I'm always willing to refrain from insulting religion, but they have to refrain from insulting me for not being religious.

See how that works? Something about the Golden Rule, I think...

Jesus would have bolted long before all this Bushit began. Or, as Max von Sydow famously said in 'Hannah and Her Sisters', "If Jesus were alive today, he'd never stop throwing up".

Actually, it's an interesting, hopeful article. I like the part about religious people relating to the GOP like an abusive boyfriend. Maybe they'll come around to seeing who the GOP really works for.

Craigie: You're misinterpreting the Golden Rule. You're supposed to follow it even if the other guy doesn't. That's the whole point.

But in any case, what's the value of returning insult for insult? Turn the other cheek and let's win some elections instead.

Religion ?

hmmm...

"...Churches have given us great treasures. Whether that pays for the harm they have done is another matter." - Daniel C. Dennett

I disagree essentially- check out this piece:

http://www.voicesofreason.info/2006/02/should-left-get-religion-spirituality.html

You can call me close minded, I guess, but, frankly, I have no need to read anything by one note Amy Sullivan, Hew views are about as helpful to the Democrats, and as relevant, as other nominal Democrats Marshall Wittman or Mickey Kaus. No thanks on theocracy light.

When would Jesus molt?

Although I'm not religous and find the concept rather primative, but it seems that us Dems could do well to include the William Jennings Bryan type evangelicals under our tent. The realistic, economically liberal, but moderately socially conservative evangelicals are people that we can work with on many important issues like the environment, labor, poverty and foreign policy. The end times, sexually obsessed, racist hypocrites not so much. We should stop well short of courting that group.

When push comes to shove, they just care way more about sex and "moral degeneracy" than they do about helping the poor or taking care of the environment, and that means that outreach efforts are ultimately doomed to failure.

It's good to see you finally understand Kevin. Christianity is about two things - gay marriage and abortion. The Republican Party is on the right side of those issues and that's why Christians votes for them. The Democratic Party is on the wrong side of those issues and that's why Christians don't vote for them. Christians will only vote for Democrats when they change their positions to be supporting the ban of gay marriage and abortion.

Maybe we'll go back pre-1980, or pre-1976 when many voted Carter, and evangelicals will simply stop voting as much.

I'm not even sure if it makes sense to write this here, but in the article, it has Tom DeLay listed as "(D-TX)."

Talk about a nightmare...

Most of the great progressive victories from the first third of the 20th century were done with the involvement of a wide variety of religious organizations. A lot of the seemingly secular culture in the Northeast, liberal academic culture, evolves pretty directly from these groups --it's where leftists get 'spirituality' and carrying on about peasant life in third world countries as if it were some kind nun-like rapture of austerity.

As someone who leans more libertarian, I see no major conflict between evangelicals and the Democratic Party that can't be overcome. At least from my viewpoint, I think Democrats care a lot more about activist government than they do about social issues, although obviously that isn't true of all Democrats. I could see a devil's bargain where evangelicals throw in with the Democrats, agreeing to support them on economic issues and the role of government in exchange for Democrats agreeing to turn their Big Government on "evildoers" who peddle sex and abortion.

There's always been some tension in the GOP between the more libertarian business friendly Republicans and the evangelicals, because one side wants less government and the other side wants more. This tension would disappear if the evangelicals joined the Democrats, because both like to regulate our lives and "protect" us from what they see as evil. The only difference to be overcome, or compromised on, is what exactly this "evil" is. Big Business? Or Pornographers? Why not both?

Personally, I'd love to see the evangelicals leave the GOP and throw in with the Democrats to create the Big Party That Wants to Regulate Everything. The choices for Americans would be much more clear then.

"helping the poor or taking care of the environment"

Liberals? You gotta be kidding.

Now I know that Libertarians are for happiness, the maximum welfare and the minimal use of reources. So, hey, facts in front of you, you gotta believe me.

I think Amy is absolutely right. We can start by nominating good candidates who don't squirm when they discuss religion. Bill Clinton won almost every county in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Middle and Western Tennessee - Kerry won none of these areas. A big difference was that Clinton could talk about God and mean it.

cld makes a very good point about the history of civil rights and other issues in this country since its founding. Religious groups and leaders were instrumental in making progress in these areas. After all, Martin Luther King was a minister, not a college professor.

Elrod:

A big difference was that Clinton could talk about God and mean it.

Or at least convince people he meant it.

As a corporate libertarian pornographer/abortionist I have to full heartedly agree with Adam. It's time for the Randites to get behind a spotted owl eating, wetland developing free marketeer.

Elrod -- the difference is that Clinton could sign DOMA and mean it. There's a difference.

We will never get a significant number of evangelicals. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep the lines of communications open with our friends and family; it just means that we shouldn't bank on changing much of the tide.

Best we can do is convince them to stay home. Keep hammering the Republicans on the fact that the Repub elites view the Christian groups as useful dupes, but don't pretend that we have anything to offer them. We believe in freedom of religion and privacy in the bedroom -- and they don't.

Woody Allen: Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here.

I think that's the root of the evangelical/liberal divide.

As I've written here before, the big ideological battle of the 21st century will not be conservatives vs. liberals, but libertarians vs. communitarians. Liberals and the religious are the two biggest groups that respect community values, and as others have observed, there are many areas where the two can work together, such as on many economic and enviromental issues.

The big problem why these two groups can't work together remains the Mexican standoff on abortion. A lot of Americans actually feel the way the Albot does - that abortion and gays are ruining the country. But if there's any way possible that a satisfactory compromise can be reached on the abortion issue, a religious/liberal coalition could make a lot of progress in areas like universal health care, for example. Stranger things than that have happened in American politics - after all, the GOP somehow convinced the hedonists to switch sides. Not to mention that the libertarians face their own obstacles on the way to political power - one such problem being that a libertarian political party is a contradiction in terms.

When one of my more reasonable Evangelical Christian clients in Orange Co. told me in '92 he would vote against clinton, I asked why.

His response: "He kills babies."

I tried logic: poverty, Iraq I, everything I could think of. It all came down to:

"He kills babies."

Idiots.

How do you keep people like RTV on side when the ACLU comes by and sues the program to ribbons?

--------

"He kills babies."

Idiots.

Posted by: SteveAudio on March 6, 2006 at 4:11 AM | PERMALINK

He kills babies 6 inches from birth by sucking out their brains. He appointed Ginsburgm didn't he?

Martin Luther King was a minister, not a college professor.

He also had a Ph.D.

[B]As I've written here before, the big ideological battle of the 21st century will not be conservatives vs. liberals, but libertarians vs. communitarians. [/B]

I agree with this, but I reach a different conclusion. History has shown that liberty tends to advance fairly consistently against attempts to curtail it. Once the battle over gay rights, abortion, etc. are won by liberals, the next battleground will be economic rights and gun rights.

And as always, those opposed to those freedoms will be fighting a losing battle.

Frankly, I'm shocked at the way some of the supposed "liberals" on here attack religion. While I have little, if any, respect for people like James Dobson or Jerry Falwell, religion is a large part of many (most?) Americans lives.

I'm troubled by the fact that some elements of the Democratic Party want to totally divorce the party from religion. Not only have some of the great Democrats been openly religious, its a losing strategy if I've ever seen one. We shouldn't sell out on what we believe (like equal rights for all groups) but there is no need to anatagonize a group of people simply because they have the "Christian" label attached.

You can't come to any kind of accommodation with fundamentalist evangelicals without selling your own liberal soul - or the secular equivalent thereof. But, appearances to the contrary, fundamentalist evangelicals are a minority in Christian America. The recent open letter to the World Council of Churches (an umbrella organisation representing most of the Christian heavyweights apart from the Roman Catholic Church) is a must-read. It comes from the WCC's US delegation which represents, amongst others, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, and several Orthodox churches and Baptist denominations.

Read it at http://www.wcc-usa.org/news/news-container/article/1099/a-letter-from-the-us-conf.html

I have to agree wtih marlowe up above. In terms of her history of posting here, Amy Sullivan is almost always wrong in what she writes. She consistently misinterprets things people are telling her, blows what she knows out of proportion to its reality, and generally seems to not know her audience here--whywould I believe she'd start getting it any better with some of her interview subjects. Still, I'll read th epiece and cross my fingers that for once she gets the proportions and the history straight, even if she usually punts the interpretation.

aimai

"You can't come to any kind of accommodation with fundamentalist evangelicals without selling your own liberal soul - or the secular equivalent thereof."

I totally agree. There are a number of Christian organizations out there that are attempting to stop what many liberals see as a perversion of Christianity.

One is:

http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.592941/k.CB7C/Home.htm

Evangelical conversions to our liberal cause? Hey, we need all the help we can get. When they finally come to the realization that so called "free" markets are essentially ammoral and anti-religious--enought will come to the light to make a difference.

Class and power are the ultimate wedge issues.

My take, on a personal level, is that the faith-based actively religiously engaged people I am acquainted with socially or professionally are actively engaged in not meeting my eye these days.

They'd have to acknowledge that I was correct in telling them that they were being played for fools by a party whose real agenda had nothing to do with them.

I don't have to do anything as crass as say 'I told you so." They already know that and are unhappy about it.

I most assuredly do not want a Democratic Party which goes 'Bush-lite' to pander to them either.

You know there is political gold in them thar Christian hills. I know a lot of Evangelical Christians. Most of them are idealists trying to do what they think is right. For the life of me, I have never been able to figure out the attraction the Republican party has for them. I guess it the image Republicans (and some Democrats) have fostered of Democrats encouraging abortion. The "God, guns and gays" shorthand if understood for its evil mean spiritedness should turn off most evangelicals. Evangelical idealism is far more attuned to the Democratic party than the Republican. Now if we could convince them of something I have long understood--Democrats are not in favor of abortion, in fact, most are in favor of doing all possible to make abortion rare. They are simply in favor of giving women the power to decide whether to carry a child or not. A matter of personal choice, not government mandate.

Georgia Hoo: Frankly, I'm shocked at the way some of the supposed "liberals" on here attack religion.

I'm guessing that you have no idea what it means to be non-religious/agnostic/atheist in this country. To have the 'God-Fearing' [Think about that phrase for a minute.] bigots on the other side act as though, by declining to acknowledge that their sacred texts are inerrant and dictated directly by a supreme being, means that you are allied with 'Satan' and munch babies for breakfast.

You meet a stranger and the very first question is, "What church do you attend?" If you say "None," as I do, they recoil in histrionically exagerated horror, as though you'd just announced that you were in favor of child abuse and crime-in-the-streets.

I know what 'religious discrimination' means up close and personal.

I admittedly have a deeply held interest that the fashion for burning heretics not make a come back. Ya know?

I though 'e pluribus unum' served as an excellent guiding principle for this country. That it has been replaced by "in God We Trust' does nothing to reassure me about my Constitutional rights being respected.

On a related note, also worth reading:

The Book of Bart
In the Bestseller 'Misquoting Jesus,' Agnostic Author Bart Ehrman Picks Apart the Gospels That Made a Disbeliever Out of Him

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

It is not just some evangelicals who are upset. Check out this astonishing letter in today's (3/6/06) Baton Rouge Advocate newspaper by Edward J. Steimel, former president of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry.

I am an unhappy Republican. More than that, I am an unhappy American. My greatest unhappiness is due to the continued and costly mistakes that our president makes that may jeopardize our very system of government, to say nothing of the damage being done to our economy

The war with Iraq was his first big mistake. I won’t belabor the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein might have had them. He certainly had been a mass murderer of his own people. But how many other tyrants, especially in Africa, have done the same? But Saddam, to George W. Bush, was unfinished business of his father. And, of course, Iraq had oil.

The war has killed or maimed thousands of our young Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children (they’re people, too). It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, and no one can even guess what the total cost will be in dollars and human lives. He’s spending money like the proverbial drunken sailor, creating deficits our children and grandchildren will never be able to pay. Our international balance of payments has grown to unheard-of levels. He never vetoes a bill, tolerates massive pork in appropriation bills. In short, he is making a mockery of what we once thought of as the Republican Party. I’m now afraid our dollar is in serious jeopardy.

I voted for him when he was first elected. I never thought he was very smart, but I thought he would surround himself with good people, listen to them and make god decisions. I was wrong; he listened only to those who said what he wanted to hear. I never repeated that voting mistake again. I simply DIDN’T VOTE. I couldn’t vote for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.; we needed better than either of them.

God has certainly blessed America. But I’m not willing to bet he’ll keep bailing us out when we make such huge mistakes as we did in picking our current president.

The Book of Bart
In the Bestseller 'Misquoting Jesus,' Agnostic Author Bart Ehrman Picks Apart the Gospels That Made a Disbeliever Out of Him

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html
Posted by: Catch22

Yeah. Beat me to the punch.

re: aimai and marlowe

Amy Sullivan is a hedgehog. She's got a hammer and it all looks like nails. And while she's kinda right that there's room for evangelicals in the Dem tent because we all want to help the poor and the children and the spotted owls, she's just wrong about the politics.

There's only two ways to get "liberal" evangelicals back to the left. One is to run Clinton style southern democrats who are open about God and comfortable talking about faith, and who have charisma and political gifts that are off the charts. Or, we can go back to 1976 when Carter was elected: immediately post-Roe, when the religious right hadn't yet fired up the anti-60s-&-'70s-hedonism, anti-abortion apparatus in all it's power.

Because in 1976, things were changing in America and only Watergate and peace movement inertia were keeping evangelicals from really getting upset over the liberal permissive society taking root in our disco and coke filled cities. If you want to get back to 1976 we'll have to overturn Roe, stuff homosexuals back in the closet, and get back to

I don't think we want to go back there....

Posted by: Bayou Billy

Wow. Another Louisiana resident! Yippee!

Hey, cher, it's been lonely here.

Bienvenue. (Though I've never voted for a Republican in my entire life. And never will.)

CFShep -- go back to Canada, and take Franklin, Jefferson, and that poser Lincoln with you, too. There is no place for people who don't believe in Jesus in the U.S. George H.W. Bush said he didn't think atheists should be allowed to be citizens -- now *that's* freedom, baby!

And Al is right -- the only problems faced in this country are RU-486 and Ellen DeGenerous' sex life.

I am sure the most vocal of the anti-religion liberals realize how much their opposition increases the visibility the Elmer-Gantry-type evangelicals who gladly return the favor.

After all, controversy sells newspapers and cable talk shows. Do you think if we just ignore them, they will go away?

Fuck Christianity, fuck left-leaning christians and fuck all religion. Religion is responsible for more death, suffering and inequity than any other single human invention.

And for whomever, said fuck one-note Amy and her article, here! hre!. The woman is obsessed with her imaginary Sky Daddy.

I've got no time for a bunch of dunderheads who merely go along like so many sheep with the religion of their parents and their ancestors. It's nothing but brain washing done from the time before many of its practioneers can walk. Moreover, it's simply a means of controlling a bunch of mindless sheep masquerading as people and sucking a few sheckles out of their wallets to enrich the priesthood/ministerhood who are for the most part, little better than thieves

CFShep: Hey there are more us here that lean left than you may think. I have voted Repub once in a while in a Blue Dog Moon. Voted 2-3 times against Ewin Edwards (only voted for him when David Duke was running for gov).

Liberal (i.e. mainstream) religions are not in any basic way incompatible with progressive ideals, but the same cannot be said for the vast majority of fundamentalists. Their literalist reading of the Bible is not only incompatible with progressivim, it's also incompatible with the ideals of the Enlightenment, and, unfortunately, some of the basic founding principles of this republic, such as the separation of church and state.

Trying to pick off enough of the religious right to make a difference for us is a fool's errand, and I'm a little tired of Amy Sullivan's continuing to flog that same old tired idea.

A relationship with God is far from the current definition of what "religious" is today. Sadly, Islamic extremists, the self sanctimonious evangelicals and many others continue to pervert the purity of His word. Everyone will wish they had that relationship when their time is near and the sooner that relationship starts the more meaningful life becomes. "Persuading enough of them for the purpose of winning an election" - that's just conning the cons. Very self absorbent and hollow.

Learned of spiritualprogressives.org from psychotherapist and rabbi, Michael Lerner, author of The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right. WaPo article by Amy Sullivan describes him as "A social thinker with impeccable liberal credentials... a Berkeley-based rabbi..."

The website announces, "An interfaith movement... Welcoming to 'Spiritual but not Religious' Secular People As Well," and lists three tenets that speak to me and maybe others here.

I caught Lerner on C-SPAN and his talk was right up my liberal-lefty alley. An explanation of "Why America Needs a Spiritual Left" piqued my curiosity:

We are not advocating that people on the Left should all become religious or spiritual. What we are advocating for is a Left that is friendly not only to secularists and militant atheists, but also to people of faith who share a commitment to peace, social justice, and ecological sanity. We advocate for a Left which believes that the most powerful critique of this society must be rooted in challenging the way this society's capitalist marketplace fosters an ethos of selfishness and materialism. [Cite]

Something to that idea.

"Liberal (i.e. mainstream) religions are not in any basic way incompatible with progressive ideals, but the same cannot be said for the vast majority of fundamentalists."

"You can't come to any kind of accommodation with fundamentalist evangelicals without selling your own liberal soul - or the secular equivalent thereof."

It's nice to see people reading closely. Amy specifically says that Democrats shouldn't try to go over FUNDAMENTALISTS, or even conservative evangelicals who vote based on abortion and gay marriage. But there are evangelicals - I personally know a lot of them - who care more about traditionally liberal issues. If it doesn't mean we have to change substantively, why on earth wouldn't we try to attract those voters? Just because they're Christian? That's tolerance for you...

Voted 2-3 times against Ewin Edwards (only voted for him when David Duke was running for gov).
Posted by: Bayou Billy

I lucked out. I was in Tallahasse (during Lawton Chiles' administration) and missed that particular "Wizard v Lizard" mess.

Voted for J. Bennet first time around. Can't remember 2nd one - selective amnesia? May have been in TX.

I did come home for Festivals Acadiennes and stopped David Duke cold from 10 feet away with a look that told even his reptilian little brain to go elsewhere. He took a 180 degree path away from where I stood. I loved it.

Better was Shreveport cops escorting him off the grounds of Red River Revel under the 'No Solicitation' rules. There was cheering! In Shreveport no less. Wow.

Amy Sullivan has one point to make, and she never leaves it: if only liberals didn't ignore religion, we'd win. It's not quite a crock, but it's way off the mark. The first trouble is that it's a fiction, precisely echoing the wingnut fiction of liberals as "secularism" taking over our country and excluding us. Seems to me it's like complaining that Kerry didn't receive communion often enough during his campaign (or maybe didn't go hunting and windsurfing often enough to show he's a manly man). Our side does go through the paces, in sincerity as much as out of manipulative political concerns.

The second trouble is that it's telling people what to believe in matters of religion. If we WERE unbelievers, what are we supposed to do about it, find Jesus?

The third trouble is that it gains so little. The problem isn't that we're failing to win over liberal evangelicals, who presumably will have their own profound religious reasons for distrusting Bush without us, or mistaking them for the people we can't win over. It's that the ones we can't win over have inordinate power.

The biggest trouble, however, is that it's just self-expression, a matter I suppose of self-esteem. If she spent a tenth the time actually trying to rally people sharing her beliefs instead of blaming the rest of us for her lack of success, we'd be getting somewhere.

if only the rightwing Christians could be like the Hassidm in NYC.

They live in their own neighborhood with their own social rules, and they never ever try to make the rest of live by their rules. We all co-exist peacefully.

sigh

There's something pretty basic here:

(1.) You should treat people decently. That means disagreeing with them -- if you disagree -- in ways that don't insult or show contempt for them. I don't live up to this precept very often myself, and there are marginal cases where open contempt is probably morally necessary (I'm thinking of Ann Coulter). But I would hope we can all agree that this is a good rule of thumb -- the golden rule of thumb, you might say.

(2.) As a matter of political reality: A majority of the country think of themselves as religious to some degree and speak the language of religion. If your side shows contempt for such people, your side will lose elections. That simple. That's not saying you have to express false agreement or fawn over them, but you have to treat people with respect if you expect them to vote with you.

(3.) Politics is a matter of coalitions. You form alliances with others whom you disagree with on some things. If you don't reach out to others whom you have disagreements with, you'll never gain power in a democratic system.

It's pretty obvious that the left has to appeal to religious people. It's pretty obvious, in fact, that many of the greatest leaders on the left have been devoutly religious.

So find ways to talk about religion that don't alienate potential allies.

Yu guys sure are rough on Amy Sullivan. Randy Brinson and the right's efforts to torpedo Bible-as-literature classes in Alabama must be old news to you (wow). And of course liberals have the luxury of cherry-picking their constituencies because...we're completely out of power. Got it.

As an atheist with a pretty baleful view of the Christian right, Sullivan's article was a revelation. Why not court evangelicals when our interests converge. That's not pandering, it's coalition-building.

if only the rightwing Christians could be like the Hassidm in NYC.

They live in their own neighborhood with their own social rules, and they never ever try to make the rest of live by their rules. We all co-exist peacefully.

sigh
Posted by: lilybart

Maybe you could send some down to Central LA, aka Pentecostal World...Oy. I'd pay Yankee dollar for a ringside ticket.

Seriously though, I really doubt that segregation by religion, voluntary or not, really answers in the long term.

I like the part about religious people relating to the GOP like an abusive boyfriend.

Hey, maybe religious people do have more in common with Democrats than is thought!

>>>>observing a moment of silence for the demise of that most excellent independent bookstore, Elliot's.

Pick up some cool books, chat with the owner, and grab some beignets at Morning Call.

Sigh.

It is somewhat hypocritical for Christian evangelicals to complain of being used by the Republican Party when the evangelicals do the same thing with respect to Jews. Many evangelicals are ultra-loyal, to-the-death supporters of Israel - but only because the return of the Jews to the Holy Land supports some of their own Biblical beliefs, not because they actually care a whit about Jews.

I think people should acquaint themselves with the Khazar Empire before they start jumping into this issue. [My View]
Why? Because many don't know much if anything about the Asiatic Mongoloids [Khazar]
or the Thirteenth Tribe.
Heres a Free Online Book covering that Subject.
not replying to this Subject, but giving a Tangent to it.
--------------------------
The Thirteenth Tribe
As Arthur Koestler points out, the Khazars were the Third World of their day, ... Mr. Koestler was an Ashkenazi Jew and took pride in his Khazar ancestry. ...
http://www.christusrex.org/www2/koestler/

"A majority of the country think of themselves as religious to some degree and speak the language of religion."

That is the point I wanted to make. You can't pretend that since you aren't religious then everyone else shouldn't be either. I don't advocate prayer in school, 10 Commandments on the wall, etc., but the "fuck religion" statements are unnecessarily antagonistic.

Suulivan writes:

A sign that Democratic leaders are beginning to get it is the plan—promoted by leaders such as Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton—to lower abortion rates by preventing unwanted pregnancies. Full-throated support of this effort, and a recognition that abstinence education plays a role in lowering teen pregnancy rates (along with birth control), puts Democrats alongside the majority of voters on this difficult issue, and it is especially appealing to moderate evangelicals.

This neatly sidesteps the debate. The current political issue is not "abstinence education" which is rather pointless but not harmful but about "abstinence only education" which is harmful. Sullivan also asserts without evidence that "abstience education" plays a role in lowering teen pregnancy rates. Is there evidence of this? The focus has been on "Abstinence only" was something else entirely.

Anyway, this is just one example of this kind of thing in Sullivan's article.

Many evangelicals are ultra-loyal, to-the-death supporters of Israel - but only because the return of the Jews to the Holy Land supports some of their own Biblical beliefs, not because they actually care a whit about Jews.
Posted by: Peter

On the other hand, in the spirit of 'Freakonomics', I saw the entire "Left Behind' DVD series in the $5 markdown bin...

Sounds like the Opinionists have Opined each others groups into meaningless nothingness by filling pigeon Holes with imagined Character Cracks once again.

We will never - and we should never - win conservative evangelicals. Their understanding of politics and religion is repugnant to progressives. But we can and should win moderate evangelicals. I'm talking about people who support us on aid to the poor, the environment, workers' rights, civil rights, opposition to war, etc. but also may oppose abortion and have reservations about gay marriage. These folks would vote for Democrats if they believed that Democratic politicians acted, in some way or another, on the basis of their faith. That doesn't mean they want politicians to push a narrow breed of evangelical Christianity on the rest of society - those are the conservative evangelicals. It just means they want to believe that politicians are acting on the basis of some sort of conviction. Individual issues are much less important than the faith that stands behind whatever issues the politician supports. That's why Tim Kaine could win in Virginia even while opposing the death penalty. And it's why John Kerry couldn't reach moderate evangelicals - they just didn't know what the basis was for any of his beliefs. I know a few people who voted for Bush because they thought Kerry was an "empty suit", who didn't really "believe" anything he said. I told them that Kerry actually has a long record of, say, opposing the death penalty and has always based his position on a core principle of respect for human dignity. But these folks said, rightly, that Kerry spent the whole 2004 campaign running away from these issues (for fear of being tarred a liberal) and trying to make himself look like something else. Interestingly, they all thought Howard Dean was a much more respectable figure - and even considered supporting him - because they thought there was some basis for his beliefs (even if they weren't evangelical Christianity).

I think Amy makes great mistakes in estimating the conservative Evangical movement. However, this is a mistake that's VERY common, especially among religious liberals. They want to believe that it's all on a balance. You have the liberal ideas of helping the poor and treating the sick vs. the conservative ideas of blaming the gay and the women for your problems. And if we can just tilt the balance a little bit, you can make changes.

That's just not the way it works 'tho.

The religious right's focus on sex, doesn't come in addition to any concern about the poor. It comes so they don't HAVE to be concerned. They're morally good, because they're all up in everybodies bedroom. So when it comes to business? It's all neutral. Only business.

The other thing to realize, is that for Evangical groups, poverty is a crucial marketing tool for them. It gets people into their arms. E-VANG-ICAL. Meaning trying to spread your religion to as many people as possible.

No, these people have an entrenched investment in maintaining the status quo.

From reading that article, it doesn't sound like he has a problem with just the Republican party, he's having a "crisis of faith". And that's what we need to inspire if we're going to attract these people. Massive crisis of faith. We need to talk morality...and their lack of. We need to steal the morals and values side of the argument, and paint them as being greedy, deceitful and untrustworthy.

Destroy their community, in other words.

As a Democrat who is a economic populist and social traditionalist, I welcome evangelicals into my party. We have spent far too much time pandering to "rich, white and secular" social liberals who care only about abortion, gay marriage and gun control. The Democratic Party needs to focus on representing working and middle class families and take a "big tent" approach that will allow for a diversity of opinion on social issues. If Democrats can focus on appealing to the center and win back some religious voters then we might have a prayer of becoming the majority party again.

Kevin:

Isn't it your 1st Amendment responsiblity to insult religion? You're refraining, holding back? The terrorists have already won.

A long time ago on this board I said that the Republican / Born-Again Xtian coalition was an unholy alliance and that it should be easy to fracture since there are so many good arguments against Republicanism that come straight from the mouth of Jesus.

I've grown tired of pudding-headed liberals who believe the Republicans have been taken over by the Christian Right. Xtians are *tools*, not the other way around.

tbroz:>"A big difference was that Clinton could talk about God and mean it.

Or at least convince people he meant it."

T, I thought you more intellegent then to find it noteworthy that politicians are occasionally insincere.

Since you feel that insincerity in politics is a crime, why don't you try getting over 50% of a random group to agree on a dozen contentious topics?

Kevin,

Re conservative evangelicals, it's useful to keep in mind that they're conservative first and religious second. Their religious belief merely buttresses their deeply conservative inclinations. The best example of this phenomenon is their wholesale rejection of fellow born-again Christian, Jimmy Carter.

OK, so some evangelicals are a bit sour on the GOP and are skeptical of whether the party really wishes to accompish it's goals or string them along for political purposes. Fine. But is anyone confident in the Democratic party's ability to convince evangelicals that we'd be any different?

At least the GOP pretends to love god & hate gays, Dems couldn't really even do that with a straight face.

I'm a bigger fan of "the politics of politics" than most, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about evangelical friction with the GOP & them possibily moving into our camp when we are no more likely to enact their agenda than the GOP is, and probably less likely.

i have a friend in TX, and everyone in the family but him is very religious. they're lutherans, but of the type that shares all the fundie values as the most rabid baptists.

he went to church with his sister recently while visiting. he was truly shocked to hear the preacher, who spent the entire time talking about a long list of the damned. it included gays, pro choice people, all christians who aren't lutherans, catholics, the gays, etc... the preacher also stressed that bush is a wholesome, godlike man and that the war is a fight to bring "civilization" to those godless heathen brown people.

we may have a shot at the 12 thinking evangelicas left in america, but i think the rest are lost. it's sooooo not about true christian values anymore, and even those who may question being used like pawns by the republican party will still cling to the idea that they have no choice other than voting republican, because even if the republican party "fails" to live up to evangelical standards, progressives and liberals will always be gay abortionists, and therefore unacceptable.

We need to talk morality...and their lack of. We need to steal the morals and values side of the argument, and paint them as being greedy, deceitful and untrustworthy.

Destroy their community, in other words.
Posted by: Karmakin

I keep thinking they should be forcefully reminded that their religion is supposed to believe:

As you do unto the least of these; you do unto me.

Nowhere was "I've got mine, Jack. Screw you." a part of the canon. The Gospel of Gimme.

Guy's supposed to thrown the moneychangers out of the temple, right? Camel through the eye of a needle?

Ring any bells?

I have to confess that I've always been skeptical of the notion that liberals should spend much time trying to get the Christian evangelical community on our side. When push comes to shove, they just care way more about sex and "moral degeneracy" than they do about helping the poor or taking care of the environment, and that means that outreach efforts are ultimately doomed to failure.

I don't think that's nearly as true as you seem to think it is, largely because I think you are mistaking the segment of the "evangelical community" that has been most effectively mobilized by political activists targetting them directly with the whole of the evangelical community.

That, and confusing the things that the Republican Party has successfully sold them as the biggest issues facing the country that are addressible through the political process with the issues they care most about.

Religion has been a big topic in liberal circles for a while now, and I have to admit that I always feel a bit like a bystander when the subject comes up. It's not like I can fake being religious, after all.

So? You don't have to fake being religious to try to understand people who are genuinely religious.

Still, no one is really asking people like me to do much of anything except stay quiet, refrain from insulting religion qua religion in ways that would make people like Brinson unwilling to work with us, and let other people do the heavy lifting when it comes to persuading moderate Christians to support liberal causes and liberal candidates.

There is certainly a lot more that non-evangelical and even non-religious liberals can do if they want to win more of the vote of the evangelical community. And avoiding insulting religion qua religion has more utility than trying to gain ground in the evangelical community; there's plenty of non-evangelical religious liberals around, and you might want to avoid alienating them.

Church in Texas can be intense(I live here). I heard a story recently from a coworker who was churchshopping at a Baptist church. When the service began, all the Deacons apparantly guarded the exits, told everyone in the pews no one could leave, even for bathroom breaks, & then the preacher proceeded into a 3 hour service in which Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopals were all going to hell, and everyone in the pews that day was also going to hell, except for them, the preacher and his henchmen.

I won't even pretend this is close to the rule for church in Texas, even for Conservative churches but yes, they are out there.

I wish Libertarians would stop lying about "big government" and "freedom". Libertarians want government out of our lives, but that does not mean they are for maximizing human freedom -- on the contrary, they are for allowing corporations maximum control over our lives by allowing companies to control more and more of the market, and more and more of our individual freedom.

Who, after all, promotes freedom more, the person who sees a role for government in the controlling of corporate monopolies and the regulation of business, or the person who wants to allow companies to limit choice, privacy and equal access?

----------

As for the role of religion in the political parties: it should be based on the agendas promoted by those parties. If evangelicals are claiming that they are for protecting the rights of the poor in this society, for the limiting of monopoly and moneyed interests, then I see no conflict with them joining that party. I just wish their were a political party with that agenda. Right now, I see two parties fighting each other over who can give more to big business.

It's not like I can fake being religious, after all

Why not?

they just care way more about sex and "moral degeneracy" than they do about helping the poor

They fake it just fine.

I think Amy makes great mistakes in estimating the conservative Evangical movement. However, this is a mistake that's VERY common, especially among religious liberals. They want to believe that it's all on a balance. You have the liberal ideas of helping the poor and treating the sick vs. the conservative ideas of blaming the gay and the women for your problems. And if we can just tilt the balance a little bit, you can make changes.

That's just not the way it works 'tho.

The religious right's focus on sex, doesn't come in addition to any concern about the poor. It comes so they don't HAVE to be concerned.

The "religious right" is not the same thing as the "evangelical community"; you make the mistake, common among secular liberals, of conflating the segment of the evangelical community that the political right has already mobilized with the whole of the community.

In the near term, there is little prospect of us winning over much of the "religious right"; there is some prospect of us mobilizing some of the rest of the evangelical community, which itself would undermine the "Christians v. Liberals" meme that helps bind the "religious right" so tightly to the Republican Party, and which reinforces the narrow band of issues that they tend to mobilize around by making the whole conflict into a tribal war for survival.

I wonder how many evangelical Christians that Dustin and Chicago Dyke are personally aquainted with. It's easy to sterotype people that you don't know. Unfortunately, people of like-minded political outlooks and religious attitudes tend to "talk among themselves" and fail to recognize that others with differing views are not necessarily ten foot tall monsters.

Jimmy Carter was one of my political role models and I still admire him greatly, but quite frankly Carter lost the evangelical vote in 1980 because he took it for granted. The evangelicals helped deliver the 1976 election for the Democrats and then were basically shut out of the Carter Administration. If Carter had appointed a few evangelical leaders to positions and made more of an effort to keep conservative Christians in his corner, the religious right might not have grown into a strong political force.

Politics and power is strictly a sport of the flesh, far removed from the spirit. That quest (politics and power) is one common thread between the far right and the far left. The majority in the middle, who have a relationship with Him, try not to cast aspersions on others nor do they pretend to have all of the answers.

"It's good to see you finally understand Kevin."

Yeah, Al, but when are you going to finally understand Kevin? Or basic punctuation.

OK, so some evangelicals are a bit sour on the GOP and are skeptical of whether the party really wishes to accompish it's goals or string them along for political purposes. Fine. But is anyone confident in the Democratic party's ability to convince evangelicals that we'd be any different?
Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway

We do not want these people as our fellow travellers, not unless you really want to scare the shit out of the rest of the world, who current understand that not all Americans are bigotted idiots.

"...a recognition that abstinence education plays a role in lowering teen pregnancy rates (along with birth control)"

As supported by what evidence, exactly?

Believe me, the more than one in five born-again Christians who voted for Kerry in the last election are frustrated by the way we are portrayed within our own party. We could use a little help and articles like this are VERY useful.

My fundamentalist credentials are pretty impressive and my evangelical ones would make many in the movement blush. But you know what? My Democratic credentials are just as hard core, as are all of my family's. The 22% of Evangelical voters who did NOT support Bush are, in actuality, millions and millions of people all over the country, fighting this battle hand-to-hand, day by day.

Thanks Ms. Sullivan, for making my day.

Gretchen Moran Laskas
www.gretchenlaskas.com

Jesus was a liberal.

When the evenagelicals decide to come back to Christ's teachings we can talk.

Politics and power is strictly a sport of the flesh, far removed from the spirit.

Not sure if I understand you, Jay. But if words carry their everyday meaning then politics--which is simply how human beings relate to each other--is a direct manifestation of spirit, since it is our spirit which motivates us to act.

IOW, politicians like Bush pay lip service to Christ's teaching, but their acts show little if any Christian influence.

Sigh.

It is very sad that 'religious' has come to mean hateful and judgemental but I have to agree those are the images of 'religion' that we see today.

We've got Christian fundies fighting Islamic fundies.

One thing I have to take as a matter of faith in these dark days is that love will win out over hate, cooperation ultimately beats competition, and there really is a force similar to karma.

Christ preached these things over and over and true Christians know these things.

Virtue beats value any day, and I'd like to see more Christian virtues displayed instead of supposed Christian values.

The Republicans have aligned themselves with every bat-sh*t and crazy that thumps the bible because--at its core--it gets people motivated to vote. The best way to introduce moderation into American representitive democracy is NOT to woo finatics, but to re-engage the people of the nation who no longer think their vote matters.

For all of those criticizing the religion in general, thinking it incompatible with progressive government, keep in mind that liberal, progressive, movements often have had a strong religious tinge to them.

--Much of the antebellum abolitionist movement came out of evangelical Protestant churches in the north--many evangelicals believed that slavery was an affront to God. In fact, the antebellum slavery movement was an interesting mixture of enlightenment ideals of human liberty and evangelical Protestantism's ideal of equality before God. If you don't believe me, try reading the poem "John Brown's Body."

In the Socialist movement in the American southwest (eg. Oklahoma), represented a powerful blend of left-wing economic philosophy and evangelical Protestantism. Oklahoma, by the way, was home to one of the largest branches of the Socialist party prior to World War I.

Part of the reason William Jennnings Bryan fought Darwin's theory of evolution is because Bryan was opposed to social darwinism--that is, Bryan, I think, was outraged that people were using a (in his mind fallacious) scientific theory to justify an economic and political system in which the rich ruled everyone else. He was also very upset that right-wing nationalists were using Darwin's theory to provide intellectual legitimacy for militarism and imperialism.

Since religion and its language has been abused by the Republican elites to enrich themselves and gain power, wreak havoc and remain unaccountable, it's just plain asinine not to become fluent in the language and learn to respond.

Regardless of whether one is religious or not anyone opposed to the downright greedy manipulators sitting their fat rumps in the seats of power right now better wise up and learn to respond and point out their policies are against what's taught in the Bible. Romans 16.17,18 is a good place to start.

Gretchen and sleepy,

It's funny that we all three post at nearly the same time saying nearly the same thing.

Individual churches and parishes have unique personalities and they cannot be painted with the same brush.

There are a great number of religious Christians who take very seriously the proud, liberal, Christian virtues of caring for all people and trying to make the world a better place by following Christ's example.

I am glad to see many people here with positive thoughts about evangelical Americans. I am surprised that Democrats have not found independent (independent from the manufactured conservative zeitgeist) ways to reach out to white religious moderates and give them a central position in the liberal coalition. To my mind it is were they belong instead of in the party of corruption, war, and neglect known as the Republican party. If Christian Americans were to take a look at the intellectual tradition of movement conservatism, as we now understand it, they would see how deeply anti-Christian it is. In many ways it is one long critique of the Gospels as many Christian scholars have pointed out.

Liberalism is a political doctrine that, in part ,springs from the blood-drenched religious wars of Europe. It is a kind of antidote. Liberals believe the privatization of religious belief in the political sphere will lead to domestic peace and prosperity. This does not mean morality as determined by religious understanding has no part in liberal government. It means one is prepared to compromise in the here and now for the sake our earthy lives. Under a liberal regime individuals will be able to pursue their own understandings about eternity without coercion or persecution. Evangelicalism is itself the result of the liberalization and individualization of orthodox religion. There is nothing inherently conservative about evangelicalism.

Religion becomes conservative and increasingly intolerant when it becomes part of the nationalistic identity of a besieged people.

Arthur has already captured my point. When and why did evangelicalism make the turn from populism to big-money social darwinism?

Their literalist reading of the Bible is not only incompatible with progressivim, it's also incompatible with the ideals of the Enlightenment, and, unfortunately, some of the basic founding principles of this republic, such as the separation of church and state.

Yep. Religious fundamentalism-- which is not the same as religion-- is essentially un-American, at least when linked with political power. Doesn't matter how many of them there are (another way in which conservatives display their ignorance is in their assumption that America is, at its core, whatever its most politically powerful group happens to say it is, which is untrue), what they envision is an insult to the Founders and all the great thinkers who painstakingly laid the foundation for this country. There's nothing even remotely special or advanced about their America, and its economic and military power will be short-lived should they truly take charge.

Halleluia!

And we might want to think about pulling in some "right to bear arms" votes, too. After all, these truly are "keep an eye on Big Brother" days we're living through.

We do not want these people as our fellow travellers, not unless you really want to scare the shit out of the rest of the world, who current understand that not all Americans are bigotted idiots.

That post kind of undermines its own thesis.

But in any case, what's the value of returning insult for insult? Turn the other cheek and let's win some elections instead.

Game Theory. Learn it. Live it. It is life. It is evolution. It is.

Tit-for-tat is one of the best strategies. A better strategy still is tit-for-two-tats. In no circumstance is no-tits-for-any-tats a winning strategy. Never. Never, ever works. Just sayin'.

How about adopting the Tit-for-two-tats (or analog) instead of chucking tit-for-tat entirely for the assured loser of no-tits-for-any-number-of-tats?

Just sayin'.

Jesus would bolt after he saw this animation:

Brokeback Bush Wears A Burka

Even the Conservative Evangelicals have their dividing point. YaY
The Gary Norths and the Rushdoony's.

AL may well run for the hills upon mention of these radical guys.

Even the NCCC and the IRD are having second thoughts about the Radical Right of Falwell and the Bush Admin.

The Religious Right has helped [many unknowingly] financed that.

Now many wish to Blame the
'libruls' that catch all scapegoat word, for the current mess?
C'mon.
Did not you know?
Big Dog. He's still in charge. Yupp.
In the Basement. Hillary too.
Clinton is telling George what to do
thru Ted Kennedy.

moron -scotty evil

That post kind of undermines its own thesis.
Posted by: cmdicely

Explain.

What happens when evangelicals find out:

The power structure in the Democratic Party is too entrenched with big business. It's not with evangelicals—they're a means to an end.

Liberals need to tell evangelicals Democrats will fight to keep abortion from becoming mandatory just as hard they will fight to keep abortion legal and safe. Democrats need to communicate they will fight for religious freedom just as hard as they will fight for freedom from religion.

Jeff II on March 6, 2006 at 11:54 AM:

Explain.

Basically you are saying that in order to demonstrate that we are not 'bigotted idiots' to the world, we have to actually be religious bigots.

Arthur has hit on something most liberals forget. Modern liberalism arises not just from the enlightenment, but also from progressive christian revival movements over the past 200 years. Separation of church and state was a big Baptist issue until the current crop of conservative political theologians took over the Southern Baptist Convention. The proteztant movement itself is based on such the liberal notion as direct contact between an individual and his God. Conservatives always want to put themselves between the individual and his Creator. What we need to be encouraging is a return to the old time religion, and an abandonment of the new fangled fundamentalism.

Liberals need to tell evangelicals Democrats will fight to keep abortion from becoming mandatory

Anyone who believes that anyone wants "mandatory" abortions cannot be convinced of anything.

Basically you are saying that in order to demonstrate that we are not 'bigotted idiots' to the world, we have to actually be religious bigots.
Posted by: grape_crush

Well, if that means ignoring the intolerant, hateful, homophobic, xenophobic, small-minded religious right, yes. By your reasoning, I guess we need to open our arms to the Klan, the Aryan Nation, etc., etc. to show how tolerant we are. Fuck that nonsense.

Explain.

The characterization of the evangelical community as undesirable because they are "bigotted idiots" is no more accurate, and no less bigotted than would be, say, referring to Whites the same way.

Notwithstanding that the vocal political groups centered around either identity are composed, largely, of people it might be fair to describe as bigotted idiots.

Dear Amy,

Do I fucking give a shit about "moderate evangelicals"? I do fucking not.

Fuck you, Amy. Just go and join the fucking Republican party and get the fuck out of our hair, you moralistic piece of shit, you.

Love...

Hostile, maybe you should spend more time considering pre-frontal lobotomy and less time thinking about abortion. Ask your doctor.

Anyone who believes that anyone wants "mandatory" abortions cannot be convinced of anything.
Posted by: craigie

Good morning. I've finished my coffee for the morning so it's safe for me to read your ripostes without endangering my new keyboard.

There should be some kinda 'craigie alert' system to warn me so I can remove all liquids from the vicinity of my computer.

heh

Game Theory. Learn it. Live it. It is life. It is evolution. It is.

Tit-for-tat is one of the best strategies. A better strategy still is tit-for-two-tats. In no circumstance is no-tits-for-any-tats a winning strategy. Never. Never, ever works. Just sayin'.

This is wrong. Or, rather, it makes a rather major unspoken assumption -- this is true if and only if the scenario is an iterated version of Prisoner's Dilemma.

Why don't the Albots and Jays, etc., ever tune into what will happen if abortion is made illegal? Are they just too young to remember "back-alley" abortions? Do they really not realize that "baby-killing," as they so indignantly call it, is not only going to continue, but will be joined by lots of mother-killing after Roe v. Wade? Are they really so heartless and stupid? And do they really think that abortions will no longer be available to the moneyed class, i.e., George Bush's crowd?