Someone in more than a sound bite, explain why Evangelicals are bad ......

[Stinky The Clown]

...... for Dems to talk to?

Sorry about the bad title to this thread. Here's my issue, in clearer language:

Many on our side seem less than enthusiastic about engaging Christian Evangelicals in conversation. And it almost always comes down to two issues - gays and abortion. Indeed, there are other issues, but those two come to the fore in any discussion.

Let me postulate something. I am steadfastly and uncompromisingly in favor of choice. I am similarly committed to full equality in marriage - including the right of a gay couple to marry and use the word the very same way I use the word and enjoy the very same rights as Sparkly and me. Period.

That said, why is these this disdain (at best) for opening discussions with Evangelicals? As but one example of how such a discussion might go, as I say I am pro-choice, so am I in favor of zero abortions. I dare say virtually all of you are. No one **wants** an abortion. None of us know a woman who gets up on a Tuesday, looks at the weather report and says, 'gee, this looks like a nice day for an abortion'. No one *wants* an abortion, but many are forced to make that choice. I know a number of women who have had them. I know none who are sim;ply happy to have made that choice. There is almost *always* some level of regret at having ended a (potential) life they were nurturing. So my argument with Evangelicals looks for common ground, not on the issue of abortion, but on the issues of supporting life. Child care, pregnancy prevention, sex ed, etc. etc. etc. ...... in other words, the issues that *lead* a woman to have to make the choice in the first place.

I will never compromise my beliefs for political gain. But I *will* discuss in a sensitive way, the larger issues in hopes of persuading. My goal is not to change the persons equally strongly held view of avoiding abortions, but to persuade that person that he/she and we Dems have much more in common that we have differences.

Please tell me why this is wrong. Sound bite answers don't help.

<thread title edited for spelling>

[Tesha]

1. There's nothing wrong with Evangelicals, per se.

There's nothing wrong with Evangelicals, per se.

An evangelical is just someone who evangelizes (proselytizes)
for their religion. As long as they're willing to take "no"
for an answer, evangelism isn't the problem.

The problem is that when most politicians say "Evangelicals",
they don't mean all evangelicals. Instead, they're using it
as a warm-and-fuzzy code word standing in for "Fundamentalist
CHristians" or "The Religious Right".

They don't mean people like Jimmy Carter, or my friends the
evangelical lesbian couple who, with their two kids, had their
house torched in Colorado Springs. They mean Jerry Falwell,
and Jim Dobson, and a bunch of people who stand for an
American theocracy and not an American democracy. People
who would abolish gay rights, and your right to access
appropriate reproductive care, and women's rights, and
a whole bunch of other stuff that Democrats shouldn't be
standing for.

So make sure you read between the lines when the politicians
start throwing around the term "Evangelical".

Tesha

[burythehatchet]

2. In order to have a productive conversation

both parties must keep a mind open to new information. Fundamentalists, by definition, already know the "truth", trying to reason with them is futile.

[skipos]

5. Evangelical doesn't equal fundamentalist, nt

[burythehatchet]

7. One definition from dictionary.com

Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous. There are other, more innocuous definitions. In contemporary times, they are the same in my book, though I understand your point. It is a spectrum and, as such, the answer to the OP is also a spectrum.

[oneold1-4u]

10. Evangelicals and truth

You will never hear one of them say that christ, the son of god, was all knowing, and told mankind that the earth was round not flat, and that it could be traversed without falling off the edge!
So how can they keep proselytizing with intelligent orders, from god and jesus, that they honestly could not prove?

[burythehatchet]

22. A bit off topic

but you have stated a very critical point about conservatism, as it is today. They will never defend a position that is objectively measureable, whether it is political, economic or religious. They will always support positions which are practically impossible to support with empirical evidence. You see, they have it backward, in the practice of faith, they have no doubt, yet in the practice of governance, they rely on faith. Liberals tend to see religion as a "faith", ie., no gaurantee, and governance as an exercise in logic.

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. I've always laughed about the fact

that the bible was written by people who thought the earth was flat.

[LUHiWY]

32. Something else........

...and herded sheep.

[DoYouEverWonder]

33. Actually that's not really true

Most of the people who wrote gospels and had the time for such things were generally middle class, at least, and educated because obviously they could read and write.

However, the books of the bible need to be looked at from the context that they were written in. These were people with a relatively limited world view, trying to make sense of a universe they could only see a small part of. 2000 years from now, they'll probably think John Lennon was the second coming based on his writings.

[Warpy]

3. There's a line between dialogue and pandering

and I think a lot of people are terrified party leadership will cross it, sacrificing core social values for votes they way they've sacrificed core economic values over the years in a misguided attempt to lure moderate pubbies. It's a legitimate fear, given the venal men at the top of the party power structure.

Dean struck exactly the right note on CBN, tying economic values to the teachings of Jesus. If the party follows his lead, then dialogue will be opened with a lot of Evangelicals who are disgusted by the distinctly unchristian policies of the GOP but fear the "godless" label those men have managed to stick onto the Democrats.

Obama moved a little closer to pandering than Dean did, and I found his speech mildly disturbing.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. I think your point is well founded

Many on our side have drawn the line in the sand because of loss of faith in *our own* leadership. You're very right that we have seen so much pandering and shifting positions that we no longer have the confidence needed to allow our leaders and spokesmodels to say what needs to be said.

I recall, just recently, how Dean was villified by the left for what he said about gay marriage. He wasn't, I don't think, throwing anyone under the bus, butr some parsed his words and saw it exactly that way.

You are also right that it *is* a fine line.

[Mass]

4. I am for engaging a conversation with EVERY human being. I am against

twisting our message to please them. If they agree with Democratic values, fine.

My major problem is when Democrats start to talk about religious values rather than about values. Who cares where these values come from?

[ROakes1019]

6. evangelicals

The problem goes much deeper than wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion. Evangelicals (by their very name) believe they have the truth from God, either from the Bible, direct conversations, or some mentor, and they are compelled to convert the world to their views. If the world refuses to comply, then they believe they can force compliance. Even back in the 50's, they were sending missionaries to "heathen" nations to convert the natives. China was the favorite place for missionaries back then. Then came godless communism. Now the crusade is against Islam and all doubters here in our own country. Even more, their beliefs are based on a patriarchal world view, in which women and weak men are to be subjugated by the father figures. One reason they hated the DaVince Code so much is that the favored position of a woman in Jesus' life is put forward. Of course, the father figures get their directions directly from God; how can you argue with that? As, I believe, George Lakoff has said, Republicans have a patriarchal view and Democrats have a matriarchal view. Republicans believe they can force others to abide by their "wise" decision while Democrats believe all people should be nurtured and helped to achieve their own individual potential. These are deep philosophical distinctions and few set Republicans will ever see any way other their own.

One thing gay marriage and abortion have in common is sex. From the beginning of the Judeo-Christian tradition, sex is regarded as evil since the flesh (matter) is in direct comflict with spirit. Adam didn't just sin; he was tempted to sin by woman. So, marriage allows sex only for procreation (they can't deny the human race needs to procreate) and anything not directed to that allowable "sin" has to be quashed. You will have a hard time convincing any evangelical that his/her views are wrongheaded. They've been fed this pap since the cradle and simply are not amenable to changing. But good luck in trying.

[burythehatchet]

8. Good post

:thumbsup:

[uppityperson]

9. problem is confusing "evangelicals" with "fundamentalists"

and getting away with it. SOrry if this is a sound bite, but that is the problem as I see it. Other than that, there is no problem since we should all be talking together.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. We are playing a deliberate word-confusion game.

For which I blame Mr. Obama. The problem isn't evangelicals. The problem is rightwing fundamentalist theocrats who are 1/3 of the Republican party's coalition of corporate greedheads, neocon imperialists, and fundaloon theocrats. The problem is the theory that we lost the 2004 election because of the religious voter. The solution offered is, it seems, that the Democratic Party ought to be courting the religious voter.

What is a religious voter? I say that is a voter who was organized by the network of rightwing religious institutions that constitute the fundaloon wing of the RP to go to the polls and vote Republican. I maintain that this voter was motivated by the hateful wedge issues of abortion, prayer in school and other government institutions, and gay rights. Disagree as you want, but that is my opinion.

So how are we, as per Mr. Obama's recommendation, to court the voter motivated to vote Republican by these issues? You tell me. I've read Mr. Obama's brilliantly empty essay three times and I still can't tell you.

It is not about evangelicals it is about theocracy.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Those who answered with the differences between "Evangelical" and "Fundie"

.... have come closest to answering my question.

There is much in the use of words to convey messages and intent. I worte the OPP using "Evangelicals" as a way to make a *distinction* from "Religiously Insane Christian Fundamentalists". And yet, in some answers (made honestly, it seems to me) they were conflated.

I hope this conversation can continue, but with the understanding that I'm not talking about the followers of men like Dobson or Robertson or Falwell and all the others of that 'hater' bunch. Rather, I am talking about honest believers in Christ with strongly, but honestly held beliefs that, for them, make gays and abortion bad things.

One line of argument with which I have had some success is to ask why, after almost five years of total Republican control, abortion is still legal. From this, one can easily move to the *reasons* for abortion, how, with Clinton as president, abortions were down and now, with Bush in charge, they're back up.

It isn't the choice, I say, its the reasons.

That causes silent thought every time. It gets through.

[Solon]

13. I don't like people who insert religion into political discourse...

I find it inappropriate, to put it mildly, and I don't really care, one way or the other, as to whether they are left or right wing either.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I don't like it either .... but the reality is ....... it happens

And when it does ... we consistenly lose. Not for issues. For perceptive reasons.

Religion may not be your top issue. It SURE ain't mine!

But let me just postulate this ... as a topic for further discussion, not as a firm position. Why don't we think of the "honestly religious" (as opposed to the religiously insane - and there *is* a difference) as just another identifiable constituency group to whom we need to appeal (NOT to change our core values).

What if, by talking *and* listening, we could come to some common ground whereby they and we agree to disagree on abortion, specifically, but to find agreement on dealing with the issues that lead to abortion. It could happen that we find *much* common ground on issues like adoption (Adopt American Kids) and sex ed (goes to preventing abortion) Child Care (goes to eliminating a reason not to have a kid) healthcare (makes having a family more likely NOT be financially devastating), etc. etc. etc. I honestly think the Safe and Rare theme could work - not with the religiously insane, but with the honestly religious.

[Solon]

20. Probably because the "honestly religious" are such a DIVERSE...

group that it is really hard to quantify them in any meaningful way. I guess I could call myself a member of this group, though to too many in this country, "Religious" ONLY means Jews and Christians, and occasionally Muslims. However, the problem is perception in some ways, and just spin in others. Problem is that in many cases, they concentrate on ONE group while totally neglecting others. Such groups have HUGE variations in POLITICAL beliefs, even if many share many religious values, many Muslim groups are social conservatives, across the board, others are extremely liberal and leftist. Same goes for Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Pagans, etc. To be honest, Non-Christians in general are one of the fastest growing groups in the country, and are also routinely ignored by both parties as well. In one case, Muslims, they were mostly Republicans, now, that changed REALLY fast lately, with good reason, and Repukes may start losing elections because of it. The Democrats HAVE traditionally been the party of the Minority, all of the Minorities in this country, whether Religious or Racial, they should not sacrifice that for short term gain, and end up losing in the long term.

[blondeatlast]

25. "Perceptive reasons" NAILS it.

"The Republicans want to make this a Christian nation/end abortion/eliminate (that's the perceived agenda, anyway) homosexuality, so if I'm wavering, I'll vote for them."

There's a whole heckuvalotta these Christians out there. Politics from the pulpit sounds so easy to the non-political-wonk crowd. If they can't spend time figuring out what's really going on in DC, how can we expect them to really be interested in Christ's teachings?

But the truth is that they WANT to do the right thing, they are just easily distracted by shiny things. It's not that they are stupid, but they are busy and can't spend time on the convoluted messages they get from the Left.

We need to just say it, loud and often.

Poverty: BAD; Would JC approve of the class structure in the US?
War: BAD; Would JC approve of Iraq, even Afghanistan?
Moneylenders (read corporations and the filthiest rich in the US): BAD; we KNOW what JC thought of them.
Hypocites (read: Pharisees): BAD; we know exactly how JC felt about them.

The beauty of it is, we DON'T HAVE TO INVOKE JC to do this, except when we are speaking to the non-religiously insane believers.

The message is universal, but easily tailored.

[Sam Odom]

14. I just don't like folks basing their public policy on Fairy Tales

Most all religionist do that.

[blondeatlast]

16. He asked for more than a sound bite, but welcome to DU anyway.

Sigh.

[Sam Odom]

17. Not a 'sound bite'

Just how far can one go into an intellectual debate/discussion about how one fairy tale differs from another?

[blondeatlast]

18. You are new, you will learn, grasshopper.

Your post doesn't offend me, but it does nothing to advance the debate here.

There's a group for debating that issue, but I think it's for paid DUers, so you might want to consider that.

[blondeatlast]

15. They aren't; no group is. But that's not conventional DU wisdom, guy.

Sheesh, have you learned NOTHING? :sarcasm:

We at DU often like to blame the party leadership and our representatives in DC for our failures, but our own worst enemy is us most of the time.

NOT ONE GROUP is bad for Dems to talk to--but first we need to find OUR message--and stick the hell with it.

We don't have to pander to any group, because we are clearly in the best postion to save the country. No need to move to the Right at all; we can stay right where we want to be for decades and continue to win elections if we'll just say what we need to say without apology. Then the masses will come to us.

OTOH, we might offend someone, as this thread has already shown. If we talk to the evangelicals, we offend some DUers, so God forbid (sorry, couldn't resist) we do that. If we don't talk to them, however, we risk losing an engaged and activist voting block that WE ALREADY DO A FINE JOB REPRESENTING, we just can't/won't/shouldn't represent?! I'm dizzy... :shrug:

Rant over, thanks.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. Their anti-abortion stance is actually cover for good 'ole

misogyny. Evangelicals hate the idea of women having rights and think women should be subordinate to men. Period. In other words, they don't care about children or about "life," they're into restricting women's freedom.

There's no discussing with people like that. Even if they pretend to listen to what you're saying, it's only because they view you as potential conversion material. If anything, they should all be forced to attend cult de-programming sessions, imho. Yeah, that's right. Evangelical Christianity shares a lot in common with your garden-variety cult.

That said, you are absolutely correct that we have way more in common (at least those of us in the working class) than we have differences. But as long as evangelicals continue to make abortion and gay rights their litmust tests for elections, why waste any time talking to them?

[Stinky The Clown]

27. I think you may be painting with an overly broad brush

To be VERY clear, what you say is true of the religiously insane ... right down to the cult thing, it seems to me. And in that regard, you are right to think there's no convincing them.

But they simply do NOT represent the broader 'Christian' or even broader 'relgious believers'. They are simply the loudest and most organized. And their leaders have become Republicans for the fame and fortune, while at the same time, Republicans have become Christians for the votes. It is an unholy alliance.

But again, that describes a loud and vocal **minority**.

My discussion today is about the majority.

[riona]

23. I may not agree with their views

but, I respect freedom of religion. On the other hand, I no longer waste my time "discussing" our differing beliefs. It is obvious that the capacity for acceptance of my pro choice, gay marriage and women's rights positions will never be accepted. Their relentless political maneuvering is proof that they feel that these freedoms must be curtailed not only by the church, but by the government.

[trudyco]

24. Talk to anybody willing to listen. Some won't. Some will.

It isn't a monolith. I have a distant relation who is a good christian but she is bamboozled by the Dobsen crowd. Her ability to think critically is seriously impaired. I don't think she really follows Dobsen but she won't question him either, because of what he was like way back when. I'd love to have the dirt on him (does he own multiple houses? Is he rich?) and maybe could cut through the kool aid with her. Her sense of priorities are way out of whack - so if Dobsen sends out an email about a child unable to hand out crosses in school she gets bent out of shape. I guess it is a threat to who she is?? Whereas committing torture on Gitmo prisoners is not. Or is it that one is emotional based and the other is intellectually based?

I think Republicans and fundamentalist "leaders" (where do they get their money?) play on this fear people like her have. So gays, abortion and evolution all are threats. Things like losing democracy or individual privacy apparently is not a threat to them (maybe they are used to authority in their religion so aren't concerned with fascism?). It makes it hard to talk to them. I do like the approach you suggest of showing that the Repubs in power have not lived up to their promises.

OTOH I have met pro-lifers who truly don't believe in abortion because it takes a "human life". They may also be religiously based (often Catholic) but are more able to think critically. You might actually get somewhere with an argument of making abortion rare, rather than illegal. Same thing with gays, they may be more open to at least giving them a civil union for their rights if you can avoid the word marriage. Of course some Catholics will only change their mind if the pope changes his. Maybe you don't consider these folks evangelicals, though.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. This discussion came up for me right now because we just had some

house guests who are evangelicals. The mother voted for Kerry on the last go-round because she saw bush as a faux Christian and the other issues (war in particular) way overshadowed the usual stuff. Her daughter voted bush because her husband told her to(!).

We had a number of discussions over the last few days. I'm here to say that we *can* get through to them if only we address things in ways they can relate. To do that, you have to start by respecting their views. Which I always thought was a Democratic value - listening and respecting, that is.

I had one very interesting discussion with the daughter. I asked what she would think if gays were not a front page issue and some court in Dubuque said gays could marry. If it got no play in the media, would it affect *her* marriage in any way. Of course she said 'no'. Then she was unable to explain in any way whatever, how it affects her marriage when it *is* in the news. When I say she had no answer, she literally did not. A quiet "I don't know" and then silence. But in her heart she deeply believes it will. Somehow. And trust me, she's an otherwise intelligent, and educated, person. She also said, after some discussion, that civil unions could be okay. That's not good enough for me, but it would sure be a start, wouldn't it?

So I keep coming back to what I postulate in the OP. We *can* find common ground. If we can just eliminate the notion that we're a threat to them, we can start to move forward. I don't think we're a threat to them, but they think we are .... because of their leaders and the media that continues to paint that picture, subtly but effectively.

[blondeatlast]

30. I think a lot of Evangelicals are looking to bolt from the Repugs,

they just have been made to feel so uncomfortable with the idea of the big "D" that we need to address it. They need an excuse, but it's gotta be a big one, and I think getting out of Iraq is it.

It can be done without any compromise on our behalf; just keep the message as simple as possible so that it can be TAILORED to different groups.

The nation has accepted women's suffrage, civil rights, etc. because the proponents of same stood their ground and made the nation understand that these were simply matters of human decency. They didn't pander to groups that disagreed with them. This is an area where even I, an absolute yella-dawg, will say the Democrats have let me down increasingly over the years.

We don't need to convince each individual--I mean, I know plenty of racists and misogynists in my own family, but they accept that the law's the law.

[applegrove]

26. Thank you. We should find ways to reduce the # of abortions. Science

can do it. "man patch".

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Yup. There's a difference between caving in and conversation

Conversation shouldn't be easily put aside. The opportunity to search for common ground is very important. None of that requires compromising core beliefs.

But as you point out, there is often an area between -- common ground where both sides can find agreement. Working there, we can get things accomplished.

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. The group Sen.Obama was speaking to is actually fairly left-wing

The conference that Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and Gov. Dean was speaking at was sponsored by the Sojourners movement.

Sojourners are actually fairly left-wing on foreign policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.




Sojourners are 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/ne

[Totally Committed]

36. This Journal presents an illustration of some Evangelicals' objectives...

That should, in no way, fit with the Democratic Party's views. I don't see this group changing their views, and I certainly don't want any jelly-liver Democratic elected deciding we need them so badly, we need to triangulate in closer to this point of view.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Gene%20C.%20Gerard/9

I know this group does not represent all Evangelicals, and I know there are some Evangelicals that would not subscribe to an anti-gay, pro-God-in-Government approach to their faith, but I just don't want the point of view in the above Journal to be given credence in my Party.

btw, I don't want the Democrats to begin talks with the KKK or white Supremacist groups, either. I find anti-gay prejudice as repugnant as prejudice against people for the color of their skin.

TC