Dems who dared to reach out to evangelicals....names. How dare they?

[madfloridian]

Now that we are done ripping Obama to shreds, let's look at the schedule of all our Democrats who attended, find their speeches and rip them to shreds as well for daring to acknowledge that this community is worthy and has merit.

Governor Dean is fair game, so is Hillary. Others as well. Let's go for their throats.

http://www.calltorenewal.com/events/pentecost06/schedule.html

Monday, June 26 (Opening Day)
9 a.m. - 7 p.m. Registration open, display tables open
1 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. Opening Session (Rev. Tony Campolo, Rev. Sharon Watkins)
2:30 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. Workshop Session I
4 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. The Church’s Response to Poverty (John Carr, Rev. Noel Castellanos, Rev. Glen Palmberg, and Rev. Cheryl Sanders)
5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Dinner on your own
7:30 p.m. - 9 p.m. Evening General Session (Rev. Jim Wallis)

Tuesday, June 27 (Capitol Hill Day)
7 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. Breakfast
8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. "How do Democrats and Republicans plan to overcome poverty?" (Howard Dean and a representative from the Republican National Committee )
9 a.m. - 11 a.m. Capitol Hill Day Training
11 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. March to Capitol Hill
Noon – 12:30 p.m. Covenant For a New America Launch on Capitol Hill
1 p.m. - 5 p.m. Hill Visits (lunch on your own)
1 p.m. - 5 p.m. Policy Workshops on the Hill
5 p.m. - 7 p.m. Capitol Hill Reception (Sen. Sam Brownback, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Rep. James Clyburn, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Sen. Rick Santorum)
7:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. Emerging Leaders Dinner (for participants 30 and younger)

Wednesday, June 28
7 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. Breakfast
7 a.m. - 3 p.m. Display tables open
8:30 a.m. – 9 a.m. Musical Storytelling with Ken Medema
9 a.m. - 10:15 a.m. Amos and Joseph Awards Ceremony (Sen. Barack Obama, Ms. Marian Wright Edelman)
10:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. Workshop Session II
Noon - 12:30 p.m. Closing Session, Commissioning (Rev. Brian McLaren)
12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Fellowship Lunch

Let's make sure they feel thoroughly beaten down and never try such antics again as talking to the Christian community.

Then head over to The Nation and read how Ari Berman blames Dean and the DNC for Francine Busby's loss in CA. Not Rahm, no one. He doesn't mention that she avoided the grassroots groups at times, did not even mention the DFA endorsement on her website, though she was a DFA List candidate. Little things matter. Then head to MyDD where they are also making fun of Obama, and your day will be complete.

I was hesitant about this at first, but I am on board totally now with this effort. These groups have their churches as their communities, and some of them don't pay attention to the news. If Obama impressed them, if Dean or Hillary reached them...I say good for them.

We are fighting the syndrome of the megachurch, where the church is all to them. We either reach out as best we can, or we lose.

[rinsd]

1. Damn you for letting facts get in the way of a good circular firing squad

[NMDemDist2]

2. what is all the hubbub about? Evangelicals are very different than the

Born Again, Literalistic, Fundamentalist, Bible Thumping, hypocritical bigots

there is a long stretch between many Southern Baptists and the other Protestant religions who practice the true teachings of their faiths

I have heard a guest on Al Franken several times who is Evangelical and he seems to embody progressive values better than many here on DU IMO. I think it's absolutely imperative we reach out to groups who are for peace and equal rights and justice. Groups who understand that Jesus taught to care for the sick and to feed the poor.

[bobbolink]

13. Jim Wallis -- calls himself a fundamentalist.

As I wrote elsewhere, he's a lot more radical than many Dems.

Words, words, words.

Wonder what it'll take for us all to accept each other?

[NMDemDist2]

15. welcome to DU bobbolink!

:hi:

and I agree

I'm with Ghandi "I like your Christ better than your Christians"

edit to add, I checked your profile and you've been here as long as I have

either you're real quiet or I'm a motor mouth :blush:


but hey, :hi: anyway!

[bobbolink]

21. I *love* that quote of Gandhi! so fitting...

I'm thinking that you looked at your profile rather than mine. ~~chuckledance~~ Cuz when I went back to look at mine, it says June 4, 06. Granted, I talk a lot, usually, but that's not a lot of time for 70-something posts.

Thanks for the kind welcome!

Here's to motormouths! :toast:

[NMDemDist2]

26. ack So it does! I misread it as 2004 which was when I joined

:bounce:

[gratuitous]

22. Words, indeed

I think that Wallis describes himself as an evangelical, rather than a fundamentalist, and there is a difference. We had a member group in the Community of Welcoming Congregations, The Potter's House, that described itself as evangelical and was careful to distinguish from fundamentalists. There is also a group called Evangelicals Concerned that is very supportive of full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and questioning persons in the spiritual life of congregations.

Oddly enough, notwithstanding Mr. Barack's comments, these evangelicals don't have any difficulty identifying themselves with the liberal and progressive trends in American politics. Like many other groups, they would appreciate people having a better understanding of them and their aims, and like a lot of religious groups, they also understand the disadvantage they're working under due to all the time and trouble that fundamentalists have gone to over the last 30 years to establish themselves as the dominant religious voice in American culture.

[bobbolink]

28. I heard him speak in Denvoid, and I thought he used the term

"Fundamentalist". I don't have his book around right now, so I can't check that.

He's a fundamentalist in that he *does* go by the words of the bible.... he often talks about the 2000 references to poverty, and none to abortion or homosexuality.

Whatever the case, there's certainly a crying need for Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to speak out loudly about poverty!

[gratuitous]

31. I checked the Sojourners' website

And I also recall from seeing Wallis on the Daily Show and another program that he called himself an evangelical. My experience with the folks at The Potter's House impressed upon me the difference (at least in their minds) between the two words. But I agree, I'd like to see more folks of a traditionally "conservative" stripe speak out and publicize that they're not all clones of the Falwell/Robertson/Dobson axis. I know that there are fundamentalists who take very seriously the environmental consciousness they find in the Bible, about caring for creation and being good stewards of the land and its bounty.

But as a member of the Church of the Brethren, I too find biblical support for many "liberal" causes, including the full participation of sexual minorities in the life of the congregation and the culture. I don't, however, identify as fundamentalist -- the word's far too heavily tilted toward one certain strain of Christianity.

[bobbolink]

44. You could be right. I have a good memory, it's just short. ^_^

This was encouraging to me, and may be to you, also: There's a fundamentalist here in Colorado (Ted something --tol' ya about the memory thingie ^_^ ), who is now talking up about poverty. As a Methodist minister I know said about him, "He's not singing from the same choir book I am, but if he's going to get involved in a real way with poverty, then welcome aboard."

So, maybe you can help me find some really good passages about poverty and homelessness. :hi:

You have me intrigued about Potter's House now, and I think I'll go look it up.

[gratuitous]

49. Matthew 25 is the most prominent

Where Jesus talks about those who find favor with God being those who fed the hungry, visited the sick and imprisoned, clothed the naked, and housed the homeless. Curiously, there is NO mention in that passage about believing in God or following the four spiritual laws or confessing Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior. It's what a person does that counts, regardless of professed beliefs, which I find interesting.

There are also many passages in the Hebrew Testament prophets (Isaiah, Amos and Micah come to mind most readily) in which the prophets tell folks that God is sick of religious forms and empty liturgy, and is far more interested in what people are doing for the widows, orphans and others similarly oppressed by life.

[bobbolink]

51. Thanks, gratuitous, that's always a great one!

As for the "no mention".... I really think there are going to be some very shocked people if the rupture, I mean rapture, happens! Personal piety has been overhyped, methinks! :hi:

As for the prophets... Jim Wallis said something very interesting in one of his talks. He said that archaeology showed that during times of relative equality in societies, there weren't prophets. The prophets coincided with times of great disparity between the rich and the poor. (Big profits mean lots of prophets? -- oh groan...)

I can't speak for the Big Guy, but I certainly do agree with your last sentence. I really wish I was smart enough to know how to get that sentiment more airplay!

[madfloridian]

3. Found article about Dean's speech, so we can blast him as well

as Obama. I haven't found any others yet.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1404827.html?view=print

[madfloridian]

6. Wow, he even talked about raising the minimum wage being moral

"Dean's comments Tuesday came at a religious gathering convened in the nation's capital to discuss ways of eliminating poverty. After stating that America "is about as divided as it has been probably since the Civil War," Dean declared that "we need to come together around moral principles, and I'm talking about moral principles like making sure no child goes to bed hungry at night."

"I'm talking about moral principles like making sure everybody in America has health insurance just like 36 other countries in the world," he added. "This is a moral nation, and we want it to be a moral nation again."

As one method of accomplishing that goal, the DNC chairman called on Congress "to raise the minimum wage until we have a living wage in this country." He dismissed criticism of a minimum wage hike as "economists' mumbo-jumbo."

"We're simply asking to give the people who are working for minimum wage the same raise that Congress has had every year for the last 20 years," he said."

[Bill McBlueState]

4. no surprises there

Most Democrats are Christians, so it's no surprise that most Democratic leaders are Christians.

I don't know why Obama had to repeat the right-wing talking point about Democrats being out of touch with people of faith, since, like any large group of Americans, most Democrats *are* people of faith. After all, can anyone name any prominent Democratic leaders who are atheists?

[madfloridian]

5. I don't have to agree with their every word though.

I just have to withhold condemnation of them. We looking very much at DU like the other side accuses us of being. We are painting all religious people with a very broad brush.

[AngryOldDem]

12. Thank you

I consider myself to be a moderate Democrat of faith and too often I have not felt at home either here on DU or with those members of the party who refuse to see that extremism on this side of the aisle is just as bad as that on the other side. And you are right -- the way some are acting here (especially on the other Obama threads) are helping Ann Coulter prove her "point" about liberals being godless. Do we REALLY want to do that? Unfortunately, that broad-brush portrait is how too many in mainstream America see Democrats. Obama is just saying it's time to show them that it just isn't so.

I was heartened by his comments -- about damn time someone said it.

[Bill McBlueState]

43. whatever we are, we should be proud to be it

Those of us who are religious should take pride in our religion; those of us who are godless should take pride in our godlessness. Being a Democrat has never been about hiding your opinions for political gain. We're supposed to value diversity.

I'm proud, by the way, of the fact that Ann Coulter thinks there's something wrong with me for being godless.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Nope. There are no prominent democrats who admit to being atheists.

And that's a sad comment on the state of our country. Diversity is our strength, remember?

Perhaps some of the Christians who are constantly complaining of being persecuted by mean ol' intolerant atheists would do well to remember the fact that not only are we totally unrepresented in government, admitting to atheism would (at this point in history, unfortunately) probably be the kiss of political death for any major leader in this country.

[jwirr]

7. I do not belong to an evangelical church but the Sojourner is a

liberal group and supports Democrat goals. Their newspaper is good.

[madfloridian]

8. Here's the homepage for Sojourners.

www.sojo.net

Seems to be slowloading right now. Doing ok earlier.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. It's not a question of "reaching out"- it's the telling the rest of us to

fuck off that we object to.

[madfloridian]

10. You told you to "f.... off"? What is going on here?

I have never seen DU go absolutely crazy because some of our Democrats talked to Christians.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Well, I particularly like this quote:

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said.

Sorry, see, that's pandering. "Under God" doesn't belong in the Pledge any more than "Under Allah", "Under Buddha", "Under Zeus" or "Under Satan" do. And you know what? No matter what the SCOTUS says, kids ARE coerced into saying that thing, and it's WRONG. PERIOD.

Beyond that, it's a non-issue akin to flag burning; and the only reson Obama brought it up was to tell these folks, in no uncertain terms, "Hey, you can't stand those secular whackjobs and their 'war on Christmas'? Neither can I"

What I don't get is why everyone has been fucking apopleptic since the 2004 election to try to woo these so-called "values voters" (and, in the process, looking to jettison the atheists, pro-choicers, gays, etc. etc. overboard) when in reality, if you see past the media lies- not only aren't there that many of them, there are even fewer in play to vote Democrat.

Sure, lets talk values- talk about how 40 Million Americans w/o health insurance is a moral travesty- but don't try to play the Bill Clinton "Sister Souljah" game at the expense of constituencies like pro-choicers or Secular americans who fight for the Establishment Clause.

Meanwhile, I think there are a shitload more unaffiliated Americans "in play" who identify as Libertarian or Socially Libertarian- why can't we go after them? How many millions of Americans support ending the drug war, or legalizing doctor assisted suicide, and aren't voting for us because we refuse to stand up strong for the principle that what a consenting adult does with his or her own body isn't any of the government's business?

No, instead, we have to try to win over the so-called "religious right". More from the same tired-ass playbook which has worked so well these past few years. Good luck.

[madfloridian]

16. I remember when the words were put into the salute.

I did not feel oppressed. I guess I should have, but I did not. It simply did not bother me at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. I remember being forced to say it at seven, eight years old

as a kid in the midwest who already knew he was an atheist.

I knew it was wrong then, and frankly I'm surprised it took as long as it did for anyone to start complaining.

[jonnyblitz]

17. great post!!

:applause: :applause:

[Pastiche423]

24. Excellent post!

I am sick, sick, sick of the pandering!

Btw, when I was a young student (in the early 60's), I refused to utter those words added to the pledge due to the red scare.

[SofaKingLiberal]

29. .

:toast:

:yourock:

[madfloridian]

30. So because Obama said we don't feel brainwashed...flag salute

with words "under God"...that he is pandering? I never had a single child complain in 33 years of teaching that they felt brainwashed by that.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Well, now you have.

I knew it was wrong to be forced to say it, I knew I was an atheist, and I always had to cover the fact that I refused to say those words. I'd mumble them, or do something else.

And I was maybe seven years old at the time.

[madfloridian]

35. They do not require it here if you are atheist.

They do not stand there and monitor your mouth to be sure you repeat the words under God. In fact Jehovah's Witnesses never stand up for the salute, and no one says a word.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Right. According to the SCOTUS, it's not required.

According to reality, it's pretty damn mandatory- at least it was when I was a kid growing up in the midwest.

[AngryOldDem]

32. The perceived hatred of anything religious...

...like I'm seeing here and on other threads, is to me just taking another page out of that "tired-assed old playbook," and, no, it hasn't been working particularly well as of late.

You don't want to try to reach out to a substantial number of voters? You don't want to try to disabuse them of the ideas about liberalism and liberals that people like Ann Coulter are planting in their heads? Instead, you want to just reinforce that stereotypical caricature of liberals, and by extension, Democrats?

Ever think about how many **moderates** you may also be driving away by this attitude? I'd hazard to say that many people who formerly considered themselves to be Democrats are now the Libertarians and Social Libertarians you mention above.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. I do want to try to reach out to a substantial number of voters.

But I think trying to get the pro-life, anti-gay, religious right vote is a waste of time.

And the libertarians and social libertarians I mention UNDERSTAND that Separation of Church and State is an American value. They don't give a shit if someone is Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Secular Humanist, or even "anti-religion" because they know that that stuff if all fine as long as it isn't imposed on your neighbor through civic government.

Why do you think the GOP fucked up so badly on the Schiavo thing? Because, like some folks here, they were operating under the delusion that these so-called "values voters" are all-powerful. When, in reality, the "leave my personal shit the fuck alone, thank you very much" voter is far more numerous.

[AngryOldDem]

45. We wouldn't get the far right to join us anyway

Such as the rabid pro-lifers (read: pro-birthers), extreme religious right, and those who just hate gays (or just hate, period). But there are more evangelicals than not who are not on the far right. Those are the ones who, I think, Obama was saying that we cannot ignore.

Extremism cuts both ways. I think many evangelicals agree with your position on the Schiavo case. But from where they sit, they have the **perception** that all Democrats care about is abortion on demand and creating a welfare state. Exaggerated and preposterous, for sure, but don't you think the party needs to make an attempt to get moderate evangelicals to at least listen to us?

My faith is important to me, but I don't let it overrun my life nor my common sense on many issues. I think there are many evangelicals out there who say the same, and to lump them all as Jerry Falwell-drunk fanatics is a mistake, just as it is a mistake for them to assume Ann Coulter's warped definition of us.

I think what has bothered me the most about these Obama threads is just the knee-jerk bad reaction to anything religious. It's happened before here on DU, and I just don't get it, and obviously it isn't just confined here, either, because I think Obama has noticed the same thing within the party as a whole.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I don't have a knee-jerk reaction to anything religious.

I just want it kept out of OUR collective, secular government. And that applies to forcing my kids to say "Under God" during the pledge of allegiance, too.

I have no problem with trying to get Evangelicals to listen to us- 98% of Obama's speech I thought was right on. And I'm not sure what Howard Dean said that got a standing ovation, but I suspect he managed to make it through his speech without throwing a few broadsided slams against atheists and supporters of the Establishment Clause.

I don't know if I fit Ann Coulter's "warped definition" of a Liberal, but what I think is truly warped is that some people in our party accept that her slurs, like "Godless" are automatically a bad thing, and then bend over backwards protesting "That's not us!" How about saying that she's a pathetic, would-be fascist and attention hog who understands absolutely ZERO about what it means to be a good American? What if Ann Coulter was running around saying Democrats were all Gay? Would it be okay to reflexively whine "We're straight! We're straight! We're not gay!" Or would the appropriate response be, "Not all Democrats are gay, (Or "Godless") but SOME of us are. And that's a good thing. Our diversity is our strength, you haggard, meth-addled skeez.. Your fifteen minutes are up, and no one wants to buy your shitty book. But Henry Rollins will give you a job, so why don't you give him a call?"

Now, as far as "extremism on both sides". I suppose that's true, seeing as Falwell-drunk members of the Religious Right* want to teach creationism in our Nation's schools, and those secular humanist whackjobs want to force all the Churches to teach Darwin.

...Oh, wait.

Anyway, I hear what you're saying, though. Like I said. 98% of Obama's speech was right on. I have no problem courting these folks and talking values with 'em, like the fact that 45 Million Americans, including children, have no health coverage.. but I draw the line at compromising key positions, like equal rights for gays or reproductive choice, and I don't think the "courting" needs to come at the expense of solid Democratic constituencies, like atheists and other non-Christians.



*I put "religious right" specifically so that we're perfectly clear who we're talking about, okay?

[Lars39]

19. madfloridian, it takes a *whole lot* to get me riled up about religion

nowadays. I take great exception to Obama's statement about the pledge of allegiance and his statement on towards the end of the article about religion in public. It amounts to treating a good portion of the population as negligible.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. And I will say, there were *parts* of the speech I agreed with.

I just think there's plenty of areas where we can talk "values" to Christian voters without having to take these sorts of cheap potshots at atheists, secular humanists, and people who support the Separation of Church and State.

[Lars39]

41. Agreed

Reach out to those willing to meet half-way, but don't throw away those of us that aren't convenient because we aren't in the majority.

[madfloridian]

11. Dean, Obama, and Hillary get standing ovations from evangelicals.

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

Leading Democrats get warm welcome from group of evangelicals
By Ely Portillo
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -" A convention of evangelical Christians gave standing ovations this week to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill.

And that's news, because pro-choice, pro-gay rights Democrats aren't usually favorites of evangelicals. But that could be changing as the Democratic Party tries to reconnect with so-called "values voters," and some evangelical leaders try to extend religious debates beyond gay marriage and abortion.

"It's been terribly politicized and polarized. Moral values can't be narrowed to those two," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, leader of the Sojourners. His "progressive evangelical" group organized a three-day conference in Washington this week to lobby politicians on behalf of the poor. Six hundred clergy and their followers attended workshops, listened to speeches and visited their congressional representatives.

Influential politicians from both sides of the political spectrum came to speak about poverty as a moral issue, including Republican evangelical favorites such as Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas."

[karlrschneider]

18. Do what your head and/or heart tells you but I will NEVER equivocate

with the bastards.
:grr:

[Bluebear]

20. Wonder why the GOP doesn't bother to "reach out" to atheists?

:)

[karlrschneider]

23. Heh...yeah, what a conundrum indeed!

:evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

38. 'Cuz they're too busy making inroads with the gays

you know, when they're not calling for them to be stoned to death.

[beam me up scottie]

40. Hell, I wonder why the Dems don't reach out to atheists.

We got thrown off the bus early this time.

GLBT people went next.

Who's left?

Not the immigrants, they went sailing out the window last month.

There must be another unpopular minority we can skewer to prove how righteous and moral we are.

[lastknowngood]

25. That is it let's move further to the right the KKK need a few friends

n/t

[never cry wolf]

47. THAT is the fallacy the RW spinmeisters have implanted

That religion = right wing. Jesus was a radical liberal and the tenents of all the major religions ooze progressive values.

[Ksec]

27. I totally agree

This cynical elitism and paranoia creeping through this site is alarming. Everyones a plant from the GOP to these folks..its becoming really crazy.

[T_i_B]

46. You do realize this is the left we are talking about

And in a contest between reaching out to other people and sectarian penis measuring the left will choose sectarian penis measuring every time.

[Lilith Velkor]

50. "sectarian penis measuring"

:spray: