easier.

[JitterbugPerfume]

41. a real "eye opener"

thanks.


The hardest thing is giving up deeply ingrained opinions, but sometimes we must!

[NashVegas]

42. Bless Me Father, for I Have Sinned ...

Enough to read an article like this and come away with two conclusions:

1. Regardless whether they are leaning right or left, that church leaders are more concerned with secular power than they are getting anyone into heaven.

The board of deacons had told him that his activism was getting in the way of the Gospel.

The deacons' timing on this, at a time when mainstream America is becoming more and more appalled with the behavior of the religious right, is suspicious to me. After 30 years, now, they decide he's strayed from the gospel?

2. If we are going to allow them a seat at the table, best keep in mind that it is we who should be exploiting them, not the other way around.

[stranger81]

51. There are definitely liberal evangelicals, and we should be reaching out to them . . . .

My 64 year old father is one of them. Hates these poseurs like Falwell/Dobson/Osteen/etc etc and reads a steady diet of Jim Wallis, Cornel West, Michael Lerner and other progressive religious thinkers.

While there's certainly much to demonize in the evangelical christian camp, there are also some genuine progressives in the mix who are finally getting some mainstream attention.

[renie408]

74. Isn't there a difference between 'evangelicals' and garden variety Christians?

I thought that the current definition of 'evangelical' included a desire to insert the Word and teaching of God into government?

If that IS part of the current definition, then I have to be against evagelicals. Not Christians who keep their religion in the church and home, but against Christians who want to base our government and it's operation and decisions on their beliefs.

[stranger81]

81. no, I think you're thinking of the Christian Reconstructionists

While there definitely are a lot of evangelicals who would also fit the bill as Reconstructionists, I understand there are also a lot of evangelicals who want church to stay separate from (so as not to be corrupted by) government.

[stranger81]

82. and I'm totally with you on opposing christians who want theocracy . . . .

I just don't see any room for reasoned conversation there, but maybe I just haven't tried hard enough with the right person.

[rox63]

58. Thanks for posting this article

I am not religious, but I know a lot of people who are. I respect their beliefs, as long as they don't try to push them on me. They know that we disagree on several issues. But there are others that we agree on. If there are evangelical Christians out there who care about poverty, racial injustice, health care, the environment, and other things I care about, I see no reason why we can't form alliances around those issues. Sure, I'll never agree with them on everything. But why not work together on the issues where we do agree?

That said, I wish Obama hadn't had that anti-gay bigt speaking for him and his campaign. I'm sure he could have found someone who didn't sprew anti-gay RW talking points, but still had appeal to the AA evangelical community.

[LeftHander]

66. Evangelical theology is directly tied to church income....

When the collection plate starts to get thin....evangelicals have a funny way of singing a more popular tune...

[stirlingsliver]

68. "No" To Religion -- Always

I really do not want to be in any party that actively courts religious people.

All religious people have this notion that they are "right" -- right about how other people should live.

Invariably, sooner or later, that notion leads religious people to attach their "god" to their cause.

There is no place -- NO PLACE -- in our political scene for ANYONE to tell others how to live.

If religious people want to join and support our candidates, fine. In fact, more than fine.

But I do not want to be part of a party that actively courts and encourages people to join their religion to my party.

[KoKo]

69. K&R..

[lonestarnot]

70. Since evangelicals are a "study" in inequality for men and women,

the appeal will not work. They are not interested in social justice, and peace, they believe in sanctity of life, but send innocent people to death in a war of lies. And don't they want their women to be the egg fryers, dish washers and cooks over there?

[renie408]

71. I had to take note of this..."We have done as much good as we can do" in reference to Iraq

Eeek.

[Kurovski]

76. Evangelicals do encompass a broad range of views.

Our local Evangelical Lutheran church is very liberal. They remind me of the Catholic church I grew up in. I know that there are other factions that would frown upon them.

Many take on the words of Christ, and they view much of the Bible as parables and lessons from a (very) bygone era when understanding and education was at a minimum.

My neighbor who is a member proposed "marriage" to me, knowing full well that I'm gay. I'm her "safe" husband-to-be. :-)

I know that there are a number who would welcome a presidential run by Al Gore. There are a lot of environmentally-minded people where I live, no matter what they practice.

Humanity, sanity, and the words of Christ put into action. Members manage the food bank, the pet shelter, volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, see to elderly neighbors, and other unspoken acts of caring, I'm sure, that go unnoticed.

I'm sure some other religious folk would see them as Hell-bound. Oh well.

[RedEarth]

84. Thanks for posting.... not surprised at all

the far right Christians are the ones that get the air time...you just don't hear that much from the others....I guess they don't help the ratings

[Aragorn43]

91. Thank you for posting that

I have been a member for a long time here and one of the reasons that I rarely post is dealing with the attacks that would come my way for letting it be known that I was a Christian. Many people here seem to have a poor view of Christians based on the erroneous beliefs of some of the more well know televangelists. Most of us try to be good people who help the poor, don't believe in the rapture and aren't doing everything we can to bring about the end of the world. Most of us just try to live our lives and when the opportunity arises to share God's love with others.

[Kurovski]

94. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Gman]

92. Good information

I read the entire article yesterday.

I'm amazed that the point of the article flies completely over so many people's heads here. And it seems that those who most miss the point appear to be the most ideologically pure of liberals. The most liberal of liberals can find a way to lose an uncontested race for reasons of ideology.

As for the article, I came away from it with a feeling of wondering how much is anecdotal evidence of a split among the religious right versus there actually being a split. In other words will this amount to a 2 - 4% shift in voting patterns among the RR or will a full 25% (maybe) actually say they've had enough and want to live and vote their own religious beliefs rather than living and voting how some mega-church pastor tells them to live and vote? This seems to be like watching the melting glacier ice on Greenland and wondering if it's symptomatic of something bigger or just an local anomaly.

[The Backlash Cometh]

96. Nice one. Thanks Skinner!

[tradke]

98. Defining and articulating platform, goals and plans appeals to all voters.

Evangelicals are capable of reviewing the platforms of each candidate to see if their issues are addressed or will be addressed when the candidate is elected. Having a religious affiliation does not remove the ability to evaluate political platforms.

Rev. David Walsh's views fall within the majority of the American public. Hybels is also like the majority of Americans.

I'm baffled and concerned as to why religious affiliation must be emphasized or even catered to. It smacks of a view that all evangelicals due to their religious beliefs are not smart enough nor savvy enough to evaluate platforms. Not to mention it also smacks of having a view that non-evangelicals who share the same views on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, education, poverty, Aids, racial issues, the plight of women both locally and globally issues are some how not as "important".

The democratic candidates should define and articulate their platform, goals and plans. Based on that voters, regardless of religious affiliation, can then make a decision.

[orleans]

100. i think randi was talking about this on her show today. i didn't hear

most of it, but this rings a bell

[MH1]

102. My brother is an evangelical, and appeals to peace and social justice won't work.

The #1 and #2 potential causes for the destruction of civilization as we know it are:

* abortion

* gay marriage

Not necessarily in that order. (Edit to clarify: HIS worldview. Not mine, hopefully obviously.)

He and his church opposed the war in Iraq, but were far more concerned about fetuses and whether their kids might ever be exposed to the notion that homosexuality might be okay.

[KG]

103. cool. maybe the dem party will commit to peace and social justice

because there really hasn't been much of that since the early 80's.

[Swamp Rat]

104. If this splits the republican party in two -

GOOD! :)

[Warren DeMontague]

105. While we're at it, lets appeal to the millions of libertarian-minded voters by standing up for

personal freedom, getting the government out of peoples' bedrooms and bodies, ending the idiotic drug war, and full equality (including marriage rights) for our GLBT citizens.

Court evangelicals and Greens by advocating a SPHC system, strong environmental protection and research into renewable energy- a livable minimum wage, a decent social safety net- as you put it, "social justice".

But at the same time:

Court the huge number of mind-your-own-business libertarian voters that neither party is effectively addressing by advocating unapologetic support for reproductive rights, birth control access, etc. An end to the drug war. "Fiscal Responsibility" by not pissing away trillions of ill-advised wars based on lies, or millions on "abstinence only" education that doesn't work. Strong support for the Separation of Church and State. No government money for censorship or playing morals nanny when it comes to what consenting adults want to do amongst themselves.

That's the Impeachdubya 2 point plan for Victory.

[2 Much Tribulation]

106. Definitely worth considering: But for party loyalty, we'd have significant issues in common.... nt

[stranger81]

107. another progressive evangelical well worth a read is Tony Campolo

Tony is married to a gay rights activist. Two of my favorite Campolo quotes:

“ The Positive Prophet, ... I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”

“Jesus refers to the poor over and over again. There are 2,000 verses of Scripture that call upon us to respond to the needs of the poor. And yet, I find that when Christians talked about values in this last election that was not on the agenda, that was not a concern. If you were to get the voter guide of the Christian Coalition, that does not rate. They talk more about tax cuts for people who are wealthy than they do about helping poor people who are in desperate straits.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Campolo

[libodem]

108. Man, that was long!

Took me all day. I read the first half and went to my mom's, came back and read the rest. I think it is an important thing to consider. A lot of Republicans have to feel disenfranchised right now because of the pure immorality of the Bush administration. They have been used and they have been had! I hope they turn to us and become Democrats out of their frustration with being sold a bill of goods. I worked with a lovely nurse who was Catholic. I was surprised to find out she was a Democrat. She and her college professor husband worked, at the soup kitchen in town, once a week. Democrats are very moral. Many are church goers. I invite any and all Christian Republicans who are sickened by Cheneybush to change parties and get in with us. We are not Godless heathens, despite Ann Coulter's vicious lies to the contrary. We are very honest, decent and good people.

[SeattleGirl]

110. Very interesting article, Skinner

I've passed in on to a few people, because I think it's worth the read. Gives me a little bit of hope.