As predicted

[ProSense]

The media spin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2742913&mesg_id=2742913

[TayTay]

1. I don't get what the problem is with this

Religion is a powerful force in American society. It can be used to sway public opinion. Religion was a very powerful force in the civil rights movement of the '50 & '60s.

Why is this a problem? We do need to talk to people in the language they understand. Civil Rights figures understood this and used religious innuendo to ask the nation for fairness and for justice.

I don't get the hostility to this. I do get that people will talk about this in different ways and should. But I don't get the open hostility to this on DU and other lib blogs.

[sandnsea]

3. Two reasons I'm guessing

One being the portion of the left who don't want any reference to God at all.

My objection was to parts of his speech that validated fundie talking points that aren't true, like kids not being able to pray at school or form religious groups. We keep acquiescing these so-called religious points that aren't even true and wonder why we can't make any headway in talking about values. They just concoct a new war on religion every time we acquiesce to one of their crazy demands, we're going to acquiesce our way to a theocracy if we're not careful.

[ProSense]

4. This is a good article

But faith is not a political posture. True faith isn't exhibited by symbolic acts, but by substance. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. It isn't a symbol of things to scheme for. Values are not expressed by the paraphernalia of faith. Values are expressed by action. An abolitionist fighting to end slavery expresses faith. A slave owner attending a church that excludes slaves from attendance reflects bad faith.

The Bible says that you know a tree by the fruit it bears, not by the bark it wears. We know the values of a politician not by the public prayers he or she attends, but by the priorities supported in his or her budget vote. A vote for a budget that cuts basic needs from poor children while cutting more tax breaks for the affluent expresses the values -- and the bad faith -- of those who vote for it. A nation's budget is a moral document.

This mission statement from the Gospel -- Luke 4:18 -- is at the heart of our faith-with-substance imperative: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor: he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised."

The Bible is clear about this. Faith is substance, not posturing. I was hungry and you fed me. Naked and you clothed me. Imprisoned and you comforted me. The Bible calls us to act, not simply to pray in public. A person is mugged on the Jericho Road. A man of religion, displaying all the signs of piety, sees the victim and crosses to the other side of the road. A man from the victim's own ethnic origins spies him and crosses to the other side of the road. A stranger in the land, with a different religion, a different way of worshipping God, with no green card, stops, puts the victim on his donkey and provides him with the resources to get care.

Snip...

Democrats should focus not on the public display of their faith, but on the will to fight for what they believe in. If they don't learn to stand up and fight for what they believe in -- for the Voting Rights Act, for equal opportunity, for full employment and a living wage, for lifting the poor up and not locking them out, for making certain that every vote is counted -- then they just might be left without a prayer.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/jesse/cst-edt-jesse18.html

[ProSense]

2. It is the characterization of and push to

shape religion as an imperative part of the political debate. Sorry, I don't believe religion should be mixed with politics.

Amid the war of words, some clergy are making a point to steer clear of labels. Rev. Jim Wallis, who heads a faith-based group in Washington called Sojourners, has been widely viewed as part of the religious left. Yet he rejects the name and preaches the need to bring the nation to "a moral center."

"I'm an evangelical Christian who thinks that justice is a biblical imperative," said Wallis."The monologue of the religious right is finally over and a new dialogue has just begun."

I happen to agree.

[TayTay]

5. That is inserting religion into the public dialogue

Rev. Wallis is being disengenuous by suggesting it is not. I subscribe to his magazine Sojourners and it is about people 'living their values.'

Faith and politics have always lived in uneasy alliance and always will. Religion is a part of what makes people tick on a fundamental basis. The question is what side of the religious traditions do pols come down on. You can use relgion to free people and to advocate for social justice as Martin Luthor King, Jr did or you can use it to advocate for repression as the REthugs do. But it is a part of the political conversation of America and always will be.

"By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen—disproportionately poor and minority Americans—were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there."

Sen. Kerry has used religious allusions in his speeches before. Most of them, as they do for a lot of Lib Dems, come out of the usage of the civil rights movement in the '50's & '60's which had a powerful connection with the Book of Leviticus and the story of Moses. (Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof Lev. XXV X) I don't see anything wrong with this as MOTIVE for people.

There is a difference between motivation and policy. I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water on this. There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to bring genuine values into the political arena.

[ProSense]

6. I was really agreeing

with his denouncement of the term religious left.

In any case, I don't see anything wrong with specific mentions, personal stories in a genuine presentation. People can determine what values they want to bring to the debate. Encouraging them to do so by platform is not genuine, especially when it's presented as something Democrats are afraid to do.

[TayTay]

7. But that doesn't make any sense

What does that mean, 'encouraging them to do so by platform?' Democrats have never been afraid to take moral stands and to embrace moral issues as just that: moral issues. (What is a moral issue? What is immoral in the context of a national debate?)

I think I don't understand this because it's in a Kerry forum. I have always seen John Kerry as someone who takes moral issues very seriously. That's what makes him both different and oh so familiar. When the Senator gave his speech at Faneuil Hall in April that stated, in no uncertain terms, his opposition to the war as not just a mistake and not just a military blunder but as a moral failure he had a Baptist preacher speak first. http://resources.christianity.com/default.aspx?showcode=msbc

Not only did the Reverend Pastor Borders speak, but he had his full robes of office on during the whole presentation. Kerry didn't ask him there just as a valued member of the community, he asked him there because he was a preacher. Pastor Borders repeated this phrase from Isaiah 2:4:

And he will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

You tell me: Why did Senator Kerry invite the good Pastor to deliver this prayer to this public gathering at a very public forum? Why have a deeply respected member of the clergy present at a political speech about war? Why would John Kerry do that. (Who is this guy anyway?)

[ProSense]

9. I was making a point about invoking religion.

I'm not talking about Kerry. When I said platform, I mean members of the party saying that Democrats ought to do it:

Moderates: Dems Should Talk About Religion
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
2:34 PM PDT, July 23, 2006

DENVER -- Rather than being bashful, Democrats should openly talk about their religious beliefs and moral values, say moderates urging the party to court voters beyond the traditional Democratic base to win control of the GOP-run Congress this fall and the presidency in 2008.

"If we continue to have this perception in the Democratic Party that faith can't be discussed, we'll continue to lose elections based on wedge issues," said Terrance Carroll, a Colorado state representative.

Snip...

But moderates claim that invoking religion will help Democrats connect with churchgoing Americans -- including Republicans and independents -- who polls show are more apt to vote with the GOP.

Snip...

"Our goal is to broaden the Democratic Party," said Al From, the DLC's founder.

On religion, he and other moderates said Democrats must strike a careful balance -- talking about their faith without shifting positions on "values issues" to score political points.

"There is a downside if it's not authentic," Karen Hale, a state senator from Utah, said.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-democrats-religion,1,4851285.story

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote_address/index.html

At best? I know the distinction between opening an event with prayer and invoking religion in politics. There is a difference.

[TayTay]

11. I don't think there is.

I think that there is a way to acknowlede that religion plays a role in the formation of the public dialogue and that is both right and proper. It has always done so in America and that religious tradition has always been invoked to secure justice and the expansion of rights to the citizenry.

Just because the religious right usues religion to contract rights and to deny justice doesn't mean that you ban religion from the public discourse. Nor does it mean that you say that everything about religion is bad. It isn't.

[ProSense]

12. I didn't say ban it from public discourse.That's not what the post says.

Here is what I said a few posts back:

In any case, I don't see anything wrong with specific mentions, personal stories in a genuine presentation. People can determine what values they want to bring to the debate. Encouraging them to do so by platform is not genuine, especially when it's presented as something Democrats are afraid to do.

Our currency carries the words "In God We Trust," our courts have us swearing on the bible, there is prayer at public events.

The problem is the continual harping on it to try to outdo the religious right in their quest to define values and morality and blend politics with religion.

Who can forget this serious waste of time from last year:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/20/poll.season/index.html

[TayTay]

13. But that is exactly what needs to be fought

You won't ban that sort of thing from the public dialogue by wishing it so. It has to be publicly fought. Otherwise, the other side wins the argument and only their point of view gets across.

[ProSense]

15. Not all public dialogue belongs in the political arena

When the religious right forced Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays into the political debate, no one should have taken the bait.

From the CNN article (linked above):

On the political front, although the campaign for "Merry Christmas" appears to be waged largely by conservative Americans, many Democrats and liberals appear to be affected by it, according to the poll.

A majority of liberals and a majority of Democrats said they preferred "Happy holidays" last year. But this year, a majority of liberals and a majority of Democrats said their preference was "Merry Christmas." Those findings have a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points.

The response to cut off the debate should have been: There are people who prefer one or the other, people who don't care, people who say Happy Hanukkah, people who say Happy Kwanzaa and people (even religious ones) who don't celebrate the holiday. In every one of these groups, there are Democrats and Republicans.

Another public debate that never should have entered the political arena was Terry Schiavo. These are traps, political ploys, that produce no good results and contribute nothing to the common good.

Sure, no one should ignore those, including the politicians, who try to force these issues into the debate, but the goal should not be to out debate them, it should be to point out that they are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.

I agree with Wallis when he says: "The monologue of the religious right is finally over..."

The new dialogue should recognize that Democrats have faith and values, that this country was founded on certain principles, and stop trying to engage the religious right's every whim.

[TayTay]

16. The Merry Christmas thing was a creation of cable news

specifically Fox News. The Democrats do not have to power to stop Fox News or anyone else from talking about this.

How do you propose that Democrats stop Fox News from bringing fake religious issues onto their news shows?

What does this have to do with the issues of poverty, environment, social justice and war and peace that religion brings into the public square? Terry Schiavo is a legitimate chance for the public to see exactly what the narrow minded and cruel agenda of the Religious Right means to individual families. When this was brought up, the Religious Right lost points in the national debate.

The two are not the same. Schiavo was an issue that was brought before Congress which generated a bill that the PResident went out of his way to sign. The Merry Christmas thing was a cable tv thing that really didn't go anywhere. I can't see mixing the two up. They are not the same thing and were not dealt with in the same way.

[ProSense]

17. Whether it's brought up

by the news or politicians pushing the religious right agenda, the Democrats don't need to fall for the bait.

"Schiavo was an issue that was brought before Congress" by politicians using the religious right agenda to score political points.

I know Democrats can't cut off the public debate. The public debates a lot of thing that are not a matter of politics.

When elected officials start weighing in and dropping hints about which is right or wrong, or who is right or wrong, that's how it seeps into the political debate, that's when it crosses the line.

[TayTay]

18. But how do you propose to stop it?

I don't understand what you are after here? The Democrats did not begin the silly Merry Christmas thing last year. They didn't begin Terry Schiavo either. They could safely ignore the former, but they had to respond to the latter.

It doesn't make any sense. What is it that you want done?

[ProSense]

19. It's not about stopping it!

When these issues are forced into politics, it's about exposing them for what they are.

This whole discussion began on the premise Democrats should engage the right in a debate about religion and values.

As I said, the goal should not be to out debate them, it should be to point out that they are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.

[TayTay]

20. The in order to do that you have to discuss religion

and values and the meanings of both. So that puts religion and what it does and does not stand for back into the public arena. A true discussion would fully illuminate what each side says and what each side stands for. Isn't that a violation of what you say you want?

The 'religious left' is not a political entity in the way the religious right is. (It never has been.) The religious right is a top-down movement that takes marching orders from people at the top. It is hierarchical and structured and brooks no dissent at all. The religoius left has never been that way, it's strucutre is diffused and geared toward the individual. They are distinctly different things. They are not interchangeable entities.

Again, I don't understand what you are getting at. The Schiavo case was perceived by the Religious right as a slam-dunk on values and a way to make Democrats defend taking a woman off a ventilator when the RR wanted to show that she 'still had a chance.' It played into their wanting to be seen as the 'culture of life' and the Democrats or lefties as fostering a culture of death that ignores life when it is inconvenient. The RR shot themselves in the foot with this. But what helped to kill this was the sunshine disinfectant of public notice. The RR wound up being it's own worst enemy in this regard.

[ProSense]

21. True discussion?

As in the one that went on in Congress? It was, as many Democrats pointed out, a phony debate. The reason Schiavo was a shot in the foot of the religious right is that there was success in exposing as a debate that should not have entered the political arena.

It's obvious I'm not making my point clear enough. All I can say at this point is read the Jesse Jackson article (linked above). It expresses what I have been trying to say.

[TayTay]

22. Perhaps an 'agree to disagree' is in order.

and then :hug:

[ProSense]

23. Oh:

always :hug:

[JohnKleeb]

8. To me there's dishonesty on both sides of the issue

There are those who are so extremely anti religion they don't want any discussion of God in politics and think all people of faith are brainwashed and those who know nothing about the state of public schools these days because they are either not of age or they send their own kids to private school or home school em. We were allowed to form Christian groups in high school. My 9th grade math teacher was head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and a great guy at that too. We are allowed to pray in school so the lies that Vernon Robinson has been spreading in North Carolina are true too. Now forced prayer that's not allowed but religion isn't shut out in public schools and in fact we learned a lot about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinudism in 9th grade. Now did we do bible readings no and nor should we have. I don't know why people object to people talking of God in politics. It's nothing new and as Tay noted the Civil Rights movement had a lot of religious influence in it as did the American labor movement too and the anti slavery movement. Now we shouldn't have the government favoring one religion over another of course but I must say my religious beliefs have very much impacted how I feel about certain issues and andecotal stories about faith by politicans don't bother me. I don't like pandering for pandering sake but if it's sincere I have no issue with it.

[ProSense]

10. It's not about the anti-religious, and

Jesse Jackson was part of the Civil Rights movement, and he makes the point I'm trying to make:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=97062&mesg_id=97068

[JohnKleeb]

14. My bad

[Island Blue]

24. An interesting article I saw posted in GD

that is sorta-kinda related to this topic. It's a very good read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=fc81bfdd0ee7feb1&hp&ex=1154232000&partner=homepage

[saracat]

25. I am at the point of whatever we have to do to win.

I would prefer that religion were kept of of politics but that horse has left the barn! For myself, if find nothing good about religion. It has only brought suffering war and bigotry to the world. I speak as a former Catholic that will never darken the door of a church again but if pandering to the religious is necessary to win, Not a problem.Our always taking the "high road " hasn't worked out so well either for us or the world. The only problem is , once we abandon it, we run the risk of turning into those we despise.And that is the conundrum.