Evangelical Movement Within The Democratic Party - Good or Bad?

[Kevin Spidel]

I was going to post this topic under a specific state as there is a race catching a lot of attention, but I am going to broaden this question and talk about Democratic strategy versus core Democratic values.

That actually brings up a larger question about Democratic values and what are they... really?

There is a growing movement since 2004 of evangelical leaders embracing the Democratic Party. Many feel that Bush used this base to get him elected, then turned on them.

The question I have for the readers of this post today, is:

Is a growing Christian base of leaders and voters good for the party?


In this case, we have Ben Lowe in IL06. I managed the Campaign of Christine Cegelis in 2006. She was the first candidate to run in this very Republican district (Henry Hyde) in decades. Her candidacy in 2004 put the district in play. So much so that the DCCC made it a target seat. They threw Tammy Duckworth into the primary against Cegelis. At this time, this was not the Democratic Party I wanted to build. I wanted to support local grassroots initiatives to strengthen our party. In the end, we lost in the Primary and Duckworth went on to lose the seat to right wing radical Roskam.

Ultimately, I feel we won because now there is existing party structure and organization in DuPage county and townships, where prior there was none. Her candidacy and her activist have built a great organization.

Flash forward to 2010. A few weeks ago it appeared that we had no challenge to Roskam from a Democrat. The local groups have focused on down ballot candidates and it appears there are some strong candidates for these races. Seemingly out of the blue, a young national figure within the environmental justice movement decided to throw his name into the mix. His name is Ben Lowe. His sustainability activism is rooted in his Christian faith. He is from the growing evangelical youth.
His background is not political. His background is rooted in environmental justice, community, and has lived his life on this path. His Christian faith touches on some core issues that many Democrats have an issue with. Specifically on the issue of “life.”

I say “life” purposely. I did not use the word “choice.”

I ran Dennis Kucinich 2004 National Field operations. Prior to his Presidential bid, he was also pro-“life.” After all, what human is really anti-life?

I am pro-choice. I am male, and should never stand in the way of a woman’s right to a choice.
Dennis Kucinich, at one time… saw this as a life issue. Not a choice issue. To this day, he still views it as a life issue… his faith and spirituality guide this aspect on his decision to preserve life in healthcare, in preventive care, in issues of the death penalty, etc.

Dennis changed his view on this issue when he ran for president because someone close to him sat down and said that legislating any prevention to access of issues related to a woman’s health is an aspect of holistic view of life.

There is a growing movement of Democrats for Life that are anti-choice.
Ben Lowe is progressive on every aspect yet comes from a conservative family and running in a conservative district against a right-wing nut. He brings a voice of moderation, youth, and is part of this growing evangelical movement. His main motivation for quickly building a base to collect signatures in days and qualify for the ballot was his path of community and environmental justice. This is why he is running as a Democrat.

Currently there are a lot of my dear friends and associates from that district wanting him off the ballot. These are good Democrats with passionate views of disagreement with his evangelical roots rested in life.

I understand both sides. I also know this district is a conservative family district and his message would resonate with the families there.

If the issue of a woman’s right to choose a core value for a Democrat? Should it be a litmus test?

Should the party turn away the evangelical movement looking to make the party it’s home?

Do we want to not support this opportunity for a moderate Democrat in a moderate District?

Curious your thoughts?

[aSpeckofDust]

1. It's bad. There's a reason why they wrote seperation of church and state.

The more Christian our government gets, the less equality for other religious and beliefs.

[southerncrone]

35. EXACTLY. Our Founding Fathers KNEW what they were doing when they

specifically included the SEPARATION of Church & State.

I personally think any candidate of office holder who brings up matters of religion should immediately be removed from office based on this founding idea.

Religion has ALWAYS done nothing but divide the people of this planet. That's why it was created.


Edited for typo.

[Angry Dragon]

74. Religion and church are two different things

[southerncrone]

76. Please clarify your point as it applies to this discussion.

[Angry Dragon]

78. Each person has a set of beliefs

and they are unique to them because no two people are alike. A person's beliefs include religion(not just in the realm of god) and beliefs of how that fits within society. Churches have set rules on what can and can not believed. Very rigid usually as in the fundamentalists, catholic and others. A personal religion can not be forced on another for the very reason it is personal. Churches try to force because they are an organization and not personal.

The words may not convey what I think and feel. Religion to me is a very personal experience and unique to each person.

[southerncrone]

80. I think perhaps you are splitting hairs over symantics here.

I agree with your premise...there are as many religions in this world as there are individuals. However, in this discussion, as is often the case, the terms are being used interchangably. When asked, "What religion are you?", most people will respond with a specific recognizable religious sect.
i.e. Methodist, Catholic, Jewish, etc.; or in a broader sense, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

The point here, as I see it, is whether or not ANY religious or church belief should be outwardly promoted within our party by our candidates.

[Angry Dragon]

82. Perhaps I am spliting hairs

A person's beliefs do not stop at religion, they encompass the whole person. They make that person who they are.

When a person of religion enters politics you can not ask them to leave their beliefs outside. You can tell them that their Church's beliefs are not welcome. I also feel that Church should not enter politics, but to me religious beliefs are something completely different because they encompass how that person views society.

Perhaps people should learn to separate the two terms.

[cark]

79. Washington's Farewell Address 1796

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest prop of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge in the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle... Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?"

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. If you do not support Democratic principles, you are not a Democrat

And should not be allowed to call yourself such, or run for election under that party label.

Upholding a woman's right to privacy is a Democratic principle. Separation of church and state is a Democratic principle. Putting the interests of the American people before corporate profits is a Democratic principle. If you do not support these Democratic principles (and others) you should not be in the Democratic party.

[get the red out]

33. Great answer!

This should be the standard. It doesn't matter what someone's religion is, what matter is what their principles are. If they uphold the principles of the Democratic Party great, if not, they are NOT a Democrat.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

42. Damn, Well Said!

[Angry Dragon]

73. I agree with your concept

but then you need to list all of the Democratic principals. Have the founders of the Democratic party made a list of these principals??

[CanonRay]

3. Bad, anytime, anywhere

[Ineeda]

4. loaded question...

But I'll bite. Evangelicals today are self-righteously and completely intolerant of other points of view. I firmly disagree with them on many things, including choice and LGBT issues. They can believe whatever they want but religious dogma should NEVER enter into legislation. So, 'bad' is my answer.

[Kevin Spidel]

11. but do you think choice should be a litmus test? nt

[Ineeda]

13. Yes, as should GLBT equality. n/t

[JNelson6563]

57. I noticed that too.

[anonymous171]

5. As long as they are economically left, I don't mind it at all.

[ret5hd]

8. so economically left but socially right is OK? Only missionary sex in your energy efficient home?

[anonymous171]

16. Energy efficiency isn't really what I had in mind when I said "economic leftism"

I was actually talking about things like progressive taxation, increased government regulation of financial institutions, increased government oversight over financial institutions, and other common sense economic policies.

[DJ13]

6. Bad

Just like the DLC its an effort to undermine our two party system and create one party that uses the two different party names towards the same goals.

[dmallind]

7. Hmmm...tough one

I think reproductive rights are very important, and it pains me to think of more Democrats who do not support them.

I am an atheist very much aware of the dangers of religion having even more influence than it already does.

My approach to an evangelical candidate who does not support choice would obviously then be skeptical initially. To get my support (which is irrelevant for this race - not a local - so I'm taking this as a hypothetical) the candidate would have to convince me he would help more than harm. If we get reliable votes on fiscal issues and other rights issues, it may be worth accepting a pro-life Democrat in my entirely subjective and personal opinion, especially in a district where a more traditional Democrat would have little or no chance. Regardless of intraparty sniping, there certainly ARE advantages to having majorities as large as possible - committee makeup being a biggy. It would come down for me to how much his evangelism would color his politics. If it drove him to oppose gay rights and equality for women overall, that would be too much to swallow. If it's solely abortion then that's still a bitter pill, but could possibly be outweighed by his ability to support other Democratic priorities.

There should be no litmus test though - people are not monolithic and we cannot dismiss 99% good for 1% bad.

[Arugula Latte]

9. Bad, bad, bad.

They should stick to a third party.

[williesgirl]

10. Keep them the hell out of our party. They don't believe in anything other than advancing their

religious beliefs when it comes right down to it. They will legislate how we live our lives. I'm glad this man is environmentally conscious, but his views on women's issues and gay rights have no place in the Democratic Party.

[eShirl]

34. +1

I don't trust them either.

[LeftyMom]

12. As a woman, I find the idea that my rights are negotiable because they're not politically expedient

absolutely appalling.

[Odin2005]

31. I'm a guy and I agree.

[peacetalksforall]

14. Sorry to say that I am very suspicious. I prefer secular - separation of church and state.

I tense up and feel uncomfortable as I feel that there are substantial grounds for suspicion. I'm not naming specific people. I don't know this person you are featuring in your question.

Since I already believe that the religious right has moved their people into this Party - I must say that ou made a good case and framed your question well, but let me ask you a specific. You say Lowe is a progressive in other ways - how has Lowe shown that?

I personally think that there is very little honesty in the people who populate the religious right and push abortion down our throats. That's my jumping off place.

IF ONLY the abortion-right people would mind their own business and stop being so paranoid and ATTEMPT to see things on a practical level and stop trying to legislate everything related to abortion. If these people were against imperialistic killing and the collateral deaths of their birthed children AND OTHER BABIES AND CHILDREN IN THE LANDS WE INVADE AND ATTEMPT TO OWN - I might be more tolerant. Abortion fits into a group of problems - it'not the only problem in the world.

I am against abortion, but it is none of my business what other people do. Even if I had a daughter, I would never impose my position. I would listen and share, but NOT DICTATE.

I am ashamed of Americans who have made it the key purpose for being alive - their passion - their substitute for living - especially the men who push their bodies on women and end up finding some kind of justification or repentence in their zeal, perhaps psychotic zeal, for the subject of abortion.

Again, when these men and women place abortion first before our imperialism and killing and stealing, I might honor them more. I know people who admit that abortion being more important than our corporate wars. I know - some have admitted it to me.

Therefore, my suspicion. A person can play act about being a Democrat.

Why can't abortion be personal? Why is it always being pushed down our throats - like yesterday?

If abortion takes a big role in the Democratic Party - I will leave it.

[Kevin Spidel]

15. African American and Latino Catholic

Churches are very conservative on social (specifically choice and LGBTQI rights) - yet we are ok with those voices in the party. In fact, we outreach to them and put them as core efforts in out field strategies. Are white-evangelicals with the same values not allowed? (I am saying this as a hispanic buddhist... go figure) =]

[notadmblnd]

17. they're probably inflitrating the Democratic party so they can do their dirty work like so many

others from within.

[eShirl]

36. That's what they do - infiltrate (other churches, school boards, local gov't) and take over.

[anonymous171]

46. Like the communists, back in the day. nt

[eShirl]

50. No, that was a fantasy.

[supernova]

18. As a liberal mainline protestant woman, I will never vote for a "lifer" evangelical

as a democratic candidate.

If they want to be Democrats, welcome to the party, BUT they had better resolve their issues with abortion first. Abortion is about women's health and well being. It must be legal so that it can be safe. Safe. SAFE. Without it you are condemning women to unscrupulous and scary back ally providers or at home horror stories.

And I say that as a lifelong protestant Democrat. I will never vote for someone who thinks my life is worth less than a fetus, I don't care how many other "liberal" positions that person holds.

At it's heart, reproductive freedom = economic freedom for women. You can't have one without the other. If you don't believe in a woman's right to choose, you don't believe that women are genuinely equal beings to men. Then you are no advocate of mine.

[Edweird]

19. Bad. They helped sink the (R)'s. Let them form their own party.

[anonymous171]

20. Wut? The R's sunk because of their economic policies.

Social conservatism is still quite popular with the older set. Fortunately they will die off eventually and allow us to move forward.

[peacetalksforall]

22. The R's are all about money for the barons, but they use fanatics for their votes.

I believe the fanatics are dragging them down.

Think of it this way - statistics will probably show that stuanch rich and moderate Republicans have had abortions - but those who are not fanatic have to put up with their fellow voting fanatics because the fanatics are wooed to get their votes. But..... in Congress, all representives vote the fanatic demands.

[Edweird]

45. Mmhmm. We have enough problems as it is. Adding fundie nutbaggery will only make things worse.

They can form their own "American Taliban" party.

[LWolf]

21. It's bad.

I support a deep, wide division between church and state.

While there are several accurate ways to define "evangelical," one characteristic is the enthusiastic determination to convert the world. In other words, it's a competition for souls, and they want to "win." They want a "Christian nation," according to their definition of "Christian."

To me, that is highly disrespectful of each individual's right to determine their own path, and their own faith. In the United States, evangelicals are political forces behind the efforts to deny reproductive rights and to deny equal rights to glbt citizens, just to begin.

FWIW, I support the right of every individual to practice their own faith. I believe that right ends at the end of the nose...it does not spread beyond the personal into the sphere of others.

Faith does not belong in government.

When evangelicals can agree to keep their faiths personal, and keep faith out of government, then their presence within any party would be benign.

[peacetalksforall]

25. Thank you for that point - I forgot that one - conversion. I refuse to be converted to Evangelsm.

Converting us and converting the nation and the world is a fact, imo. It is repulsive. It is anti-human.

[Ineeda]

52. Wonderful post. Thank you. n/t

[spanone]

23. bad....there is no place for religion in politics imho

[The Magistrate]

24. Unavoidable, Sir, Given Their Proportion In the Population At Large

They must be welcomed, but watched....

[Bluenorthwest]

32. What is their proportion?

And how did the 'watching work out for the Republicans? These are sexist bigots, not Democrats.

[The Magistrate]

39. Evangelicals By Standard Definition, Sir, Are A Hair Over One Quarter Of the Population

That is a pretty big chunk to write off totally in a democratic system with 'first past the post' election victories.

There is already, like it or not, a good percentage of the Democratic rank and file which does not support women's rights or gay rights particularly, and the bulk of this element is not new to the Party, but long resident within it.

The attitudes of conservative Evangelicals overlapped well with those of the Republican party at the time the former joined to that body, which had waxed on backlash to the counter-culture and had long employed preservation of 'traditional values' as a political line.

Evangelicals who are soundly liberal on questions like poverty and the environment can be of use to us, so long as they make these issues their primary focus, and vote accordingly.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Standard definition? Whose? Their own?

The Republicans also thought they could be of use. It is not right to use people and in the end they will resent it. Note the GOP and how that worked out. Our Party is already suffering from the influence of the Kaines and DuBois.

[The Magistrate]

41. Consult Any Standard Reference On The Demographics Of The United States, Sir

Beyond that, this is hardly the place to get into the tedium of ecclesiastical definitions among various sects, and detail of their various tenets, that might be used to expand or contract that number somewhat.

Political action is using people, and if that affronts you, that is unfortunate.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. This is hardly the place? You brought it up.

Here is a question for you. What sort of personal experience do you have with what you call 'evangelicals'? Just wondering.
And to be clear, I did not say using people affronts me, I said that in the long run it does not work. It affronts those you have used. I excelled in showbiz, so I know how to use a person. I also know it lasts about an hour while political action takes much longer. If you can not read what is written, that is indeed unfortunate.
I just don't think you know these people in any meaningful or reality based way. They are not as you imagine them to be. Not the bad stuff, not the good stuff, not their relationship to each other or to politics.
So what is your back groud, outside the 'standard reference on demographics'? On what do you base your conclusions?

[The Magistrate]

48. Wear It In Good Health, Sir

Not inclined at the moment to produce extensive biographical or sociological essays, or engage in much of a scrap with you over this.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Again with the revisions

No one asked you for an essay or extensive anything, nor for a scrap, and you know it. That is twice you have put words into my mouth rather than speak your own mind. That speaks, sir, for itself. And answers all of my questions neatly.
peace to you, by all means.

[eShirl]

53. Who are you? Peppermint Patty??

Sorry. It just irritates me ("sir" this, "sir" that), so I'll put you on ignore.

[LatteLibertine]

62. Dr. Cornel West

is an example of a person of faith I am would be proud to have in the Democratic party.

Not all Christians are about judgment, legalism and division. Some are about treating others as you wish to be treated, prompting love/empathy and justice.

[Odin2005]

26. BAD, BAD, BAD! I would rather ally with Libertarians than with these people.

I have no time for people that think the rights of others are negotiable.

[anonymous171]

30. American Libertarians also believe that the rights of others are negotiable

They just think that the decision should be left up to the states rather than the EVIL FEDERAL GUBMENT.

[Odin2005]

38. I meant actual libertarians, not the Pukes that smoke pot and don't like the GOP label.

[MajorChode]

27. I'm going to have to go with Goldwater on this one

""There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' " (1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona) Source: Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

Insert liberalism, progressivism, or any other ism you like in place of conservatism. The bottom line is don't crawl in bed with the Christers. You'll live to regret it.

Here's another Goldwater pearl of wisdom...

Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass.

[Odin2005]

28. Yep. This is one area where we and the Libertarians are on the same side

I prefer the Libertarians over the Jesus Freaks.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Choice and equal rights can not be negotiated

Those that think the government or religion should dictate a person's life and body are not Democrats, and they are not 'moderate'.
I think you need to look at the Evangelicals and their last steady Party. How did that work out? For either of them? The GOP was to liberal for them. So they blew out of there.
They need to start their own party, and invite all those who love their churchy relatives to join in, full steam!

[Sinti]

37. It's a tough question, actually

A lot of people would knee-jerk react with a NO, because the Evangelicals have historically on the opposite side of so many Democratic issues. On the other hand, the point you made about being "pro-life" is an important one to consider.

If you are unwilling to even talk to a man, you have no hope of ever changing his mind, or the mind of his constituency. Most Democratic mainstream social justice issues should be Christian issues also, if they are true to the core of their faith.

The Evangelicals do not realize that you would actually reduce abortion much more quickly, and with much less pain and suffering, if you made contraception and pre-natal care very easily available. Once you have their attention you might be able to show them the numbers, give them a good sound reasoning, and prove your point. However, if you want someone to listen to you, you have to be willing listen to them. Otherwise, why should they?

The question would be, is he genuine or is he using religion as a front for all manner of nefarious business. Let's not be naive enough to not realize what many of them do.

Edited to add:

You also have to figure out if he's part of the C-Street theocracy cult that's rising in DC.

[MajorChode]

51. I don't see it as so tough

It's not so much that these people are on the opposite side, it's that you CAN'T deal with them. As soon as they get any leverage over you, it's their way or the highway. You can't reason with unreasonable people, and when they take their sole guidance from an imaginary bearded man that lives in the sky, do you really think they are going to compromise their positions? The pugs found that out the hard way.

You are correct in that most Christian issues should coincide with Democratic ideology. Pacifism, advocacy of the poor, environmentalism, and human rights were all strong Christian beliefs at one point, but they were willing to throw all that out the window over abortion and gay marriage? Jesus had zip to say about the later but plenty to say about the former.

With friends like that, I don't need enemies.

[Sinti]

66. That's why I was saying it's tough

he could hold those feelings, and might also be capable of having a rational discussion. I know a few Super Christians, very hardcore, frightened of going to hell people, and you can actually reason with them, if you go about it the right way.

Many of these folks are brainwashed cult members, IMO. If you leave them out in the wilderness with their "guides" they are lost forever. Some of us would bring them back to the light of reality, if possible, but it's really hard work.

I do understand your point, though. As a female, pagan, and a lesbian believe me theocracy scares me, I have several oxen to be gored.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Pluralism is acceptance and accountability; Religion is aristocracy and immunity

Evangelism is not a concept that coexists; it DEMANDS control and unanimity. Sure, there may be short-term advantages, but the end result is domination and intolerance.

[snagglepuss]

47. .

[Kevin Spidel]

54. more responses to this post

On Kos and has been picked up within IL06 here: http://rubberstamproskam.com/2009/11/08/does-the-evangelical-movement-belong-in-the-democratic-party/

[Individualist]

55. Disastrous

[JNelson6563]

56. Answer more complex than you'd like.

Should the party turn away the evangelical movement looking to make the party it’s home?
Do we want to not support this opportunity for a moderate Democrat in a moderate District?

Friend, I have been where you are now. I had a (State Rep) candidate like this fellow you describe, well to some degree anyway.

Good candidate, smart guy, lawyer, hard working candidate. He was anti-choice (though for all the exceptions). I was very active in my county party at the time, knew the donor base & membership etc. A lot of the base didn't donate a penny to him and they just did nothing. They skipped that race on the ballot, he lost.

He was a Dem in this red zone but his anti-choice stance did not sway these straight ticket R voters and he lost some of the Dem base DUE to it. He had been certain the base would stick with him and the moderate R's would vote for him.

See, this is what you leave out of the equation: the voters. The party apparatus supported this candidate of mine, didn't matter in the end.

Julie

[JerseygirlCT]

58. I do believe that a woman's right to choose

what happens to her own body is and should be integral to our party's values. The opposite view basically insures that the gov't has a right to place women in indentured servitude for 9 months.

But, I think this is also an issue of education, too. "Pro-life" is actually a pretty easy position to take, and to feel nearly smug about - so long as you don't attempt to view things from the pregnant woman's perspective. It's that perspective that is most important, however.

Personally, I don't see the circumstances in which I would have chosen an abortion. But that just underlines for me the importance of leaving this most important, and yes, moral, choice to one person only: the woman involved.

It won't ever be an easy issue when one considers all the facets of it. But simply because it is difficult, it must be left to the wisdom and conscience of the woman who might be seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy.

We MUST begin to educate people.

I also do not believe that "evangelical" on its face must imply anti-woman or even anti-choice. Nor does it always go hand in hand with conservative politics. That's a more modern invention. And on the liberal side of things, we need to quit with the knee-jerk reactions to anyone who is seriously and sincerely devout. I would posit that all of our Democratic issues are about life. The Republicans often choose positions that are very much against life.

There's plenty of room for common ground, but women's rights simply cannot be set aside.

[lib2DaBone]

59. Bad Bad Bad... Do we need more Michelle Bachman's?

[earth mom]

60. Bad. Religion does NOT belong in politics. It's the reason this county & world is so fucked up. nt

[name not needed]

61. Fucking horrid. Forcing your vile, sexist, homophobic ideals upon the rest of society

is not, nor will it ever be, a democratic ideal.

[madfloridian]

63. Yes, Kevin. Women's rights should be a litmus test.

I am being really surprised at some folks here that are excusing this amendment by Stupak and practically going into contortions to make it sound okay.

There is room for a lot of people in the party, but now it seems women have to take the back seat to the good Christians that want to take our rights away.

I was raised Southern Baptist, and I can see the hypocrisy clearly now.

[Kevin Spidel]

65. but again..

most african american and latino churches we outreach to agree with an anti-choice stance and anti glbt. as someone who is both prochoice and pro marriage equality i find it hypocritical that we are ok with churches of minority population is ok.. but white evangelical whites are evil. this coming from a hispanic.

[madfloridian]

67. I am not okay with it.

Where are you getting that I think they are "evil"? Isn't that an exaggeration?

Most of the anti-gay feelings and anti-women's rights feelings do come from those minority churches. I do not consider them evil, I consider them prejudiced against women and gays.

If that is what they choose to preach and believe, there is nothing I can do. But I can at least speak out and give my opinion.

Now, when they get into spreading hate and vitriol against gays...then I totally disapprove. There are some in our area that cross the line.

Oh, and BTW that is why another one of my pet projects....pointing out the problems with destroying public schools and turning them into charters will never get anywhere.

My doubts won't matter because those groups were targeted from the beginning to change the public school system into something else.

It saddens me to see public education go, but under this administration it will be gone.

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. since it is flat-out impossible to build a progressive or Democratic majority without

a significant increase in the number of Evangelical and other religious voters.

Those who oppose trying to build bridges with the Evangelicals and other religious voters are in fact inadvertently working for a permanent and impenetrable right-wing Republican majority. If their advice is heeded ,the Democratic Party will forever become a permanent minority party and Right-wing Republicans will forever dominate all branches of government.



http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=103

From a 2006 article:

Evangelical Vote Shifting Democratic, Poll Indicates

http://www.protestantedigital.com/new/leernoticiaIntIng.php?9014

CNSNews.com) - Poll data from the March 4 primary in Ohio show that more than four out of ten white evangelical Christians cast their vote for a Democratic candidate. According to the liberal groups that sponsored the poll, the data indicate that white evangelicals are interested in a broad range of issues and are shifting their voting behavior.

However, some conservative evangelical leaders dismissed the poll's findings as insignificant, and Christian Coalition founder Ralph Reed said the poll's methodology was flawed.

The exit poll -- funded by the liberal activist groups The Sojourners, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Faith in Public Life -- is based a telephone survey conducted by Zogby International on March 4. It revealed that 57 percent of Ohio's white Christian evangelical voters cast their ballots for Republican candidates while the remaining 43 percent voted for Democrats.

The poll also showed that 54 percent of evangelical voters identified themselves with a "broader agenda," beyond abortion and same-sex marriage to include ending poverty, protecting the environment, and combating HIV/AIDS. Thirty-nine percent favored a more limited agenda of opposing abortion and same-sex marriage.

most evangelical groups who are now leaning toward supporting the Democratic Party are in fact on the left of the party.

Sojourners founded by Baptist minister Rev. Jim Wallis is one such group:




Link for Sojourners

http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:



http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

interview on Democracy Now with Jim Wallis:

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/4/26/gods_politics_frist_fights_filibuster_on

=======================================

"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/news/nation/14923089.htm

[aSpeckofDust]

71. Im not saying we should block them from the democratic party..

.. just that we restrict them from forcing religious beliefs into law.

What Stupak did was certainly not a separation of church and state and that is more harmful to the democratic party.

It's crap like this that keeps me independent.

[Angry Dragon]

81. Reading his "God's Politics" now

[Mari333]

68. oh for petes sake the evangelical C street crowd taking over the dems?

Like the scumbag Stupak??

Im an Independent now. Im pushed over the edge. when the Dems start voting with the asshole evangelicals, thats it. Than, they become, TADA, Republican asshole theocrats.

[UTUSN]

69. My Jimmy CARTER started it (within the Dem party). BAD. You asked. n/t

[bluetrain]

70. A belief in the supernatural is indicative of either an extremely low IQ resulting in

an incapability for critical thought or a mental illness which conjures delusional thinking. The mentally compromised should have no place in politics; they need group homes and psychiatric help.

[AlinPA]

72. No thanks to anti-science and flat-earther beliefs in our platform.

[Kitsune]

75. One party controlled by lunacy is one too many.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. It's pretty simple, anti-choice Democrats can be members of Congress but they can't be President

And they shouldn't use the National Convention or the party platform to advance an anti-choice agenda. People are perfectly welcome into the big tent and are entitled to their own opinions but the Democratic Party is a pro-choice party.