Democrats and Evangelicals

[Stinky The Clown]

So, another post here on DU todays points up what's being said even by the leaders of the Evangelical groups. The Republic Party just ain't all that anymore.

So my musing today is this:

Can we get them on our side?

Do we *want* them on our side?

I have to say (and this will sound antireligious, which I'm not) that I really don't want them on our side. At least not the ones who are certifiably insane over Jayzus. There's already more than enough rightward pull in the Democratic party. The tolerant 'Jimmy Carter' types are just fine with me. I just don't see any place on our side for the homophobes, haters, antichoicers, and all the other ones that have been our bane for lo these many years.

On the other hand, they're not going to go away. They'll pop up somewhere, for sure. And at some point we're going to have to deal with them head on - like when we win Congress this year and the whole sheebang in 08.

But that's just me. What do you think?

[Avalux]

1. They will not vote for Democrats; ain't gonna happen.

I heard a fundie leaders say he wants them to be a "third force" in politics (not necessarily a third party), and work towards influencing change in policy. The things they care about and what Republicans used to get their votes (abortion, marriage amendment) will keep them away from our party unless Democrats embrace their views.

[ForFuxakes]

2. Keep them away from me....

I have a huge problem with organized religion. Keep the pharasees away from me and mine.

So sayeth the sheppard...so sayeth the flock!

[Jackpine Radical]

3. The conservative Xians used to be populist Dems.

Think William Jennings Bryan--virtually a Xian socialist, who also took on Clarence Darrow in the Scopes trial.

The problem is not so much the evangelicals per se, as it is the particular issues their leadership has been using to manipulate them.

Edit: As an afterthought, the only substantive, policy issues on which conservative Xianity differs from liberalism are in areas such as homosexuality & abortion. Xian doctrine is really mostly all about peace, loving your neighbor, sharing resources, taking care of the poor, etc. The need to weld conservative Xianity onto the hull of the Republican Party is the force that caused the twisted, sociopathic church leadership to emphasize those hateful wedge issues over the more humane ones that would otherwise unite Xians with Dems. Except for these relatively few issues, Xians are actually the natural allies of secular Dems. We would need to attain some sort of truce in the areas of division, but perhaps we progressives could re-unite with the common Christians, each side recognizing the other as people of principle and fundamental good will.

[Armstead]

11. Much of modern Christianity is a reaction against Ultra-Materialism

In that sense, liberals and progressives have more in common with many Christians who are reacting against the crass Culture of Greed.

For example, the prevalence of sexuality. What they are really upset about a culture that is driven by "Whatever Sells we'll give them. If they want hyped up sexuality, that's what they'll get."

The Republicans have successfully diverted their attention to the so-called sins of liberals, because of our belief in tolerance. But the root cause of their anger actually has more to do with the "Sex Sells" values of so-called free-markets, who place boobs prominently on the cover of magazines and in TV shows to jack up their revenues.

Somehow, if our side could somehow get them to make that connection, that'd be at least one area of common ground.

[BootinUp]

4. The best long term strategy imho

Talk about how absolute power corrupts. Talk about how religion can change peoples actions more effectively by spreading the message not through the use of State power. Challenge them on that in fact.

[StoryTeller]

5. Re: Democrats and Evangelicals

Well, actually, you already have some of "us" on "your" side. The term "evangelical" was originally a theological term, and from most of the theological markers, there are a lot of "evangelicals" already very progressive and supporting Democratic ideals because that's the party that is the best fit for our beliefs.

And most of my evangelical friends that are NOT democrats are still decent, kind people. Many of them are very intelligent. They are not hateful, crazy, or stupid people. They may be deceived into supporting hateful, crazy, and stupid people politically, but that's not who they are. Those of us that are evangelical AND progressive are working very hard to present them an alternate view of how their Christian beliefs interact with their political beliefs. But change does not come easily or quickly--that's part of the nature of conservatism. They really, really dislike change and are easily frightened by it.

So we keep trying. But it would help immensely if those of you outside our evangelical culture would try to engage conservative evangelicals in honest discussion. The first several times, or even a hundred times, you try it, you'll be met with resistance. Even disdain. Anger maybe. Because you're challenging them to change, and that is scary. But please keep trying, and please be kind--even if they don't deserve it. And make sure your life and actions match up with your words. And that they see you and talk with you outside a political discussion. You don't know the effect you are having, but it's there. And eventually, it will show.

I know it's a lot more fun to insult them and write them off as hopeless. Or reject them because of their beliefs. But that's only going to drive the wedge deeper and make it even more impossible for them to change their political support. So you can have your fun, or you can help bring about change. I'm not sure you can have both, though.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Thank you for a thoughtful reply .....

.... which is pretty much in line with my OP, actually.

As I said, I am not inherently *anti* religious. But I am steadfastly anti intolerance. And that's the push of the noisiest of the current crop of big time Christian luminaries. Intolerance.

I have NO problem with anyone practicing whatever religion or holding whatever religious views one wishes. But I must draw the line at those who would force their beliefs on me or anyone else who doesn't wish to follow them.

Similarly with the hot button issues like gays and a woman's choice. I have NO problem with anyone who personally doesn't feel comfortable about gay people or the woman who chooses to end a pregnancy. But don't *force* that on anyone. And that's what today's more famous and influential Christian leaders have convinced their followers is the right thing to do. That's just wrong. If Christians want to try to *convince* me I'm worng on my views, that's fine. Just don't legislate it.

You know, I was raised Catholic, and by and large the issues of today's Christian right are pretty much in line with the views of the Catholic hierarchy. But never in all the years I was a practicing Catholic (I long ago left, however) I **never** heard the hate that is the daily discourse for the religious .... well .... nutters. I also don't believe that kind of hatred is even remotely Christian.

So, is there common ground? I actually think there is. The valuies of the real Jesus - likely pretty much as any progressive, liberal Christian today sees things - are very much the values of today's non-religious liberal mainstream. I don't think for a moment that most Christians - Evangelicals, actually - are ogres. And neither are liberals. We shgould be able to start from that common ground and move forward. Just as I don't think I will change my own personal views, I would not expect them to change their personal views. The only real difference, it seems to me, is that the 'Evangelical Movement' as it has been co-opted by the political right, wishes to legislate one set of values. On that point, from my side, there is likely NO room to compromise.

That's that's my hard limit. What's yours (asking you to speak for the Christian side - not to attack or challenge you personally)?

[filer]

6. Let 'em pop up out in the woods somewhere...

handling snakes.

[shireen]

8. Liberal Evangelicals -- they do exist!

I heard one on Al Franken's show last year, he was amazing! Evangelicals have got a bad rap due to idiots like Falwell. But there are people who call themselves Evangelicals who are very concerned about global warming, believe in separation of church and state, and truly practice what Christ preached, like reaching out to the less fortunate. Some are registered Democrats. They may not agree with everything in the Democratic Party platform (like pro-choice), but otherwise, their values are much more aligned with causes that are important to Democrats. I have a lot of respect for them.

[napi21]

9. I think we should adopt the position of "religion should be

a personal belief, and no one sect or group be inserted into politics for the purposes of converting everyone else."

I have no problem with the Evangelicals, Catholics, Methodists or any other group. They are and should be free to believe in anything they choose. I do have a problem when any group tries to insert THEIR beliefs into the political arean. The Fed Gov't has no business enacting law to control gay rights, abortion, or any other belief of a religious nature. No one is ever forced to have an abortion, or be gay, or marry anyone they do not wish to marry.

[Armstead]

10. The brand of religion reflects the person -- So forget the wingnuts

IMO, a person's religious beliefs merely reflect their personal values and ideology. Their religion is a mirror of who they are as a person in the here and now.

We often make the mistake of thinking it's the other way around, that religion determines someone's politics.

But actually, religion is more like a buffet. Someone looks for a form of religion that reflects their own personality, secular values and view of the world.

Some Christians gravitate towards bigoted, authoritarian right-wing Republican forms of Chriatianity because that's who they are.

In otehr words, someone doesn't become an intolerant homophobe because they are Christian. Instead, they embrace forms of Christianity that reflects their own ingrained homophobia.

It also works the otehr way around. Someone doesn't become a generous, tolerant humanitarian Christian because they are a Christian. Instead, they are that way already, and they look foir a form of Christianity that reflects that.

The sooner we seperate secular political values from Christinaity, the better, IMO. That doesn't mean not seeking and welcoming Christians. But it does mean saying -- "These are our values. We encourage you to join us, regardless of your personal religious beliefs."

Likewise, if individuals see liberalism as an extension of their Christianity, fine. But the emphasis in political terms should be on the liberalism.