Poll about Democrats and Evangelicals

[melnjones]

I think it would be helpful for us to see some numbers, so I'm posting this poll. Please respect each others' opinions if you choose to post! This thread is not meant to start a flame war, only to provide some sort of quantitative data on a touchy subject.

[cascadiance]

1. We should court people as Americans, NOT as a member of some religion!

[BlueIris]

3. Ladies and gentlemen, the thread is won.

I was going to post something about how if "courting evangelicals" means rationalizing their misogyny, bigotry, hatred and irrationality for them, that's not something we should be doing as members of a political party in a society that is supposed to be secular, but this is a much more succinct assessment of my opinion. And it comes from a person whose screen name is AWESOME.

[cascadiance]

11. Thanks BlueIris!

I think this is the common issue for a salesman. If he's working for a company that makes a product that is a decent product that does what it's supposed to do and is what people wants, his job is more to explain how that works people and he "courts" people (ANYONE) to look at his product because his product speaks for itself. He doesn't have to sacrifice product/service integrity to make a sale.

For those who work for companies with less desirable products or perhaps less desirable business practices, then one as a salesman has to try to connive to find out what specifically a person wants to try and "talk them into" buying something that the salesman themselves might believe that person shouldn't want to have and won't want to buy it unless some pressure sales techniques are applied.

I see this situation being the same issue. If the product the Dems sell is something that people generally want, and we don't have to make specific promises to different groups, that is a winning strategy. When you try to segment and make different promises to different people and what you try to sell doesn't match up with the core value of what your real product is, then there's the problem.

There, now I've been wordy and made an effort to explain my short sentence, like everyone feels is needed! :) The Dems need to be more vocal and succinct about what our party's core values are and what we'd do when we're in power and not just do individual pandering waiting for the Republicans to self destruct.

[endarkenment]

24. Thank you.

That is it.

[acmejack]

35. I second!

I couldn't agree more, I get so tired of pandering to this group or that group. We are all supposed to be one people, just as the OP states.

[katty]

59. Yes! WHY are Evangelicals made out to be SPECIAL?!

[liberal N proud]

2. The Evangelicals have the misconceived notion that you must be Republican

if you are "Christian"
I have heard far too many of them say this and quite frankly I take offense to such bigotry. They say they want to love everyone and save as many souls as possible but it is hypocrisy.

I go to an evangelical church but by no means call my self evangelical because my Christianity does not require that I force feed it to others. We need to educate these people, demonstrate to them that we can be Christian and Democrat at the same time. They just need to have their kool-aid removed and then some of them will see the light.

[AndyA]

4. Our actions say more than the words we speak.

I try to take people at face value. If they profess to be a Christian, I don't question them until I see them doing things that Christians aren't supposed to do. The Evangelicals largely do not act like Christians, they talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Christians do not judge others, condemn them, discriminate, hate, preach bigotry, or any of the other things we see the Evangelicals doing.

Actions speak louder than words. They are not Christians. Beware a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Edited to add: At this time, I don't think we should waste our time courting the Evangelicals. We can gain more in other areas without fighting the Kool Aid addiction. Later, after we gain power, we can deal with the Evangelical issue. I don't think we should turn them away, but I think that's a battle best left to fight later on. There are easier wins with more benefits to fight first.

[liberal N proud]

14. "they talk the talk but don't walk the walk" - Exactly

That is the one reason I keep showing up at church, just to show them I can be Democrat and a Christian. Probably more Christian like then many of those who are criticizing others.

[xmas74]

31. And some will see the light.

I have a few evangelical relatives who are starting to do just that.

[Rose Siding]

5. If by courting, you mean appeal to common interests, then sure

The danger is in the concept of compromise, rather than in coming to an understanding of common interests.

[melnjones]

46. Well said. nt

[Felix Mala]

6. Please remember, Jimmy Carter is an evangelical and ran as such.

You can be evangelical, support a woman's right to choose or possess a more enlightened view of homosexuality, without killing Jesus all over again and damning yourself to hell. It's the evolution of the cerebral cortex that gave us the ability to think things out on our own.

[melnjones]

32. Hey neighbor!!!

I live in Anderson. Just thought I'd say hi and thanks for your thoughts. :hi:

[Felix Mala]

37. Ola...

Actually, I'm due west, in Cicero.

[melnjones]

41. What do you speak?

Ola is not spanish!

[skipos]

7. We should court anyone who SHOULD be voting for dems

and that is almost everyone.

If hating gays, getting government into our bedrooms, creating more terrorists by pissing off the world, etc are big priorities of someone, then they should VOTE REPUBLICAN. otherwise, I think dems have a shot of winning them over.

I mentioned this in another thread but... Schweitzer (D) of MT courts red state conservatives and it isn't done in a phony or calculated way at all. He speaks in a way that they can understand and relate to.

We can reach out in a way that doesn't compromise our values at all, and Schweitzer (and others) have done it.

[porphyrian]

8. Other

We don't need to court anybody. We just have to practice what we preach, for fuck's sake, and STOP trying to meet everyone on the conservative side. Then, they can't keep calling us cowards, flip-floppers and messageless. Why am I the only one who understands this?!

[baldguy]

9. Believe it or not, some evangelicals are Christians.

Real Christians, that is - not the "fuck you" Christians of the American Taliban. Therefore they are liberals. They care about peace, social justice, and are truly compassionate.

[Ganja Ninja]

10. I doubt if there's any way to lure evangelicals to the Democratic

party. The only way they'll switch is if they realize the Republican party is not in their own personal interests.

[BlueIris]

25. .

[vi5]

12. We should be democrats. Let them come to us...

I don't think we should court anyone if it means sacrificing what we stand for on issues like abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state and a host of other things.

If someone is religious and puts the issues of poverty and equality and kindness to others above hating gays, denying women their rights, and insisting that their religion be the one true religion aknowledged in the public square, then chances are that person is voting democratic anyway.

[derby378]

13. On the other hand, there's the environmental angle...

...and with global warming now proven beyond reasonable doubt, a lot of evangelical Christians are rethinking their commitment to being "good stewards" of the environment. Some evangelical activists were among the first to jump on the anti-SUV bandwagon.

[melnjones]

36. Good points.

I think the issue I have the biggest problem with is how so many Dems resort to immature name-calling when dealing with evangelicals. In my opinion, "courting" the evangelicals might be as simple as treating them like fellow americans. I know many evangelicals resort to name-calling, but seriously, let's be the bigger person.

[vi5]

54. But again, this points to the main issue...

Democrats are judged by their most extreme fringe members (ie. the ones actively hostile to religion who engage in name calling) whereas we're not supposed to judge evangelicals on their high profile, mainstream leaders. I'm still not entirely sure how that's fair. Democratic politicians are supposed to answer for and denounce some anonymous yahoo on a internet messageboard but we're never supposed to ask evangelicals to answer for and denounce mainstream evangelical leaders for their actions and words.

Honestly if someone can point to democratic leaders in a position of power who have said anything publicly hostile to religion then I'll bite on this discussion.

[yodermon]

15. can someone explain what an "evangelical" is

Or better yet, compare/contrast the terms "Christian", "Fundamentalist", and "Evangelical".

PS i read the wiki entry and am more confused now, thanks.

[melnjones]

18. I'll look at the wiki article and be right back...hopefully with an answer

:-)

[melnjones]

23. Ok...

Some items I want to point out in the wiki article.

Under "evangelical"
-"The word evangelical is also sometimes confused with evangelist, or evangelistic, especially when evangelism is practised assertively or aggressively."
-""Evangelical", in its original sense, means "belonging or related to the Gospel'" (Greek: euangelion)."

Under "evangelicalism"
-"The popular perception seems to locate all of evangelicalism on the 'right' of political controversies, such as abortion, or the liberalizaton of the legal definitions of "family", "marriage", or "civil union" to include same-sex couples. This supposed uniformity is not actually the case; however there is some correspondence between theological and religious conservatism, and social conservatism."
-"The term 'evangelical', in a lexical but less commonly used sense, refers to anything implied in the belief that Jesus is the savior."
-"In Western cultural usage, the word Evangelical has usually referred to Protestantism, in intended contrast to Roman Catholicism."


Alright. I want to explain for a second what I mean by being an evangelical, which is what I consider myself. On DU it seems most believe that evangelicals are inherently right-winged fundies. This is not how I necessarily understand the term "evangelical." I believe it to mean, for me, being called to spread the good news of our faith in Jesus Christ. I do NOT believe it to mean forcing it down people's throats. I do NOT believe it to mean judging others. For me it simply means being willing to share Jesus' message with others while serving in whatever capacity the Lord has for me. Do I believe that anyone who doesn't share the exact same faith that I do is going straight to hell? To be perfectly honest, no. (Many Christians would disagree with me on this point...others would agree.) I think it is always wrong to make such a judgement. God knows people's hearts. Period. Heck, maybe after we die we'll realize that our entire concept of heaven and hell is totally messed up. Who knows? I don't claim to know it all.

I appreciate dialogue with people of other faiths, even people of other Christian affiliations. I think open dialogue is completely necessary for EVERYONE to be able to learn.

I believe in sharing my faith as opportunity allows because I believe Jesus' message is one of hope for people in the situations we are currently in. I do not like the concept of evangelizing merely to increase numbers. Christ's message is one of love and community, not one of building up numbers.

I do NOT consider myself a fundamentalist. I do believe the Bible to be authoritative, although often unclear to us because we do not understand the context in which it was written and few of us have the linguistic ability to read it in its original languages (I will begin learning biblical greek this summer and am very excited!)

There are many evangelicals out there like me. Some have been so surrounded by republicans their whole lives that they don't realize how well democratic values and their christian values correspond. THIS is why we need to stop the name calling and bashing of evangelicals. There is a movement of evangelicals who are going dem, and it is a good thing. I hope it continues.

I hope this answers a little bit of your question, and feel free to ask more.

[Lars39]

16. We can't force or bribe people to practice their own religion.

[dysfunctional press]

17. instead of evangelicals- why not focus on NON-voters.

we have a much better chance with them.

[Yollam]

19. Democrats already court evangelicals.

Everything dems do is consistent with what evangelicals SHOULD believe. There can be no freedom of religion without freedom from compulsory religion and separation of church and state. And I'm pretty sure that helping the poor is compatible with Christianity. The Bible says nothing about the need to use the law to deprive gays of their civil rights, and the democratic party has never called on churches to stop denouncing gays as sinners. They are and always will be free to disapprove of whatever behavior they want, and they should always be free from having practitioners of other religions use the law to tell them what they can or can't do (see, it goes both ways.

What the GOP does is not "courting" evangelicals, They pander to evangelicals' baser natures, their hatreds and fears, and democrats should NEVER emulate that. It's a shame that churches have become so debased in their teachings that the GOP's pandering works.

[melnjones]

47. Good points.

I just hope that dems realize that at the very least we need to stop the name-calling and stereotyping. There ARE some liberal evangelicals out there.

[OhioChick]

20. I don't feel that Dems

should have to court the Evangelicals. They need to somehow get people off their couches to vote. I know a few poverty level families. They sat around whining how * won in 2004, but never went to the polls.

[originalpckelly]

21. Other: I am the Walrus.(nt)

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. I believe that pandering to religious fanatics is a bad idea.

A bad idea, because it would necessarily involve concessions in the name of 'values' that would serve to further erode the separation of church and state which forms one of the cornerstones of our Constitutional government. A bad idea, because it necessarily requires preferment of the beliefs and morality of adherents of a particular religion (in this instance, evengelical Protestant Christianity) over those of followers of other religions or of no religion at all, and is dangerous because it signals that the principle of church/state separation is less important than cheap, calculated short-term political gain. ANY political party that's willing to sell out core principles in exchange for better poll numbers is unworthy of support, IMO.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants a government based on religious principles can move to Iran and see how they like it.

[katty]

60. thank you for the voice of reason

[Sammy Pepys]

26. It's exceptionally foolish not to court them.

I'm not saying the Dems have to play the same type of Pat Robertson games or go wholehog with evangelicism (not all evangelicals are like that anyway), but it is a pretty expansive base and courting those votes strikes right to heart of the base of the Republicans.

You can do it without being silly or foolish and frankly, I think Obama is right.

[AndyTiedye]

56. How Do You Court Them Without Caving In To Them?

[AngryAmish]

27. They don't belong in our country

The KKKristians will never support us so why should we court them?

[melnjones]

30. As a Christian Democrat...

I just want to say that while I disagree with you, I love your screenname:-)

[valerief]

28. I don't think religion should be an issue in the political process.

I don't think Evangelicals should be discounted nor targeted. Some things are personal, you know.

[SmokingJacket]

29. I think we can be open to them without courting them.

Because courting implies compromising in some way.

I don't think we should be outright hostile to evangelicals, but if they like what we offer, we should open our arms to them.

Ultimately, it's kind of hopeless, because Democrats really stand for some things that oppose what they stand for -- separation of church and state, to name a biggie, and reproductive choice, to name another.

[melnjones]

39. Good points...

except I want to clarify that not all evangelicals are anti-choice, and quite a few evangelicals firmly believe in separation of church and state. Given this, it really isn't hopeless. Just a long, hard road.

[SmokingJacket]

49. True -- I was generalizing.

We should definitely be open to those who agree with some of our basic positions. Being religious does NOT require you to be a republican.

[WA98296]

33. I don't see "Courting" as "Leading"....We NEED LEADERS

[melnjones]

40. Thank you for the clarification of wordage. nt

[bunkerbuster1]

34. Goldurn it, "EVANGELICAL" does NOT equal "FUNDIE"!

Ok, I now know that the OP realizes this. I hope everyone else does as well.

[melnjones]

38. I agree completely.

Since you are responding to my thread, I hope that doesn't mean you think I confuse the two. They are very different indeed, and that's part of the point I'm trying to make in this thread.

[bunkerbuster1]

42. guess I'm a bit thick

or I'm not so good at readin' between the lines. Maybe I'll dial back my original reply a hair. Lessee if I can still edit it.

[melnjones]

45. lol...

:hi:

on edit...
I'm glad you responded as you did. It made my point, actually.

[smokey nj]

43. You are absolutely right............

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson do not equal Welton Gaddy. Unfortunately, however, they are presented in the MSM as one in the same. Actually, Welton Gaddy is not presented at all. Frankly, I think Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, et al need to be referred to as theocrats, because that's what they are.

I am a PROUD, outspoken atheist, I don't feel threatened by Welton Gaddy, Sr. Helen Prejean, Rev. James Forbes. The theocrats, however, scare the shit out of me.

[TahitiNut]

44. I'm an independent liberal (small-d) democrat.

So much for the blindered world of partisans. :puke:

[Totally Committed]

48. Other... I am a Democrat and think we need to BE Democrats

and live our compassionate ideals. If the "Evangelicals" can't get behind us because they think the Republicans and their "Ideals and Values" are more "Christian", then so be it... let them vote Republican.

This is tantamount to asking how the Democratic Party can become LESS "Christian" to attract today's "Christians" who, as Gandhi would say... "... are so unlike their Christ".

TC

[Mass]

50. I dont want to court people because of their religious denomination. We

need to court people on ideas and issues. Evangelicals, as others, need a job, healthcare, breathable air, ... Why should they (or anybody else) be separated on their religion?

[me b zola]

51. Return to our values, strengthen our message

Roman Catholics used to vote heavily Democratic because the party stood/stands for issues that are morally relevent to them. The NT instructs it readers to work for social justice. The teachings of Jesus were one of the main factors that made me a liberal. That has not changed for me.

The RC church now is fairly spit in their vote because, like many of the other large christian religions, they have been targetted by the rw to push a rw message from the inside. This didn't begin to happen in 2000, this push began years ago in a similar timeline as the rw invasion of the radio with rw hate-talkers. The chrisian coalition and other faux christian groups were organized by politicos to infiltrate mainstream christian churches and turn them into political organizations.

I cannot disagree strongly enough to the targetting of religious groups. It demeans both the Constitution and the church. The Democratic platform is (or has been & should continue to be) built around concepts of social justice. When government & society works well for the little guy, it works well for everybody. When we promote strong environmental protections, then we are honoring those who will come after us by leaving them a safe place to live. If someone proclaims themselves to be a christian and yet do not value these things enough to vote Democratic, then there are other issues besides their "christianity" that pushes them to vote repub.

I think the answer is rather than "target" the religious vote by eroding our values and beliefs, do a better job, like Al Gore does with global warming, of explaining why our platform is the only "moral" choice. The rw targetted churches BECAUSE DEMS HAVE THE MORAL AUTHORITY on issues. The rw is the party who's agenda (greed & power)is based upon exploitation of the average person to accumulate great wealth so that it will be used to continue to exploit more and more people. They depend on smoke and mirrors to confuse the issues, and they ended up with a message that we are godless and they are morally superior. Insane, eh?

The answer is to return to our values and strengthen our message. Civil rights is a moral issue (this includes a woman's right to choose and gay rights). Unions and fair wages, benifits, & working conditions are moral issues. Regulating big business so that they do not damage the environment nor endanger their workers, and pay their fair share are moral issues. Envirnmental protections is a moral issue. Honoring our veterans by ensuring that all of the services that they deserve are fully funded is a moral issue. Saving public education and strengthening it so that ALL children can recieve a good education is a moral issue. Universal health care is a moral issue. A foreign policy that relies on diplomacy not dropping bombs on people is a moral issue. A social safety net is a moral issue. A strong national security that takes logical steps to protect us without stripping away civil liberties is a moral issue. RESPECTING OUR CONSTITUTION, BILL OF RIGHTS, AND THE RULE OF LAW IS A MORAL ISSUE.

[Mass]

52. Excellent.

[MODemocrat]

53. I voted No

Religion is fine for those who believe, but what about Atheists and Agnostics? Where is the line drawn?
I personally do not need the government and evangelicals to keep me straight; I just go to my church.
Obama shouldn't be scolding others; that's too much like hearing a republican scolding us for not believing exactly as they do. He means well; and thanks, but no thanks.

[AtomicKitten]

55. Why NOT court them?

Gore has eloquently outlined a crossover issue - climate change - that he has defined as a moral/ethical issue. The Bible advocates that we be stewards of the earth. This seems like THE issue that could cause some evangelicals to break with the Mother Earth-trashing Republicans.

[cascadiance]

62. The key is we shouldn't have to change our values to accomodate theirs!

I think it's one thing to persuade someone that your values match with theirs and that's why they should come to your side. It's another to make promises that compromise what you believe in to "buy" their vote. To me, that is what "courting" evangelicals imply. There's NO way we should be changing what we promise to them versus what we promise to ALL Americans just to get their vote! We should point out how the other side is also not matching up to their values too, and that then they have to choose what is important to them (and hopefully logic will show that we are better for them). If logic doesn't show that, then methinks in most cases their vote and support isn't worth it.

[AtomicKitten]

63. Agreeing on SOME issues isn't courting them.

As I said, climate change is one issue that I think most human beings have in common when they push partisanship aside.

I can't speak for the rest of humanity, but I don't expect to agree with all people on every issue. Jeez, there are monster disagreements right here on DU. We should seek to find that which binds us together as a country and reach out on those issues. This purism BS doesn't work within the party nor in an effort to reach out to uncommitted or disgruntled voters that might be persuaded without us breaking a sweat to vote Democratic. I trust I don't need to point out the benefits of that.

This notion of an exclusive club left of center is absurd. IMO we need to seek out a common denominator that creates a cohesive, effective voting block. That's what wins elections and that is the objective of the game and the task at hand.

[Odin2005]

57. EVANGELICAL DOES NOT EQUAL FUNDIE!!!

I guess my hard-core Dem relatives are freepers according to the logic of some here. :eyes:

[katty]

58. I'm an American, let Evangelicals find their OWN courtiers!!

WHY ARE THEY SO SPECIAL??!!

[kitkatrose]

61. I guess I don't get it, why should we have to court anyone?

Why can't dems say what they believe in and if people like it, then they can jump on the bandwagon, if not, they can do something else?