AP: Obama: Democrats Must Court Evangelicals

[Eugene]

Obama: Democrats Must Court Evangelicals

By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; 8:34 AM

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday
for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American
people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and
other churchgoing Americans.

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation.
Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks prepared for delivery
to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty.

<snip>

Obama said millions of Christians, Muslims and Jews have traveled similar religious paths,
and that is why "we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. ... In other words,
if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell
them what we stand for, Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway."

<snip>

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062800281.html

[endarkenment]

1. every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation.

Public officials invoking the name of some God within the context of official actions of the state most certainly is a breach of the wall of separation of church and state.

Obama is another Hillary.

[gully]

7. Bologna, it's an exercise of free speech.

Separation of church/state means that one should not impose one's individual beliefs on others.

[endarkenment]

26. Public officials are imposing their individual beliefs

when they invoke the name of a diety in an official event.

[gully]

30. They are not imposing on anyone anymore

than discussing what they had for lunch is. Saying "I had a great burger for lunch" is not imposing upon those in the audience to eat meat. Speaking about one's religious beliefs, or a lack there of is not imposing upon others.

On the other hand, attempting to abolish civil rights for gays in the US Constitution is indeed imposing ones religious beliefs on others. Let's choose our battles wisely.

[endarkenment]

36. Sure they are.

When state business is commenced with a prayer or invocation of some sort that is an imposition of a particular religious belief system on all of us. How do you think the non christian population feels about having christianity imposed on them every time they attend a school function or attend a official meeting? How do you think atheists feel about it?

I can understand the argument that 'it is no big deal', but denying that the invocation of your god as part of the official affairs of state is an imposition of religion is silly.

[gully]

45. How do you think the vegitarian population feels about the Harkin

Steak fry? "Live and let live" is how I hope most liberals feel about the right to self expression. Free speech and tolerance are not limited to your beliefs - or a lack their of.

I tend to be in agreement with the ACLU when it comes to free speech.

More to the point, the ACLU is often right about the First Amendment's free exercise clause, taking on fights that others refuse. It might surprise some critics that the ACLU defends the free speech and free exercise rights of, well, Christians.

For example, in 2001, the group interceded with a school district in Michigan that had deleted a high school senior's yearbook entry because she included a Bible verse. In 2002, the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of a pastor associated with Operation Rescue who was prevented from participating in a parade because his pro-life poster showed a photograph of an aborted baby. And last September, the organization joined a lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey second-grader who was not allowed to sing "Awesome God" in a school talent show. (All of these examples are easily accessible on several Web pages now devoted to defending the ACLU 's record on Christianity.)

The above is from Christianity Today's May issue - http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/005/22.64.html

[endarkenment]

51. I guess we have to define 'official functions' here.

For example, starting a schoolboard meeting with a prayer is a violation. A student's yearbook entry, as the student is clearly not a state official is not a violation.

Starting Senate sessions with a goddamn prayer is a gross violation. Participating in a parade - how is that an official invoking religion?

What I object to is the official imposition of religion in state affairs. You keep citing examples of individuals expressing their religious beliefs in a non-official capacity. I have no problem with the latter, the former is oppressive.

[gully]

58. "every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation."

You stated every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of seperation.

Also, regarding "in a non-official capacity" just about every time a President speaks publicly, when he's in office, it is in an official capacity. As for praying in the senate, you have a point.

[endarkenment]

63. In the same post, next sentence.

"Public officials invoking the name of some God within the context of official actions of the state most certainly is a breach of the wall of separation of church and state."

Sorry for the confusion.

[gully]

66. "within the context of official actions"

I guess the dilema is that "offical actions" need to be defined. Obama was talking about reaching out, I agree. That doesn't mean we should push for school prayer or the (so called) biblical interpretation of marriage in our constitution.

[endarkenment]

69. Then you are not going to reach out.

I guess I just leap frogged to the logical implication's of Obama's latest pandering idiocy. You want those voters? Prayer in school, ten commandments in the courthouse, gays back in the closet, abortion banned, abstinence education only, and on and on. Those are the issues that will win back the intolerant religious right. No thanks.

[gully]

72. Evangelicals are not limited to the bigots you note. Carter is an

evangelical as are others who are very much opposed to the agenda you mentioned. Evangelical does not mean anti-woman anti-gay bigot.

[endarkenment]

75. As others have noted.

The ones voting republican are.

I'm confused about the need to reach out to the evangelicals who are already voting Democratic. They are already voting Democratic.

Obama seems to be saying instead that we should win back the Republican voting evangelicals. To do so, in my opinion as Obama neglects to mention how we would do this, we have to address that list of wedge issues that the Republicans have used over the last 30 years to move these voters from D to R. That would be: gays, abortion, prayer in school, abolition of the separation of church and state through programs like 'faith based initiatives', abstinence only sex education programs, etc, etc, etc. Or we could just have our candidates mumble about church going a lot and hope that does the trick.

As our candidates all go out of their way to mumble about their religious fervor already, I hardly see how that is going to work. No indeed, if we follow Obama's idiotic advice, we should, as Clinton did, get behind some good old gay bashing, we should find some way to be half assed over abortion rights, we should line up behind abstinence only lying to children, promote prayer in school: we should get with the whole damn fundy program. That certainly might confuse some of that republican religious voting base, we might pry off a percent or two, and that is all that counts, right?

[gully]

77. Some are, not all.

Let's examine Carter (an evangelical by his own account)

He (Carter) was the first president to make public statements in support of gay rights. In California in the late 1970s, voters were facing a law which would have banned gays and lesbians (and heterosexuals that endorsed gay rights) from working in the school system. At a speech in California, Carter urged voters to reject the bill. ----- The Carter White House had the first official visit by a gay rights organization, and allowed a group of gay veterans to participate in an official ceremony for the Vietnam War Memorial.

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

Some criticized Carter on this issue as well.

[endarkenment]

81. We are once again talking past each other.

I am not saying that all evangelicals are rightwing intolerant bigots, I am saying that in general the evangelical REPUBLICAN voter is an intolerant bigot. Pointing me at tolerant liberal evangelicals is irrelevant. You would have to demonstrate that this is the general profile of the evangelical republican voter.


I wonder why Kkkkarl spends so much time and money on gay bashing, abortion banning, prayer in school nonsense when it seems that these are not issues held dear by his fundaloon base?

[gully]

93. Obama did not suggest that we try to court ingnorant Republican evangies

though.

The reason they spend time on the issues you note is because they have to get the ultra conservatives who would normally stay home out to the polls. We on the other hand have to win some moderate independents.

[Bucky]

10. Historically inaccurate. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, King

Our greatest leaders from the past bandied about the various names of God with great frequency. The idea that there might be no purpose to our creation is a fairly new suggestion in public discourse. Historically many great public people have steeped their causes in righteousness by invoking God's names. It doesn't degrade the wall of separation to equate morality and the love of doing what's right (and therefor faith in God) with good public policy.

What's harmful is to shut up about God and to pretend one doesn't believe in God, which does leave the field open to bigots and corporate shills like Falwell and Robertson, who can then convince the country that Jesus--the guy that the Roman neocons used to chase around the marketplace--wants us to bomb and conquer for oil and shrug off collateral deaths.

If you don't believe, then it's no harm done. But that doesn't erode the need of another Democrat who does have faith ot speak to his wayward fellow believers.

[alvarezadams]

27. Jefferson????

"I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion?To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world. "
Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia

[Bucky]

57. Yes, dammit, Jefferson, who said "I tremble for my country..."

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Your quote only shows TJ being skeptical about Christianity. I wasn't talking about Christianity. Not being ethnocentric, I do not read "faith" or "God" and believe that it equates only to the Christian view of these things.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Bucky]

59. Also by Jefferson: "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same"

and then there's...

"I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson

So yes, Jefferson believed in God and said so publically.

[alvarezadams]

62. Non sequitor

Osama talks about evangelists and here you're defending Jefferson's deism.

[sui generis]

65. no he didn't

he believed in philosophies, not god, and he went to great pains and a huge body of political and personal philosophical writings to belabor the point.

Jefferson most definitely did not believe in god, although he used the term in discussing religion.

If you want to bring over believers, feel free to quote Jefferson - all of Jefferson and get them to understand the man.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/jefferson.htm

[lynne]

113. Reading Jefferson is like reading the Bible -

- you can pick and choose to find evidence to support most any point you wish to make. However, picking and choosing doesn't give an accurate reflection of the man.

At Jefferson's own request, his tombstone mentions just three things that he achieved in his life: his authorship of both the Declaration of Independence and Virginia's Statute of Religious freedom and his founding of the University of Virginia.

The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom can be found here > http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

One needs only to read the statute to see that Jefferson certainly believed in God. What he did not believe in was state mandated religion. Jefferson felt that we should be free to observe our religion - or not to - as we saw fit. In Jefferson's era, the church in VA was the Church of England and it was much more politically involved than anything we can even imagine by todays standards. Parishioners would be brought before the county judge and fined for not attending church (and I have seen the court book entries as evidence) and Church records were used for the collection of county taxes. On the flip side, the church was then responsible for things that we now consider the duty of the county/state, such as taking care of the poor, sick, elderly and orphaned of the parish. Church and State were truly working hand-in-hand in Jefferson's day.

Jefferson was probably more a Deist than a Christian yet his correspondence with John Adams in the later years of his life often included Christian theology. If anyone is truly interested, you can read much of Jefferson's writing as written in his own hand at the Library of Congress, The Thomas Jefferson Collection. URL > http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/index.html

[endarkenment]

29. King?

I must have forgotten, please remind me which state office King was holding when he invoked some deity as part of official business.

[1932]

31. A close friend of RFK's said that MLK was on Bobby's short list for VP.

That was in a book that was published in the last couple years.

If it's true, and if it happened, who would doubt that the guy would have been the best VP America ever had?

[endarkenment]

34. So that is relevant how?

Yes sure it would have been nice, and perhaps in some alternate universe Dr. King was invoking his deity's name as part of official state business, and I would have put up with it, just as I do today in countless insults to my atheism by theistic state officials. It would still be a violation of the separation of church and state.

[1932]

38. But for an assassin's bullet, a man of extreme faith could have been best

VP America ever had for people of faith and for atheists.

By the way, wasn't Reagan an atheist. How'd that work out for atheists? It doesn't matter what motivates people's values. What matters is what their values are, and I think MLK's values would have been great for all Americans.

[jonnyblitz]

112. reagan believed in end times prophecy. I don't know where

you get the idea he was an atheist.

[Clark2008]

11. That's just silly.

God plays an intregal part in the lives of the majority - the vast majority - of Americans.

Not mentioning God (or Allah or Yahweh) in public or choosing to ignore this fact is downright ludicrious. And this attitude is why even some religious, but not religiously insane, voters are turned off by the Democratic Party.

No one is forcing you to believe in God or forcing you to believe a particular way in God (leastwise, they shouldn't be), but you can't just ban the conversation of God from the public. The First Amendment guarantees it.

I doubt courting evangelicals will work, as Obama suggests, but we certainly shouldn't shut off the discussion of faith in the lives of Americans - because that effects about 80 percent of us.

[endarkenment]

28. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

This is not a free speech issue. You or I are free to invoke any deity we choose or not as we see fit. Public officials, as part of their official business, should keep their religious beliefs to themselves. Having your deity invoked as a routine part of official business may be commonplace, but it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

[JerseygirlCT]

119. That's utter nonsense.

Religion has a place in the lives of many Americans. Public officials speak to the public about what matters to them.

Religion has no place in gov't. Free speech has every place. And like it or don't, but religion matters to the majority of people here.

The trick is to speak to them about what matters in Democratic terms. Call them on their supposed beliefs, show them where they line up nicely with those of the Democrats.

The headline sucks. "Court" is entirely the wrong word. Converse, listen to, enjoin would be better. To talk to people you have to be able and willing to speak their language. That doesn't mean you have to say what they want to hear, but you have to be understood.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. And to think I once had high hopes for that guy. nt

[OzarkDem]

115. He doesn't have much substance

his policy talk is nearly non-existent and not very well developed. He's too much DLC which means weak public policy.

[Totally Committed]

3. Yeah,

Right after the Democrats "court" the poor, minorities (especially African-Americans), and women -- who have been loyal to this Party for DECADES and who still have not reaped the benefits of that loyalty or seen the promises made to them fulfilled.

TC

[sui generis]

4. No Obama. Democrats need to define what we stand for

And courting evangelicals who think we have too many freedoms and not enough church in government and that gays and single moms are going to hell - if that's what you think Democrats stand for then you're a bit out of touch.

I couldn't disagree more. Have a message. The evangelicals who believe in core democratic values will come to you. Changing those values to appeal to evangelicals means changing what we stand for.

[Totally Committed]

5. Excellent post!

Just great. I agree.

TC

[n2doc]

6. Damn straight

Quit trying to be repuke light Obama! The "evangelicals" will NEVER support the dems, they are convinced we are the spawn of Satan. There are huge numbers of church going folks who care more about the poor, illegal wars and corruption that we really need to support. NOT the nutcases.

[Sparkman]

18. Evangelical=missionaries to export U.S. hegemony, raid foreign resources

The missionaries preceed the corporations in the invasion of foreign third world countries, rich in natural resources and poverty labor. Never have the evangelicals gone into more countries that subsequently suffered U.S. military invasion. Puerto Rico, Guatamala, Cuba, Phillipines, Honduras, Mexico, Angola, Panama, Haiti, HAWAII, Japan, Vietnam, Iraq... the list of victim countries is HUGE people, and where were the missionaries whose sympathy NEVER OPPOSES U.S. military violence but ALWAYS sides with the "Christian" U.S. businessmen, when the bombs and bullets start flying?
I always ask, why don't the evangelicals go where they're needed most, in Saudi Arabia and Washington D.C., where the earthly power centers direct the godless business ventures into the third world?
Ask ourselves this, can we think of even one WAR THAT WE PUBLICALLY OPPOSED, and before the fruit of that war fell to the ground?! Too many can't come up with even one war, with rationalization after lie after denial. speak truth to power

[Douglas Carpenter]

108. The group Sen.Obama was speaking to is actually left-wing on foreign

policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.



Sojourners is the group they were speaking to:

link for Sojourners

http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) on Democracy Now - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/1355204


"The Rev. Tim Ahrens shared Wallis' dismay: "The faith of Jesus Christ has become such a violent and violating faith in the religious right," he contended. Ahrens is the founder of We Believe Ohio, a group of 300 clergy members dedicated to promoting social justice."

"Many Sojourner supporters didn't hesitate to call right-wingers "bible thumpers" and "fanatics," and they criticized the Bush administration for not helping the poor. They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception. " link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm

[1932]

37. Jeez. Am I the only person who has read God's Politics and Jimmy Carter's

last book?

Tons of Evangelicals and Christians and Catholics and Jews and Muslims believe in an extremeley progressive faith-oriented approach to public policy which is concerned primarily with social justice, tollerance, and alleviating misery, and their attituded towards policy is informed by their religion.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with liberal politicians explaining how their faith parallels their liberal politics.

I want to see Democrats do this.

Democrats have much better values than Republicans and I don't see why they should be afraid of engaging in a discussion of values with one of the very few institutions in ourf society which is also engaged in values-oriented reflection on the world in which we live.

Yes, there should be a separation of church and state, but there should not be a denial of one's personal motivations for their values and there shouldn't be a fear of discussing those motivations.

People really need to read God's Politics if they don't get this.

[sui generis]

52. so one academic treatise is all that's keeping us

from embracing evangelicals?

I don't know where you live but my personal experience with evangelicals in the bible belt has little to less than zero to do with wholesome humanitarian values.

Maybe you should send a copy of God's Politics to the Reverend Phelps or the Right Rich Reverend Shirley King, or maybe get the 700 club to read it.

I'm certain that reading it won't change reality on the street, that most evangelicals evangelize and proselytize, and have a very restrictive view of morality and human behavior.

Support your base or start an evangelical party for the ones who want church in government and gays burned at the stake.

[1932]

97. Not one. I'd start with two. And you won't know unless you read them.

And since they address what you've just written, I'll incorporate them by reference as my rebuttal post.

[sui generis]

101. ding thank you for playing

just as soon as you articulate and summarize for me I'll know.

Good luck getting the rest of the world to read obscurities that you happen to agree with and thereby get them to agree with you.

[1932]

103. God's Politics and Our Endangered Values are not obscure books.

And they cover these issues.

If you look up the dozens of posts I've made on this issue in the last two days and a year ago after I first read God's Politics, you'll get your summary.

Sorry, I don't have time today to satisfy your desire for a dialogue today.

[sui generis]

105. godammit you know what I hate?

people who are too busy to summarize after swinging in on a vine and flinging poop. It's laziness. "Read the bible" then you'll know what I'm talking about. "Read Ayn Rand" then you'll know what I'm talking about. "Read my past posts". It's rude, and I'm calling you on it. I'm not angry, just a bit peeved.

I also think you're not serious or convinced by those books or the salient points and words would flow from you yourself. If you didn't have time to summarize you shouldn't have replied with a "read the . ..." post.

Since you're too busy up there in your ivory tower to talk to commoners without flinging a book at them I have to presume you're not reading this reply or you have another book loaded in your cannon aimed at me. But just in case you are reading instead of aiming, in the interest of conversation, I'll play the devil's advocate (and I happen to like the devil on lofty intellectual principals for which I don't feel necessary to require a bibliographal review but would be happy to elaborate in person should you desire in my own rather wordy and pompous fashion:P).

If it made the news that the democratic party was reaching out to the gay community, I would be extremely articulate in pointing out that there are many gays who are unconvinced that the democratic party represents our interests fairly or equally but by reaching out, the democratic party is not becoming gay. That's a valid argument for one person to make to another rather than some dusty preachy old tome.

Your argument, should you choose to use it should be that reaching out in neutral terms does not mean the democratic party will become the party of benevolent bible thumpers, and that we have to be willing to reserve judgement and see what methods our political leaders choose to use to engage them. I have a personal line with religion - I don't care about spirituality; but I DO care about emphasizing it as part of a campaign. If we can't get anyone's interest after we're done talking to the evangelicals who are already voting for us, what do we plan to trade with? I'm curious. And being rhetorical. I haven't seen the strength of character in our leadership that would make me trust their strategies as far as my life interests are concerned.

Now, talk about not having "time" - I don't have time to read your manifesto today, and only rarely to never would read a christian apologia with "God" in the title, as a general rule, so that's one dead horse we can stop beating.

[1932]

106. Frankly, you seem kind of angry and not worth the effort.

I'm busy. Everything I'd say to you I've said elsewhere in the last two days and last year.

If you didn't come across as so angry and nasty, I'd probably repeat everything I've said before agains for the dozenth time. However, being kind of busy these days, I can't justify giving half my life to angry exchanges that aren't dialogues...

[1932]

104. God's Politics and Our Endangered Values are not obscure books.

And they cover these issues.

If you look up the dozens of posts I've made on this issue in the last two days and a year ago after I first read God's Politics, you'll get your summary.

Sorry, I don't have time today to satisfy your desire for a dialogue today.

[OzarkDem]

116. It needn't monopolize public debate

Dems should avoid wedge issues and discuss real issues that concern voters.

[Epiphany4z]

8. I think the fundy Evangelicals

Have given so many on the left such a bad taste for religion that we have lost some of the more moderate xtians. While I don't think we should court Evangelicals I do think we need to emphasis for the more moderates how much our values actually fit with there religious values. I mean even if we don't match on abortion we match on way more than most of these fundy, Evangelical rightys every will.

I was watching the night Larry King had Jimmy Carter on ..I thought he did an excellent job when discussing faith. I hope Dem's can look at that as a model when discussing faith.

[Bucky]

13. Are you seriously suggesting Carter is a better Christian than Robertson?

Who has Carter ever killed in the Lord's name? When was the last time Carter invoked God to smite his enemies with hurricanes? And need I remind you who it is whom God has blessed with a TV network and several nice diamond trinkets?

[Epiphany4z]

14. lmao omg

what was I thinking!

[gully]

9. Obama is correct. However, we needn't change our views on anything.

"In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway."

This is absolutely KEY, if liberal christians remain silent in the coming elections, the only people "reaching out" are those who are downright dangerous.

[MaineDem]

17. I agree

However, I believe we have to reach out to all people of faith regardless of denomination. We can't just run to them at election time and say "vote for us"."

We need to strengthen the positions where we agree. The idea that values bind us. It's a value issue to see that children don't go to bed hungry. It's a value issue to see that a family can clothe and educate their children. Those kinds of things.

I also agree that there is a need for separation of church and state but I don't think denying the importance of faith to many people is a right course of action. There are many many many liberal thinking religious people.

[gully]

21. Agree with every word.

I'd like to see a vocal coalition of faiths under the "democratic" umbrella.

[riona]

12. Courting evangelicals

is a waste of time and money. Most rational Americans believe in the separation of church and state. Let's get behind the Constitution, Sen. Obama.

[leesa]

15. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. We must discuss issues rationally.

God does not belong in politics. Period.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

111. I agree. But the other side is not playing by our rules

[bigtree]

16. the folks who think Benny Hinn is for real?

seriously?

[1932]

32. If progressives abandon faith as avenue for discussing politics, Hin

& friends will be the only voice they hear.

If progressives step up with faith-oriented explanations for their politics, I guarantee you Hin will loose a lot of his audience.

[bigtree]

49. 'faith' is wonderful. Having it, or, the lack of it, has it's own place

apart from most issues. We can cite our faith as a motivator to action, but it shouldn't be a prerequisite to action. It's a political ploy, political posturing, to put one's religion in front of their argument about their intentions in office. Maybe it's prudent in an election, but it doesn't make me more comfortable that someone is referencing unproven origins of life and creation to justify real world issues and concerns. They might mesh somewhere, but these are mostly window dressing, a distraction from actually addressing issues head on, focusing on their own merits outside of some companion belief.

[1932]

99. Everyone's politics is motivated by some version of faith.

Some people convince themselves that they're being completely rational and analytical, but I think that's a sort of faith that might actually not be that rational. Some people are consciously or unconsciously motivated by popular culture -- so that Star Wars, or E.T., or Syriana might be playing large roles in the way people view the world. Other people might frame the world according to a really crazy version of history taught by some crazy person in some school somewhere.

When you line up all the things that influence the way people see the world, and take a close look, you have to wonder why church is the one thing that sets a certain kind of progressive off. It might actually be more productive for that kind of progressive to try to keep people from watching John Wayne, Schwarzennegger, Bruce Willis, and Tom Cruise movies than trying to keep religion out of the public debate. And it might be most productive to simply not try to shut out religion from the discussion and instead talk about faith the same way one would talk about any framework for organzing one's understanding of how the world works and not act like it's less rational that other frameworks.

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. I wish he wouldn't have said that

He's re-confirmed that Democrats "want to wipe out God from the public square" that gets incessantly preached through the airwaves. It's simply not a true statement, IMO.

Personally, I don't know of a single Democrat who doesn't acknowledge that there are people who believe in the 'power of faith' in their lives; it's just that one's person's power of faith should not be imposed upon another person. Big difference.

[jody]

20. Every intelligent Democrat already knew that. I would be impressed if he

said he supported the Democratic Party Platform that says, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

QUOTE
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
* Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

* Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
* Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
* Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
* Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
* Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
UNQUOTE
Source On The Issues

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

33. Jimmy Carter calls himself an Evangelical.

[gully]

35. I think people are getting hung up on the "evangelical" word?

Many liberals consider themselves "evangelical."

[1932]

41. Carter addresses that term in his book. If I had more time I'd google up

the page and post it here, but I encoruage everyone to take the time to read it.

[gully]

48. Interesting article from last year:

In evangelical world, a liberal view steps up

By Alex Johnson
Reporter - MSNBC - June 9, 2005

When thousands of Southern Baptists gather later this month in Nashville for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, former President Jimmy Carter, one of the world’s most famous Baptists, will not be there. He broke with the convention several years ago, distressed at its takeover by conservative Christian fundamentalists beginning in 1979.

In an interview last year with Newsweek, Carter bemoaned the “melding ... between the Republican Party and the more conservative Christians,” saying: “This is not only an anomaly, but I think is contrary to the best interests of our democratic principles.”

-------

“People like Karl Rove and people like Ralph Reed have done a brilliant job of wedding the evangelical community to the Republican Party,” said Tony Campolo, a spiritual adviser to President Bill Clinton in the White House. “And so when you begin to think about evangelicals, you begin to think in terms of the values of the right wing of the Republican Party.”

Finding evangelicals outside the box Like Jimmy Carter, Tony Campolo is a tireless campaigner for social justice, especially for the poor, for the environment and for oppressed populations in the Third World. Like Carter, he is also an evangelical Christian — a Baptist minister, in fact.

More - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8131907/

[snowbear]

100. You're right.. He definitely does..

'Course.. Jimmy Carter has more religion in his little finger than Bush has in his entire body..

But you're right 1932, he does mention OFTEN that he is a proud Evangelical Christian.

[LoZoccolo]

47. You need to get out more, then. I suggest the links in my signature.

Hope you decide to get involved until November; I won't be hearing from you until then.

[MGD]

23. I strongly disagree

Fuck the evangelicals. They have sided with the enemy and, as such, they are the enemy. They should be courting us as far as I'm concerned.

[alvarezadams]

24. I can only assume that...

...Obama¡s comments have elicited comments from every side of the point.

As a person that believes in the Constitution I am automatically inclined to disavow anything that blurs the distance between God's and Caesar's houses. Yet I can see that many Xtian values are, by their very nature - progressive, despite their abuse by conservative manipulators.

Yet I am torn - should we use (aka manipulate) xtian values to elcit votes? Social liberalism is indeed Xtian and Christ himself can be considered one of the first socialists (Sermon on the Mount).

I am inclined to go against Osama on this one however. Indeed appeal to Xtian values and identify them with progressivism - but make sure that you quote Christ with his parable of the coin, "Give unto Caesar".

We don't want to go down the GOP road on this one.

Draw the line.

[Jed Dilligan]

25. Just don't court them so hard you lose me. nt

[Totally Committed]

40. That's the problem...

They figure they already HAVE us... who the hell are we gonna vote for, the Republicans?

What they have to remember is that for some, like me, who have decided never again to vote for "the lesser of two evils", they could INDEED lose us. There is ALWAYS the option to STAY HOME. I'm sorry if that offends people here, but if this Party is ever again going to run a candidate that represents the PEOPLE and not the CORPORATIONS, or has the need to PANDER to the center by triangualting so far to the right, I feel that is the best I can do... STAY HOME. It's the only way to send a message. I either have a Democratic Candidate I can vote for, or I don't vote.

I can tell you I am not alone.

TC

[Jed Dilligan]

42. The question is...

Do these lauded "evangelicals" have a single aspect of their political agenda that doesn't involve torturing me with their ancient prejudices and castrating morality? I have yet to hear of it. So a concession by a Dem to them means total disenfranchisement for me.

[Totally Committed]

44. "So a concession by a Dem to them means total disenfranchisement for me"

That's what I was saying... they don't CARE IF IT DISENFRANCHISES US. Who are we going to vote for???... They figure we'll come around and vote for the Democrat, no matter. That's what they think. This time, they have to know THEY ARE WRONG.

"Lesser of two evils" or voting AGAINST the Republicans no longer cuts it for me and A LOT LIKE ME. I either vote FOR the Democrat because he/she IS a Democrat who REPRESENTS ME, or I stay home. Period.

TC

[gully]

50. That worked so well in 2000.

Yeah, more of the same - that's what we need. :eyes:

[endarkenment]

61. All of our candidates invoked their false piety on a regular basis.

Gore did, Kerry did. What they didn't do is sign up for gay bashing or oppression of women. Those two issues are the keystones of the republican efforts to capture the fundamentalist christian bigot vote. If Obama was serious about capturing the religious voters who vote republican then he should have insisted that Democrats sign up for constitutionalized discrimination against homosexuals and abolition of all reproductive rights for women. The Clinton approach was very close to this on the gay bashing side, and they attempted to triangulate on the abortion issue as well.

[gully]

70. I don't think alienating gays and women are what Obama had that in mind.

As for Clinton, I'd gladly take him back as President if that were possible. ;)

[Totally Committed]

84. Then, maybe he needs to explain who embracing or attracting

Fundamentalist Christians, with their anti-woman/anti-gay agenda will NOT alienate or marginalize Women and Gays or undermine the only parts of the Democratic Party Platforms that protect and defend them.

I don't see how you can attract one without alienating the other, but I'm willing to listen.

TC

[gully]

95. He never said he wants to attract "fundamentalist anti-woman/anti-gay"

folks. He said "evangelicals." We need to say to them - hey we may not agree on everything, but we agree on most things. You can choose bigotry over all else, or common sense and voting in your best interest.

Wellstone as you mention above took much criticism for voting in favor of DOMA by the way. Even HE was not perfect.

[Totally Committed]

68. Oh, I'm not gonna vote Green...

I'm just gonna NOT VOTE unless I have a candidate to vote FOR intead of AGAINST the other side. I'm tired of giving this Party my support, my time, and my vote with absolutely NOTHING in return.

Never again. Not ever.

TC

[gully]

74. I don't vote just for "me."

I find that doing so is counter to liberalism itself. However, poverty, Iraq, Katrina, Global warming, the deficit, illegal wire tapping, choice, etc. affect us all. Imagine if Paul Wellstone didn't stand up for "the little people" and stood only for himself?

I've had enough of Republicans in charge personally.

[Totally Committed]

83. Paul Wellstone was a wonderful example of the kind of "representative"

(read: CANDIDATE) I would crawl across broken glass to support. He had ethics, he had ideals, and he had GUTS!

I used to feel my vote counted, and that those I voted for would represent me, and my family and friends. I feel that way no longer. I voted ABB last time, for Kerry. That will never happen again. NEVER EVER EVER. No more voting AGAINST candidates. Give me a candidate I can enthusiastically support, and who will support ME as he or she is elected to do, and I will work and support and VOTE for him or her. No DINOs need apply. No GUTLESS WONDERS need apply.

It's SHOW ME time.

TC

[gully]

94. I think we've all been SHOWN.

Not sure what more one needs to SEE really.

[JerseygirlCT]

120. "Court" is a crappy word. And I assume not the one

Obama used, but the one the headline editor inserted.

There needs to be no changing of Democratic ideals and goals. There needs to be a way to show religious people that our goals line up far better with many of theirs.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. In many countries of the world evangelicals lean toward the left.

There is no intrinsic reason why evangelical must be right-wing except that it is a historic accident in American society.

In a society where 94% of the population believes in God/80% are certain and only 1% are convinced atheist it is ludicrous to imagine that a progressive majority can be built without the support of lots and lots of religious people. See Gallup poll:http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

Furthermore, many progressive Christian groups are decidedly on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum. This is the reality.
Religion may not be my thing. But that's beside the point. The abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement and almost every other movement for social change in American history could never ever have gotten off the ground without their help.

_______________

here is one major liberal/progressive left evangelical organization:

Websites:

Sojourners Movement:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm

[sui generis]

55. reality check

finding an exception does not make your case.

The fact is that huge numbers of fundamentalist and evangelical (overlapping sets) vote for Republicans. Obama wants to try to attract some of that base away from Republicans. The evangelicals who are liberal already vote for us. That's not who he's talking about.

Obama is misguided.

If we can say what we stand for, we don't need to bribe "evangelicals/fundamentalists" to support us - they will come to us or they won't. If they don't it's because we refuse to give up the separation of church and state, because we refuse to demonize gays and single parents and people who don't think it's okay to pray in school or have the ten commandments printed on the back of your driver's license. The only way we can appeal to those people is to make promises to them - and that's a bad strategy.

Support your base. Do not take your base for granted. Period. Poli Sci 101.

[Lars39]

71. "they will come to us or they won't"

Absolutely.
It is not up to the Democratic Party to force or bribe the evangelicals to practice their own religion.

[Douglas Carpenter]

98. reality check...It is a mathematical impossibility to create a sustainable

progressive majority without the backing of a large number of religious people including a number of evangelicals. It cannot be done.

Many evangelicals feel unwelcomed by politcal progressives even if they share liberal attitudes. No one is suggesting that progressives abandon their socially liberal positions. The humanitarian side of progressive politics can be an approach to reach out to them.

In fact though the numbers are down Kerry still received 33% of the vote of regular church goers in 2004 and 21% of white evangelicals/86% of black church goers (mostly evangelicals). In 2000 Gore received 30% of white evangelical votes 91% of black church goers agains mostly evangelicals.

It has really only been since 1980 that evangelical vote has become reliably Republican.



94% of the population believes in God/80% are certain and only 1% are convinced atheist it is ludicrous to imagine that a progressive majority can be built without the support of lots and lots of religious people. See Gallup poll:http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

[sui generis]

102. straw man argument

please reiterate what it is you think I said.

I said, for the record, that we need to focus on our core political values, not their core religious values. I don't give a crap if we're reaching out to evangelicals, muslims, wiccans, or goat sacrificing clowns; we don't need to reach out to them. We need to be ourselves and if they agree with us then groovy but if they don't, we're not making women wear burkas to attract evangelical muslims, etc. That's all.

No christians have been persecuted or exploited in this reply.

[w4rma]

43. He's exactly right. (nt)

[LoZoccolo]

46. Gee, most of us here do a good job of alienating them.

Just fine for the Republicans, as by setting themselves up as their party, seek to have us push them out of our party.

And yes, there are significant numbers, enough to win elections by safe margins should we continue to do the Republicans' work in purging them from our party.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103

Look at the exit polls and see how many voted for Kerry as well. And not just black and latino voters, but white ones as well.

Most of the people in this thread serve the Republicans whether they know it or not.

[endarkenment]

53. If by "them" you are referring to the intolerant

christian bigots who want to impose their narrow view of propriety on the rest of us, I want nothing to do with them.

Insisting that politicians should drape themselves in religion as falsely as they drape themselves in the flag is pandering of the worst sort. It is the theory that if we just lied to the people we could get them to vote for us. How about if we just stood up and spoke the truth instead?

Religion has no place in politics.

[sui generis]

54. well LoZ

if it's purely about numbers, the "evangelicals" he's referring to are the fundies.

Obama means he wants to attract the devout to our party, and if they aren't already attracted he wants to give them a carrot perhaps.

What would that be?

A promise to keep gays from getting married? A promise to allow prayer in school? Obama is working for the republicans. The rest of us in this thread are defending keeping our party wholesome and whole.

You can't buy a vote without selling a vote. I just shudder to think what the price of that vote would be.

[LoZoccolo]

56. I think an appropriate carrot would be...

...a big cup of "shut the fuck up" to some of our more inflammatory number. Because a person should expect to at least feel comfortable if we expect them to work with us as they already do.

Case in point: Skinner posted on some of the religious boards and the atheist board some guidelines for civility which included not using these boards to come up with strategies to gang up on people on other parts of the boards. The religious groups were fine with it...but guess who had such a problem with it? To the extent that one of them wanted to push it until they got tombstoned? And guess who's still running around with her avatar in their sig like it was unfair or something?

[sui generis]

60. couple of things

1. I have no idea what you're talking about

2. it's a completely different topic than this thread. what does that have to do with the issues in my post?

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

64. I'll organize it better.

This part is the question that you asked:

What would that be?

This part is the answer:

I think an appropriate carrot would be...
...a big cup of "shut the fuck up" to some of our more inflammatory number. Because a person should expect to at least feel comfortable if we expect them to work with us as they already do.

A pretty substantial number of white evangelical protestants have already found their own reasons for voting Democratic. They used to in even larger numbers. If we could get some of the type of people who would go on here posting some of the inflammatory stuff about them to drink from the big cup of "shut the fuck up", then maybe we could at least stop the bleeding or get some of the evangelicals back.

[endarkenment]

67. Which evangelicals?

I think you have missed the point. The religious voters who are voting republican are generally doing so on the basis of two key issues: gays and abortion, that the republicans have used to turn these voters into a core constituency. You are not going to turn these voters democratic by either pretending to be more pious than the republicans or getting us to shut the fuck up. You might get some of these voters back by going after gays and abortion. If you want these voters back, that is what you should be proposing.

[Vinnie From Indy]

73. LOL! "a big cup of shutup"

I believe that Obama should clarify his appeal. There are several groups claiming to be "evangelicals". Democrats do not need to villify faith nor do they. One thing that the right wing extremists fundies have done that Democrats need to counter was to build a massive propaganda launching pad by using or owning modern media outlets. CBN and Dobson's group and others are able to spew hate counter to the beliefs of most Christians.

An interesting side note about "evangelicals" is the current battle between the Catholic Church and evangelical missionaries in the third world. The Catholic Church is finding that they are losing members in greater numbers to these missionaries from El Norte.

[sui generis]

76. when a wheel squeaks it's always for a reason

those of us who are instructed to STFU are squeaking because of our overexposure to faith run amock. I understand that some people are perhaps a little too zealous or too ready to generalize about ALL people of faith, but in the end, the reason for the impatience is because there is no reason in the secular administration of government and publicly funded organizations that we should condone outward displays of faith, religiosity, or even some of the more absurd sentiments of religion such as blue laws, swearing on bibles, or being forced to acknowledge "god" as part of our country's ethos in the pledge to our nation.

It is the fact that religion is used to keep gays and atheists out of boy scouts, and that it is used as the most common club to claim some superiority over other humans for being heterosexual, devout, or signing over personal responsibility to "god's will".

It's a constant assault. So when the idea that our party which has traditionally respected all by advancing none says we're looking for proselytizers and evangelicals, it's betrayal.

The evangelicals among us need to do some outreach back into their own communities. They already speak the language. Our politicians and party dollars need to go to marketing marketing marketing to the greatest number of eyes. We need to speak truth, not spin our poll responses, and we need to have the kind of moral clarity that attracts people to whom issues of personal morality are clouded with issues of poltical expediency.

Of course we're going to bellyache. And the last thing we're going to do is shut up to try to attract the very people who want us to shut up. As far as I'm concerned, evangelicals are the wrong call. We need to talk to immigrants. We need to talk to minimum wage employees and people without healthcare, and people who can't afford a college education for their kids, and people who can't afford gas to get to work. We need to address health issues in this country, and environmental values in this country and an enormous generation of aging people unable to afford a place to live or food to eat or basic medicine in their retirement.

Some of those people will be evangelicals, but who cares. That's not a real issue. It's politically naive and wrong headed to say "we're off on a quest to get more people of faith into the party", when what the party needs is to address the party values that will attract them all on their own.

[endarkenment]

82. Eloquent and undeniable. nt.

[Totally Committed]

85. Abso-f*cking-lutely!!!!

I could not agree more.

TC

[Vinnie From Indy]

86. Thanks for the lecture! Perhaps if you read my posts more closely.

I agree with your sentiments and I disagree with a STFU mentality. As I wrote in a previous post on this thread, the "evangelicals" that I have met and seen on the media should be exposed rather than coddled. Many of them are merely the Taliban without the robes. That being said I know dozens of Christian Democrats that abhor the fundamentalist approach to faith. Dems need to encourage and give voice to all people of faith that oppose the religion of hate and intolerance.

[sui generis]

88. yes but

1. lecture aimed at a broader audience than you - but thanks for the faint praise :P
2. it's politically cynical to say the wind's blowing toward people of faith today, let's head that direction.

People are smart AND suspicious - they know when they're being wooed.

The things that matter to people of faith are big moral issues and if we drive that moral discussion with issues that impact everyone and not just people of faith, we don't have to say "hey guys they only reason we're talking to you is because you're evangelical and it's on the agenda"

But that also means we have to stick to our guns. Government exists as a representative administration of resources and public safety. It is a guarantor of civil rights. It is not a sounding board for religion, or atheism or any powerful oligarchy or plutocracy or individual. Ultimately it's supposed to be the guy at the restaurant table who figures out what everyone else owes, a fair tip, collects it, counts it and pays the tab.

Sorry - as soon as I was born I turned around and lectured my mother's vagina. It's genetic, I can't help it. :shrug: :rofl:

[Vinnie From Indy]

89. LOL! Well done!

I understand and support a great deal of your argument. I do think that we can also throw into the mix at this point the contributions of the media to magnify the numbers and clout of the fundamentalist Christians in America. As I stated earlier, of the hundreds of Christians I know, very few subscribe to the skewed, extremist views of these fundamentalists. It is undeniable that Christians were an integral part of our American society's leaps forward. Slavery and civil rights are two issues that come to mind.

My advice to Democrats is to organize and give voice to the millions of Christians that oppose the messages of hate and intolerance spewed by the conservative, fundamentalist Christians. In short, there are millions more sane Christians than the ones at the heart of BushCo and the GOP. These people need to be encouraged to speak out.

Thanks for your response and keep swinging! You are quite eloquent!
Cheers! :)

[citizen snips]

78. what?!

Obama is going about this the wrong way we must court Christians by talking about our own values.

[madfloridian]

79. Obama is right. If you don't think we should reach out...

then you make it sound like we are better than they are. Which is not true at all. A couple of things in Obama's speech I disagree with, but I am sure he reached some Christians today who have been let down by their leaders.

I did not agree with everything Dean said to the group there either, but he tried. He will keep trying.

I think if we are going to campaign everywhere in the nation then we need to speak out to all.

If we make mistakes, we make them. Dean and Obama are trying to reach out to counteract the extremists.

I wish them good luck, because they will be blasted by the left and by the right.

[iconoclastNYC]

80. We must talk about what matters. God is a private matter.

I don't want my elected officials to talk about God. I'll leave that to the experts.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

87. Wrong-Headed Effort

I don't believe that we have "court" anybody. We should put our values, beliefs, and agendas out there and fight for what we believe in and those "evangelicals" out there whom support our values, beliefs, agenda, etc. will vote for us and those that don't will vote for the GOP (or nobody at all). Our leaders, BOTH Democrat and Republican, have NO business in pushing their "faith" on everybody else or passing laws SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF their own personal moral and religious beliefs systems! They were elected to serve the public and the "common good" not advance sectarian belief systems. Hoping to boost our party's chances for electoral success by "courting" the "religious right" will likely only have the effect of alienating huge segments of our party whose values, beliefs, and agenda are antithetical, if not hostile, to theirs. The Democratic party ALREADY welcomes people of all faiths and religious backgrounds into the party but we are more interested in promoting laws and policies based on the "common good" of society rather than narrow sectarian beliefs.

[saracat]

90. I am not and have never been an Obama fan. And this is why. I don't trust

him. He too often votes with the other side and now wants to cater to a small group who is polluting this country. This is just wrong! And this is what is wrong with the Dem. Party. This is repuke lite at a time we need a different answer!

[On the Road]

91. I am Amazed at the Number of Posters Who Seem to Assume That

(1) There is no such thing as an independent or crossover voter, (2) Everyone is already in one partisan camp or the other, and (3) Anyone who is not a partisan Democrat at the moment is an evil pig.

That is not a good starting point for winning the November elections. The reason Obama is in the Senate is that he knows better.

Reagan brought a change in the political landscape partly because he appealed to certain Democrats. I can only hope that the next Democratic candidate brings some "Candidate X Republicans" into the voting booth.

[Doctor_J]

92. Bravo!

My junior senator comes through! We liberals, even the ones who aren't religious, share a LOT more with evagelicals than the wingers do. Obama himself is a devout and outspoken Christian, and those who would like him to keep that hidden are short-sighted.

BTW - those 11% of African-Americans who vote GOP? 90% of THEM would come over if the party would embrace evangelicals. The only blacks who would vote GOP would be the Jerome Bettis's and Karl Malone's of the country - the ones who want their wealth protected by regressive taxes.

[Cell Whitman]

96. Not all evangelicals are the same.

I don't agree with the faith biased Initiative. I don't buy acting like we have some sin to atone for like we have been anti Christian.

Someone has to let Christians know it is not a sin to be a liberal. There is an old political strategy which says even if you don't think you expect a lot of votes from an area you still ASK for their vote. Let them know you want it.

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm

"God is not a Republican or a Democrat," he said. "I want Republicans to talk about more than gay marriage and abortion. I want Democrats to talk about abortion and poverty in moral terms."

"Religion should not be captive to any political party," said the Rev. Jessica Butler, executive director of Faith in Public Life, which organizes liberal religious groups.

Wallis is harsh on conservatives who have recently been the face of religious politics.

"Thirty thousand children died today. If I was an unborn child and I wanted the attention of the far right, I would've stayed unborn," he said. He charges abortion opponents with not supporting programs to reduce childhood mortality.

The Rev. Tim Ahrens shared Wallis' dismay: "The faith of Jesus Christ has become such a violent and violating faith in the religious right," he contended. Ahrens is the founder of We Believe Ohio, a group of 300 clergy members dedicated to promoting social justice.

Some of his followers now are increasingly proud to talk about their religious beliefs in public, Ahrens said. "It was embarrassing to say that before, because it meant `I'm reactionary, and I'm right-wing and I'm mean,'" he said.

Many Sojourner supporters didn't hesitate to call right-wingers "bible thumpers" and "fanatics," and they criticized the Bush administration for not helping the poor.

They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception.

"These are a new kind of Christian," said Sojourners spokesman Jack Pannell.

[Sam Odom]

107. Fairy Tales

Why do you think the christian right can do devilish things yet feel good about themselves? They believe a christ in the person of a man named Jesus took all of their sins (past-present-future) and washed them clean/sin free with his blood!! What a bloody mess...

[snowbear]

110. Eeek.. that sounds like the book I'm reading....

"Under the Banner of Heaven" (about the polygamists mormons).. it's very bloody.. and very scary that the things they're doing is is going on as we speak..

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. some people have a wrong impression of the group Sen. Obama was addressing

Sojourners are actually fairly leftwing on foreign policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.



Sojourners is the group Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and Gov. Dean were speaking to:

link for Sojourners

http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) on Democracy Now - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/1355204


"The Rev. Tim Ahrens shared Wallis' dismay: "The faith of Jesus Christ has become such a violent and violating faith in the religious right," he contended. Ahrens is the founder of We Believe Ohio, a group of 300 clergy members dedicated to promoting social justice."

"Many Sojourner supporters didn't hesitate to call right-wingers "bible thumpers" and "fanatics," and they criticized the Bush administration for not helping the poor. They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception. " link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm

[OzarkDem]

114. Sorry Obama, its not working in Ohio

Ted Strickland is starting to look foolish and it hasn't helped his polling numbers.

Ohioans want to hear about jobs, health care and education, not Bible verses. They can get that on Sunday.

[mtnsnake]

117. What a rotten, misleading headline. Obama never said that

(I'm blaming the author of the article, not you)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama never said that "Democrats must court evangelicals". He said "if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway". Big difference.

Reaching out to evengelicals for the purpose Obama implied is far different from simply saying we must court evangelicals in general, yet the tricky headline of the article, something that Obama never said, is all that matters to most Obama haters.

Barack Obama is right. If we don't reach out to everyone, then we're already in trouble before we started.

[unlawflcombatnt]

118. How about "courting" Middle America & Working Americans?

Why do we keep hearing this "evangelical" nonsense? Democrats need to start courting their own base, like the Republicans do. Democrats need to start worrying about working Americans and middle class Americans, and not the lunatic fringe (especially not the lunatic fringe on the Right.) Start worrying about loss of jobs and decline in wages due to outsourcing and illegal immigration. These are big issues that affect almost all Americans.

We don't need to enlarge the "big tent." We need to make sure we don't lose of the people from the "big tent" that are currently there. If Democrats keep ignoring the economic concerns of middle class and working Americans, they're going to lose more people than they gain. Economic issues are more important than the those of the fun-demented pseudo-Christian Right.

It's all too easy for rich politicians to forget about the concerns of their non-rich constituents.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."