Do I think both kinds of comment will appear in this thread? Um, yup, I do.

Kevin,
I would be happy to discuss this if you could tell me who "some liberals" are. Can you give me 10 examples of prominant Democrats, liberals, progressives, lefties, or even communist-leaning agnostics who are disrespectful to the religious. Thanks.

Cranky

>> Do you think both sides will show up in this thread as well?

Yes, just wait for those long posts to get typed!

Before the snarks jump in, allow me to say "Thank you." Thanks for taking the trouble to clarify what Obama said. The political Internet is altogether too much a place where people jump to conclusions before checking out the assumptions on which they are based.

So he's a uniter, then? Great.

Good point Kevin. Obama was simply trying to point out how much liberal Democrats hate people of faith by supporting gay marriage and murder of the unborn. Moderates, indepedents, and people of faith are unwilling to support liberals so long as they are against traditional American values. Unfortunately, Kos has already sent his army of secular atheistic leftists the marching orders to attack Obama and anyone else who stands side by side with people of faith in their defense of traditional American values. Once again the Kingpin Kos is the undoing of liberals and democrats.

Can you give me 10 examples of prominant Democrats, liberals, progressives, lefties, or even communist-leaning agnostics who are disrespectful to the religious.

The problem, inasmuch as I've seen it myself, isn't mostly with prominent liberals as with a substantial minority of "grassroots" liberals. Its a mistake to think that only "prominent" liberals shape the opinion people have of the movement.

As a "some liberal," what I object to is not religious discussion, but proseletyzing. And even that would be okay with me, if it weren't done with the purpose of establishing that all other religions but the one espoused are inferior and further, that their religion is one in the same with American patriotism, and that, therefore government should participate in their proseletyzing.

But the plain fact is that he was careful in his speech and also plainly correct: "some" liberals are uncomfortable with any mention of religion in the public square, and he thinks this is too bad.

Rather than saying he was "careful" with his speech I'd say he was careless -- he was deliberately vague with his references to "some" liberals because he doesn't have any real-life examples to use. That's not caution, it's recklesness, it's making a vague and unsubstantiated charge he can't back up.

Personally, I think this is a legacy of the New Left. Throw over anything traditional. The previous generation had people like Reinhold Niebuhr. Michael Lerner is trying to do something like that now, but he's kind of an insurgent which is different...

Of course it was all there before that. Bertram Russell's attitudes, etc. And I think the Net tends to attract Bertram Russell types...

What Cranky said at the top of the thread. I'm a born-again Christian, but I don't see who these "some liberals" are, other than a handful of secularists making snarky remarks on message board and blog threads.

This is one big difference between left and right: when some accusation is levied about the right, there are usually plenty of exemplars in Congress, in the media, and (in this Administration) in prominent positions in the Executive Branch to back up the accusation. But when some accusation is levied against the left, the right regularly has to reach all the way down to the Ward Churchills of the world, or the commenters and diarists at DailyKos, to find examples.

Cranky: You missed the whole point. Prominent Democrats are respectful to a fault, as I said in my very first paragraph. But there are plenty in the rank and file who aren't, and that reflects on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

Maybe there's nothing to be done about this. I don't know. But denying that such people even exist just isn't a reality-based attitude.

"More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms."

The undeniable inference is that Obama thinks you can't speak in moral terms without discussing religion. This is inaccurate. The possible inference is that Oblama thinks there can't be morality absent religion. This is offensive.

Can you give me 10 examples of prominant Democrats, liberals, progressives, lefties, or even communist-leaning agnostics who are disrespectful to the religious.

Well, I can think of Baptist Sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Al Sharpton, Baptists Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Edwards, Methodist Hillary Clinton, Catholics and former altar boys John Kerry and Ted Kennedy....

Oh, wait. Those are all liberals who quite prominently identify themselves as religious. Well, I'm sure I can think of something.....

The thing is, not talking religiously has little to do with secularism.

Keeping your religious beliefs to yourself is a long-standing tradition. It's even conservative.

The effusive, intrusive, often-bogus religiosity is new.

It's not like the religiosity is very meaningful. Most often, it's used as a cheap way to impart an aura of morality to the speaker, which probably isn't deserved

At worst, it just cheapens the religion.

From that perspective, even non-secularists can and should support a reduction in public religiosity.

I agree with Cranky. Point out specific examples of prominent liberals or progressives who are openly hostile to religion in public life and we'll address it. Otherwise, it's a straw man.

snarky liberal secularists telling everyone else to take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.

Hostile and SecularAnimist are the most prominent ones here -- you really need 8 more examples, Cranky?

The ACLU is a free actor, after all, and so is Jerry Falwell. The actions of the former reflect on liberals even if not all liberals agree with every court case they bring, and the actions of the latter reflect on conservatives even if not all conservatives agree with him.

Um, except that the second part isn't even close to true. When Falwell goes overboard - and when does he not? - where is this publicized? Where are the critical editorials? Where is the clucking TV news story? I guess intolerance is only worth discussing when it's secular.

The problems are these:
1. "Some liberals.." is exactly the rhetorical tool George Bush uses.
2. Liberals "leaving religion at the door" is exactly a Republican talking point.

The MF is lecturing his own party, using Republican rhetoric and talking points. We are supposed to be happy with this?

We know exactly what he's doing. He's pandering to the Red Staters. Fuggim and the Chicago train he rode in on. That goes for Obama, and Lieberman, and Harold Ford Junior, and Hillary...the whole bunch of them.

We need a black president some day. We need a woman president some day. We need a Jewish president some day. But we need NONE of the ABOVE.

We don't need Amy Sullivan's lectures, either.

One can be an atheist, but still hope that there's a hell for 'Al' (or rather, the 'Al' brigade) to burn in.

Also, one can be religious but still get ticked off when Pastor Amy Sullivan embarks upon one of her usuals.

Point is this: Democrats talking about talking about religion is ever so much bullshit. When Republicans talk about religion, it's all about hating teh ghey and sticking up ten commandments that they don't even know. Give me Democrats who talk about helping the poor and the weak and the downtrodden, regardless of whether it comes with the Jesus imprimatur.

As Cranky notes, there are NO prominent liberals who say religion doesn't belong in the public square. But according to Obama, there are "some". But "some" is a just a bullshit straw man.

After all, there are "some" conservatives that believe that it's proper to hold protests at soldiers funerals.

There are "some" conservatives that believe that it's OK to assassinate doctors who perform abortion.

There are "some" conservatives that believe that children should be taught as fact in public schools that Noah took two of all the species of animals that every lived (even dinosaurs!) onto the Ark about 4,000 years ago.

There are "some" conservatives that believe that blacks are inferior to God's chosen race, the white man.

There are "some" conservatives that believe that UFO's are manifestations of Satan and a sign of the end times.

There are "some" conservatives that believe that the UN plans to take all of our guns any day now.

Look, there are "some" numskulls on each side of the political spectrum. It doesn't mean that come even close to representing the majority. Obama is tilting at Republican talking point windmills by pretending that the incredibly few liberals that think religion should be banned from the public arena deserve recognition.

Do you think both sides will show up in this thread as well?

Thanks to Al (or fakeAl) for showing us the important third side of the debate: the morons.

Kevin,

Isn't George Bush also technically correct when he says that "'some people' would say that the Iraqis are not capable of establishing a democracy"? I'm sure someone somewhere believes that to be the case, but Bush's language is still disingenuous and self-serving in the extreme.

As for your preemptive strike against snarks, among whose numbers I proudly count myself: a clever ploy on your part, but one which will undoubtedly prove futile.

Now for the snarky part: this secular humanist doesn't demand that the devout stick their superstitions and delusions anywhere in particular, just as long as they don't wave them in my face, force them on our schoolchildren, or use them to delegitimize the courts and the constitution.

And by the way, your citations from Obama's speech conveniently left out the part where he directly mentioned the Pledge issue as an example of overreaching by us liberal atheist fanatics.

Cranky,

If you read Obama's speech, you'll see that he does provide one example of a prominent Democrat whose public positions were (in Obama's view) disrespectful toward religious believers: Obama himself. Its an interesting anecdote, you should read it.

I also want to thank Kevin for writing this post, which I think is a much needed corrective to the distorted view of Obama's speech that came through the Washington Post and other media outlets.

The other thing I want to point out is that the vast bulk of this speech is a religious critique of religious conservatives. As such, I think it is much more significant than the blog discussions I've participated in have acknowledged. Obama starts off his speech with an anecdote about Alan Keyes saying that "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barrack Obama", and Obama's frustration with the advice of his consultants that he should not respond. This is exactly the kind of timid advice from consultants that drives most of us crazy, and its good to see Obama realizes that following such advice is a losers game. Attacks against Democratic cadidates just like Keyes' attack on Obama are going to keep coming, and so I think Obama is doing the party a real service in sketching out what an effective response might look like.

But there are plenty in the rank and file who aren't, and that reflects on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

Yes, but who are they and exactly what effect do they have upon voters who aren't already inclined to view the Republican party as the party of religious values? Does the odd crank who files a lawsuit against the use of "under God" in the Pledge "represent" the progressive grass roots any more than, say, Coulter represents the views of conservative grass roots?

I'm sorry, but I'm just sick of this argument. I'm going to pay more attention to what someone does than what they say, anyway.

To the contrary, Kevin, I think "Christian conservatives" and "liberal secularists" have been equally to blame for giving Zeus and Hera short shrift. All too often I find myself thinking that the world would be so much more civilized if we brought them out of their shadowy existence in Classics classrooms, and into the bright light of the public square. Just thinking about it makes you pine for the good old days, doesn't it?

Prominent Democrats are respectful to a fault, as I said in my very first paragraph. But there are plenty in the rank and file who aren't, and that reflects on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

Oh, ok. So any secular type who misbehaves reflects badly on the whole of the progressive population, while prominent religious nutcases like Falwell and Dobson and the rest can say any damn thing they like, and it doesn't even reflect badly on them, let alone the population at large.

I give up.

But there are plenty in the rank and file who aren't, and that reflects on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

If you're buying into the GOP frame and redefining 'respect' to mean 'obsequious capitulation', then that's just tough.

This comment will follow the first thread and I will use and evidence your reference to the ACLU. You see the ACLU will take any side where a constitutional right is being violated. That includes groups that sue a school district that forbids students from using school facilities for a religious group when those same facilites are used by other groups and they will sue to allow the Nazi's to march in Skokie. Neither of these would qualify as "liberal" causes. Yet somehow the ACLU is branded as a liberal organization and you followed suit.

I interpret most of what Obama said to be personal. Or at least, what I think he means about not leaving your religious beliefs at the door is that look, if you're religious, you have a value system informed partially by that religion. Asking you to completely cut off that system of values in politics is silly.

One example as Kevin did document is Bob Casey, as best as Kevin could tell when he looked, Bob Casey was largely prevented from speaking at the convention because of his anti-choice views. Personally I don't think it is a good example, but that is a popular one.

Why do I feel it's important to help the poor, to make sure people aren't run roughshod by corporations, or lied to by politicians, because of my faith. As I've said before, the only problem I personally have with "liberal secularists" is when they equate my belief in God with idiocy.

Now I think in the current environment we are in especially, mentioning God in public speeches etc. is a very dicey proposition and should be done with caution if at all.

By your actions they should know you, not your words.

This whole thread is just Kevin's way of getting fireworks into his blog.

secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.

Um, isn't that the very definition of what secularism is? Secularism doesn't mean pretending that your religion doesn't exist - it means not trying to insert the specific elements of your religion into the lives of others, especially those who don't ascribe to it. I am always astounded by the boneheadedness of people (like Barack Obama and Kevin Drum - see, I can name names) who equate secularism with atheism - really, they are *not* the same thing.

Back on topic:

. . . the liberal message inherent in the Bible . . .

Once the early Church was established on said "liberal" message, didn't that then become the new conservatism?

One example as Kevin did document is Bob Casey, as best as Kevin could tell when he looked, Bob Casey was largely prevented from speaking at the convention because of his anti-choice views.

That's not really a good example; even granting, arguendo, that that was why he was stopped from speaking (ISTR that there were other issues) he wasn't stopped from speaking because the source of his views was religious, but because he disagreed with the party's platform on a major substantive policy issue.

> Cranky: You missed the whole point.

Well, no, Kevin, with all due respect I don't think I missed the whole point. First, you dismissed the Lakaovian "frames" analysis without engaging it. But from my perspective as a not-overtly-religious person who takes a non-confrontational approach to those who do profess religion, the ENTIRE objection to Obama's speech is that he used and reinforced an extremely effective Radical frame. And of course he was quoted on that and that alone in the national media. So at best Obama was careless.

Second, the fundamental problem for not-overtly-religious people who take a non-confrontational approach to those who do profess religion is that NOTHING we do can satisfy the extremely religious. If we nod and say "thanks for that viewpoint" we are being disrespectful godless athiests. If we engage them in discussion we are "talking down" to them. If we join another church (especially a non-Christian church) we are heathen. If we do nothing at all we are being "silently disrespectful". No action we take /or not take/ will convince them that we are not being "disrespectful". cf Amy Sullivan for a prime example.

Well, so what? Just this: the Radical frame is built on the attitude of the extremely religious and then trickled down to the great majority of quietly religious (well, not so "trickled" when Fox News and Limbaugh get involved - "war on Christmas" anyone?). So when Obama reinforced that frame he did 1000x times more damage than can ever be repaired by appealing to those on the margin who might be convinced not to hate Democrats.

Cranky

Libby and ahem:

I kinda like Amy Sullivan.

Once the early Church was established on said "liberal" message, didn't that then become the new conservatism?

Not really; once the Church became the state religion of the Roman Empire, and, to protect its association with secular power, frequently tempered that liberal message, at least part of the Church became a part of the new conservatism, of course, and that's been a source of ongoing tension within Christianity for a millenium and a half, give or take.

I am so fuggin fed up with these Showcase Democrats (Obama). What they SHOULD be doing with their platforms : Defending us, explaining to the Red States why religion should be left at the door, and pointing out how truly faithless the Repugs really are.

Instead, the Showcase Democrats use their platforms to publicly confess our alleged sins for us, providing grist for the wrongosphere's mill.

And Drum and Sullivan can always be counted on to chime in and defend these pandering confessors.

No wonder America thinks we are weak-kneed, latte-drinking, surrendering Frenchies.

It's interesting to read Al's comment above, as it points out a problem with Obama's positions and with his speech, as well. Al argues that Democrats "hate" people of faith by supporting, among other things the right of gay Americans to marry. Note that there is no acknowledgement that you can be a person of faith and believe in equal access for all Americans to basic rights. Note, also the equation of American "values" with the need to treat gay people as lesser under the law. Note, also, that there is no appreciation that some faiths bless marriages of same-sex members. Mine, for instance. Reform Judaism allows same-sex couples to be married by its rabbis and my husband and I were so married more than six years ago by our rabbi. The question then becomes why does the vision our faith have for us as a married couple get overridden in the law by the views of Southern Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and others who choose to disrespect our faith's views? In tv interviews I have seen, Obama has indicated he opposes the legal right for gay couples to marry because he is a "Christian." That's fine for him as an individual but it is crap as a reason for a position on the civil law. So much for the Establishment clause and so much for the free exercise clause for those who are not part of the Christian majority. So much for the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, as the supposedly "Christian" view gets translated into the inability to access truly thousands of protections other couples take for granted, from family medical leave to COBRA to social security survivor benefits.

Kevin, maybe the reason that liberal members say that you're falling into a conservative trap is that......well....we believe that to be true.

The famous Fox News "Some Have Said" seems to accept the line parroted by the right that liberals are anti-religion. I know you're not intentionally doing so, but this Straw-Man-Deluxe is then picked up the traditional media as "Ya know, the Dems gotta get religion" and we look foolish, no matter what happens.

Of course, if you dig long-and-deep enough, you will find a left-of-center person who disdains organized religion. Or two. Or three, etc. These people are *also* almost certainly.....

* Not elected officials.....
* Nor holding an Democratic Party post
* Nor the head of a major institution
* Nor an editor or publisher.......

....but instead an obscure commentator somewhere.

Now, this wouldn't be so bad....if the members of the Republican Party were, conversely, held personally responsible for Falwell/Robertson, not to mention Phelps/Dobson, et al.

But they are not. And that's because they don't accept the notion that their party bears any responsibility to assuage the feelings of the other side of the political spectrum. "Hey, I may not agree with what theyre sayiong, but by golly, they're got a right....." seems to work for them.

Now, I can understand Barack Obama's desire not to appear to demonize the entire anti-abortion movement; there are different levels of support for that belief and different motives. Fair enough; we all want to conduct ourselves in a civilized way (even if our opponents do not always).

Yet he has no right to take someone like myself to task; the "Some Have Said" claim should not be held like the Sword of Damocles over our heads.

One more thing - Obama's petitioner wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

...."at this point".....something tells me that - while Obama may have gained some points for now by his words - they will be insufficient in the future; the right always ups-the-ante and are never satisfied.

I am so fucking sick of this conversation. How many times?

Bob Casey was largely prevented from speaking at the convention because of his anti-choice views.

Myth. It was because he wouldn't endorse Clinton's candidacy.

I am so fucking sick of this conversation. How many times?

There's the whole internet out there. Go read something else if you're so sick of it.

One more thing - Obama's petitioner wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

My take on that was "Sure. You guys have to use nice language and reasoned argument. Our side - not at all."

I am so fucking sick of this conversation. How many times?

Heh. Indeedy.

I am so fucking sick of this conversation. How many times?

That's the point. Why have this conversation over and over again, just for the benefit of Pat Robertson? Because that's who it's for. If your beliefs point you towards progressive values, then good. If your beliefs point you towards paying for stone tablets and gay-hating, then there's another party waiting to welcome you.

And if your beliefs point you towards progressive values, but you choose to vote for the party of the Pharisees, then I'm very sorry, but you are fucked in the head and the best place for you is a mental hospital.

ahem:

No "real" Christian would endorse Bill Clinton.

cmdicely:

I'm talking the "earlier" Church than Constantine -- think "The Book of Acts" -- that is still my brand of conservatism.

Cranky:

Did you miss this from Kevin's first paragraph: "Actual Democratic politicians — governors, senators, members of congress — never disparage religion, after all. In fact, they're never anything but respectful toward it."?

Actually, Bob Casey wasn't allowed to speak becasue he didn't back the party's nominee for President, but nevermind, make up what ever you want.

There's the whole internet out there. Go read something else if you're so sick of it.

Let me be clearer. I am so fucking sick of the Democratic party having this endless conversation with itself on this non-issue after letting Republicans set the rules of dialogue on it.

MNPundit:
One example as Kevin did document is Bob Casey, as best as Kevin could tell when he looked, Bob Casey was largely prevented from speaking at the convention because of his anti-choice views. Personally I don't think it is a good example, but that is a popular one.

It is bad enough when right-wingers repeat this canard, so please get your facts straight. Casey was prevented from speaking at the 1992 convention because he didn't endorse Clinton.

Dems opposed to abortion spoke at the convention, and did you notice the current minority leader opposes abortion?

Can you possibly imagine either happening in the Republican party?

The undeniable inference is that Obama thinks you can't speak in moral terms without discussing religion. This is inaccurate. The possible inference is that Oblama thinks there can't be morality absent religion. This is offensive.

If you actually read Obama's speech, you'd likely realize this is pretty far off. He brings this up specifically.

Personally, I've recommended a Democrat group work with religious institutions on issues with large overlap (e.g. poverty) and pretty much got ridiculed out of the place. Do I think Obabma's pushing a straw man argument? How can the left blogosphere ever be wrong?

Despite the hostility I have personally experienced from the left, I think the left, in general, is far more tolerant than the right.

Now, this is going to get confusing -- I will change my name to "Doug M." for the sake of some clarity.

I don't object to Obama identifying himself as a "person of faith." I do object to him using his faith as a basis for his political actions. Every vote he casts as an elected public official must serve a valid secular purpose. His religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Some group has been buying ads on Air America Radio featuring Julia Sweeney, the former Saturday Night Live comic, identifying herself as an atheist and author of "Letting Go of God" and calling for action to prevent the move toward theocracy.

Now I agree with her that we should protect secular democracy, but her spiel grates on my ears, and most of the 85% to 90% of Americans who go to church and/or have religious beliefs who hear that ad probably think: Atheist, mocks God, liberal, Democrat.

So mark her down as a prominent liberal who wants to take discussion of religion out of the public square.

So "some liberals" turns out to be the ACLU.

Great, not only does Obama confess our sins for us, Kevin Drum offers up the "sinners" for a sacrifice.

Shit. With Democrat friends like these, who needs Republicans?

Sorry Doug M. - I was so excited about the Casey not allowed to speak at the convention canard, I didn't check my sig line.

For way too long progressives have abandoned the moral high ground to "fundamentalists" who claim we are Godless barbarians believing in nothing worth while. We have even let the fundamentalists define the phrase "secular humanist" as a pejorative. When they sneer “secular humanist” they imply baby eating immoral monsters. Progressives buy right into the frame. No one wants to be thought of as a baby eating immoral monster. The religious humanists recoil thinking the word "secular" is the operative pejorative. The secularists recoil thinking all religious people are attacking them. The language itself creates a wedge. It is that wedge you will see on desplay as religious humanists and non-religious secularists banter back and forth.

At the same time the fundamentalists use the term to lump all progressives together, and to diminish the importance of human dignity and the rights of men. Their own followers don't realize that they are being fed some sort of hate filled judgmental old testament mumbo jumbo that has little to do with the message of Christ.

The fundamenalists laugh and laugh at how easily we are all distracted.

That's right, Friend of Labor -- the GOP would never stand for a Vice-Presidential candidate who still loves his lesbian daughter, or God forbid, a DARKIE as Secretary of State. Keep 'em coming, why don't ya?

I still think it's a New Left legacy. We lose the ability to dialog with people who might be our allies because of our distaste for religion.

There's a good Bloggingheads TV that mentioned this:

http://bloggingheads.tv/?id=98&cid=367

No problem, Doug -- there can never be enough "Dougs" in the world.

Boy these comments do pile up fast. The following was inspired by Cranky Observer, writing in Comment No. 2.

===========

Dear Cranky,

I can’t speak for Kevin. But, speaking for myself, I don’t know any successful Democratic politicians or party leaders who are openly disrespectful of religion, and I’m not surprised. In a country where 76.5% of the population identifies itself as Christian and only 13.2% identifies itself as Nonreligious/secular, people who candidly diss religion in public aren’t very likely to get elected to any government or leadership position. (Figures as of 2001, source http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions)

That said, I’ve been close enough to the action (a term as International Vice Chair of Democrats Abroad and, thus, a participant in meetings of both the DNC and the ASDC) to be fairly confident of what I’m about to say.

As a party we believe in separation of Church and State. As individuals (both religious and non-religious) we find it comfortable to treat religion as a topic that shouldn’t be raised in polite conversation unless the people involved are already good friends and comfortable with where each other stand. In more colorful words, we are in the habit of treating religion the way in which the mythical maiden aunt treats sex, a subject for blushes, giggles and whispers if anything is said at all, which, on the whole, we prefer doesn’t happen.

In addition, we have in our ranks a fair proportion of vocal atheists, folks who have bought so firmly into the Enlightenment proposition that religion is superstition or the stronger Marxist version that religion is the opiate with which the powers that be keep the people drugged. Their kneejerk snarkiness (the kind that Kevin predicts will fill this thread) is a barrier to civil conversation about how we, as a party, should talk with religious people about values that we share, so that they will vote for us instead of the other side. That’s a real problem for us since the other side then gets to wrap itself in God as well as Flag and Family--which may look stupid and vulgar to some of us but has been a real edge for them when it comes to fundraising and getting people to the poles.

Me, I take, for example, a look at something like Jim Wallis’ book God’s Politics, and I know that I don’t buy into his theology. But somebody that concerned about topics like peace and poverty and protecting the environment, I can work with him. And I don’t feel bashful about borrowing his Biblical rhetoric when I’m talking to people who share his believes. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” lots of good stuff there. I remember a French king who said, “Paris is worth a mass.“ I also remember a Baptist preacher named Martin Luther King, and I say to myself, “Damn,‘We can do better together’ is feeble. ‘We shall overcome’ is great.”

It's got very little to do with Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson is not the only religious person in the country.

Ron:

Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament, not abolish it.

Julia Sweeney is a prominent liberal?

Boy these comments do pile up fast. The following was inspired by Cranky Observer, writing in Comment No. 2.

===========

Dear Cranky,

I can’t speak for Kevin. But, speaking for myself, I don’t know any successful Democratic politicians or party leaders who are openly disrespectful of religion, and I’m not surprised. In a country where 76.5% of the population identifies itself as Christian and only 13.2% identifies itself as Nonreligious/secular, people who candidly diss religion in public aren’t very likely to get elected to any government or leadership position. (Figures as of 2001, source http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions)

That said, I’ve been close enough to the action (a term as International Vice Chair of Democrats Abroad and, thus, a participant in meetings of both the DNC and the ASDC) to be fairly confident of what I’m about to say.

As a party we believe in separation of Church and State. As individuals (both religious and non-religious) we find it comfortable to treat religion as a topic that shouldn’t be raised in polite conversation unless the people involved are already good friends and comfortable with where each other stand. In more colorful words, we are in the habit of treating religion the way in which the mythical maiden aunt treats sex, a subject for blushes, giggles and whispers if anything is said at all, which, on the whole, we prefer doesn’t happen.

In addition, we have in our ranks a fair proportion of vocal atheists, folks who have bought so firmly into the Enlightenment proposition that religion is superstition or the stronger Marxist version that religion is the opiate with which the powers that be keep the people drugged. Their kneejerk snarkiness (the kind that Kevin predicts will fill this thread) is a barrier to civil conversation about how we, as a party, should talk with religious people about values that we share, so that they will vote for us instead of the other side. That’s a real problem for us since the other side then gets to wrap itself in God as well as Flag and Family--which may look stupid and vulgar to some of us but has been a real edge for them when it comes to fundraising and getting people to the poles.

Me, I take, for example, a look at something like Jim Wallis’ book God’s Politics, and I know that I don’t buy into his theology. But somebody that concerned about topics like peace and poverty and protecting the environment, I can work with him. And I don’t feel bashful about borrowing his Biblical rhetoric when I’m talking to people who share his believes. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” lots of good stuff there. I remember a French king who said, “Paris is worth a mass.“ I also remember a Baptist preacher named Martin Luther King, and I say to myself, “Damn,‘We can do better together’ is feeble. ‘We shall overcome’ is great.”

Their own followers don't realize that they are being fed some sort of hate filled judgmental old testament mumbo jumbo that has little to do with the message of Christ.

Here we go again. Have you actually read "the message of Christ?" He said quite a few things no self-respecting liberal would endorse.

First of all, the major "blogofascist" reaction to Obama was to the NEWS COVERAGE of the speech. You can say we over-reacted, but at least give us the credit of accurately identifying what we were reacting to.

Second (and hopefully for the last time), Obama is a senator. Senators write laws. Whatever other jawboning they do is all well and good. But his job is to write laws. So I ask him--and other similarly-inclined Democrats: what LAWS do you plan to write to help fix the crisis of liberal intolerance towards Christianity?

That's what I thought.

What's funny is that if it weren't for a a single vote on the Supreme Court in 2000, or a few ballot boxes in Ohio in 2004, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Talk about a "winner take all" politics ...

Julia Sweeney is a prominent liberal?

Boy these comments do pile up fast. The following was inspired by Cranky Observer, writing in Comment No. 2.

===========

Dear Cranky,

I can’t speak for Kevin. But, speaking for myself, I don’t know any successful Democratic politicians or party leaders who are openly disrespectful of religion, and I’m not surprised. In a country where 76.5% of the population identifies itself as Christian and only 13.2% identifies itself as Nonreligious/secular, people who candidly diss religion in public aren’t very likely to get elected to any government or leadership position. (Figures as of 2001, source http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions)

That said, I’ve been close enough to the action (a term as International Vice Chair of Democrats Abroad and, thus, a participant in meetings of both the DNC and the ASDC) to be fairly confident of what I’m about to say.

As a party we believe in separation of Church and State. As individuals (both religious and non-religious) we find it comfortable to treat religion as a topic that shouldn’t be raised in polite conversation unless the people involved are already good friends and comfortable with where each other stand. In more colorful words, we are in the habit of treating religion the way in which the mythical maiden aunt treats sex, a subject for blushes, giggles and whispers if anything is said at all, which, on the whole, we prefer doesn’t happen.

In addition, we have in our ranks a fair proportion of vocal atheists, folks who have bought so firmly into the Enlightenment proposition that religion is superstition or the stronger Marxist version that religion is the opiate with which the powers that be keep the people drugged. Their kneejerk snarkiness (the kind that Kevin predicts will fill this thread) is a barrier to civil conversation about how we, as a party, should talk with religious people about values that we share, so that they will vote for us instead of the other side. That’s a real problem for us since the other side then gets to wrap itself in God as well as Flag and Family--which may look stupid and vulgar to some of us but has been a real edge for them when it comes to fundraising and getting people to the poles.

Me, I take, for example, a look at something like Jim Wallis’ book God’s Politics, and I know that I don’t buy into his theology. But somebody that concerned about topics like peace and poverty and protecting the environment, I can work with him. And I don’t feel bashful about borrowing his Biblical rhetoric when I’m talking to people who share his believes. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” lots of good stuff there. I remember a French king who said, “Paris is worth a mass.“ I also remember a Baptist preacher named Martin Luther King, and I say to myself, “Damn,‘We can do better together’ is feeble. ‘We shall overcome’ is great.”

Um, isn't that the very definition of what secularism is?

No.

Secularism doesn't mean pretending that your religion doesn't exist - it means not trying to insert the specific elements of your religion into the lives of others, especially those who don't ascribe to it.

I don't think that's accurate, either, unless one narrowly defines "specific elements"*, but even if it were, that's quite different from checking your religion at the door when entering the public square.

*I would say "secularism" requires that:

1) People should not be prohibited by the state from professing, teaching, or studying any moral or religious doctrine;
2) People should not be mandate to engage in any religious display, observance, or ritual by the state;
3) People should not be prohibited from any religious display, observance, or ritual by the staet on account of the religious content;
4) People should not be mandated or prohibited to engage in any activity by the state because of that activities effect on the spread of a particular religious or moral doctrine; and
5) People should not be mandated or prohibited to engage in any activity by the state because of private religious morality, that is, because engaging in that activity would (in the perception of some authority) injure their "soul", their "relationship with God", etc.

"Secularism" does not, to my eye, restrict the role of public morality—ideas, religious or otherwise, about right or wrong of actions affecting other people—except as is necessarily included in 1-4, above.

I think it's okay for a religious politician to say "we should vote for some bill because it's the right thing to do."

It's not okay to say "we should vote for some bill because my God says so."

I'm part of the "religious left" and every time I mention that fact on a progressive web site, there is a wave of disdain for my primitive, superstitious point of view. Obviously no prominent Democrat/liberal would ever disparage any religion, but among the progressive grassroots, religion is a whipping boy. I should say Christianity - nobody would attack Jews, Buddhists, or Native American shamans the way they attack Christians.

From the thread above we read:

"Does the odd crank who files a lawsuit against the use of "under God" in the Pledge "represent" the progressive grass roots any more than, say, Coulter represents the views of conservative grass roots?"

So now "some say" that Michael Newdow (and by extension the majority of the Ninth Circuit Court) are morally equivalent to Ann Coulter?

I find it sad that many folks on my side of the political fence still find it expedient to denigrate Newdow as a "crank" and an anti-religious zealot. In fact, his case was all about tolerance in the schools (yes, even of atheists!) and the constitutional principle that prescribes no establishment of religion by the government.

The fact that he is right on both counts doesn't seem to cut him much slack with the left, and it cuts him exactly zero slack with the Democratic Party and its elected representatives.

Sad, really.

I think Obama would have been more accurate had he said too many liberals are indifferent to religion/matters of faith.

This makes it easy for the devout to see (or caricature) liberals as hostile to religion.

Compounding our difficulties, we are uncomfortable talking about politics in transcendental terms. The technocratic/competence model of a Dukakis, say, is silent about the larger purposes of the American experiment.

Which is too bad. To be able to talk about liberalism in noble, uplifing terms, that may or may not be borrowed by religion, makes it that much harder to widen our appeal.

Well, I disagree with shortstop and craigie that we should somehow avoid this issue. We're going to be framed as religion-hostile secularists whether we debate ourselves about it or not.

Two observations which balance each other:

First of all, snarky secularism is real. Lords know it pops up like clockwork whenever the subject comes up. I've made my share of these comments to be sure -- and I'm an agnostic who finds the smug scientism of "many" atheists to be quite irritating.

I do think we could drop the displacement and at least honestly acknowledge this.

NOW -- that being said, there's another side to this which John H pointed out: Keeping religion to oneself used to be a conservative value.

The *religiosity* is fairly new -- and it is often applied as an attack on secularism. So it's hard to blame us too thoroughly for snarking back. We'd honestly be happy to leave people alone with their beliefs -- but the religiose stress the salutory *social* effects of being religious -- and too often screw with Separation in the process.

How do we avoid defending the vast middle ground who are religious without being preachy?

Realize, first of all, that we'll never, ever win over the religiose.

Bob

Doug M-

"SOME" conservatives aren't too fond of DARKIE Colin Powell...

http://www.resist.com/positions/Politics.html

CKT

I know several non-religious people who are obsessed with taking religion out of the public sphere. I understand their intellectual position, but I don't think its politically practical. As for the ACLU, in my experience it depends on the local chapter. In southern California, the affiliate, as it is called, is strongly secularist and jumps on the chance to fight minor skirmishes against public observation of religion. The fight over the Los Angeles County seal was one example. Meanwhile, this same group stayed silent when a Pasadena school teacher was censored and publicly humiliated for discussing race in an email message to his fellow teachers. That's not being neutrally supportive of free speech, it's being politically correct in the worst sense of the term. One local chapter was turned into a leftist anti-Bush group and continues. The fact that the Bush administration has been anti-libertarian in terms of privacy has resonated with that approach, to the extent that the locals might as well be a chapter of the revolutionary socialist party. We really do need an American civil liberties union, it's just that the ACLU isn't it, much of the time.

I think that Obama is more or less on the right track here: The goal isn't to push either extreme (atheism as public policy vs. a theocratic republic), but to work on the liberal impulse that at least some religious people have; It's not going to be possible to recruit southern Baptists in droves to the Democratic side, but it may be possible to mute some of the intensity of their devotion to the Republican Party. In other words, those of them who have some economic kinship with Democrats need some excuse to reject the political totalitarianism of the religious right.

As usual, a number of important distinctions have been effaced.

First, the Constitution precludes religion from the institutions of the *state*. QED.

It does that, however, precisely to ensure that no one's religion is excluded from *politics* (i.e., the public square), which I take it was the point of the good Senator from Illinois' speech.

However, religious people (at least the unhinged ones) often play fast and loose here. On the one hand, they want to be able to take their religion with them into the public square, to which they have a constitutional right. BUT if religious people are going to bring their religion with them into the public square, they cannot object when those ideas are subject to scrutiny, whether intellectual, rational, or moral scrutiny. They do not get a pass simnply because they have labeled a given idea "religious."

You want to bring your religious ideas into public debate? Fine. But if you're gonna claim that schoolchildren should not be vaccinated because of your religious belief, or that abstinence-only programs work, or that a woman does not have the right to choose, etc., etc., prepare to have your ideas countered. Whether that causes a crisis of faith for you is not a concern to me.

BTW, we could use a few more "Bertrand" Russells these days.

Big mistake: avoid defending = avoid OFFending

I know several non-religious people who are obsessed with taking religion out of the public sphere. I understand their intellectual position, but I don't think its politically practical. As for the ACLU, in my experience it depends on the local chapter. In southern California, the affiliate, as it is called, is strongly secularist and jumps on the chance to fight minor skirmishes against public observation of religion. The fight over the Los Angeles County seal was one example. Meanwhile, this same group stayed silent when a Pasadena school teacher was censored and publicly humiliated for discussing race in an email message to his fellow teachers. That's not being neutrally supportive of free speech, it's being politically correct in the worst sense of the term. One local chapter was turned into a leftist anti-Bush group and continues. The fact that the Bush administration has been anti-libertarian in terms of privacy has resonated with that approach, to the extent that the locals might as well be a chapter of the revolutionary socialist party. We really do need an American civil liberties union, it's just that the ACLU isn't it, much of the time.

I think that Obama is more or less on the right track here: The goal isn't to push either extreme (atheism as public policy vs. a theocratic republic), but to work on the liberal impulse that at least some religious people have; It's not going to be possible to recruit southern Baptists in droves to the Democratic side, but it may be possible to mute some of the intensity of their devotion to the Republican Party. In other words, those of them who have some economic kinship with Democrats need some excuse to reject the political totalitarianism of the religious right.

Democrats don't need to kow-tow to the far-right it's the Christians closer to the middle that still have their sanity and could possibly turn left. If Senator Obama and other Democrats continue to back up their words with their deeds--the complete opposide of what the far right does--then perhaps next November the Democrats efforts will be rewarded.

My instincts say Obama is a decent human being and that's what this country needs more of in politics--more flawed but decent human beings.

I do object to him using his faith as a basis for his political actions. Every vote he casts as an elected public official must serve a valid secular purpose. His religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Everyone has a set of moral values. To think that people can extricate themselves completely from any value judgement is pretty childish. You may not follow a moral code based on religion, but any time you talk about "the common good", you are making a value, normative judgement.

I'm talking the "earlier" Church than Constantine -- think "The Book of Acts" -- that is still my brand of conservatism.

While it has some relation to communal Christian societies that would be politically associated with both the "left" and the "right" today, the Church of Acts has very little clear political content of either "liberal" or "conservative" character.

I never though Bush was a particular religious man, unlike other's who say Bush has this problem, like Albright. Bush only uses religion as a poltical tool, a wedge issue for redneck following.

Bush is know to like telling dirty jokes according to board members of companies that have to have Bush on among them simply for favortism features. Bush has had a unsavory past, doing some pretty ugly things, like that part where Bush's tells about an African American woman on death row begging, according to Bush, "please don't kill me", which of course never happen even though Bush likes to pretend it did.

Why Obana is talking about this religious issue is frankly, the very least that Dems need to be worried about right now. All this focus on centrist BS issues is what is causing concern. This type of play to-the-rightwing centrist spinelessness is what's causings Dems to look just exactly like the same unpopular party in power, the GOP. Running on this issues are not what voters are looking for right now.

Everyone has a set of moral values. To think that people can extricate themselves completely from any value judgement is pretty childish.

More importantly, to think that any policy decision can be made without reference to morality, or to think that one can neatly compartmentalize religious from non-religious morality in the same person, is idiotic.

that's quite different from checking your religion at the door when entering the public square.

Is it? So what, exactly, does "checking your religion at the door when entering the public square" mean? The phrase seems expressly designed to be vague and obscure rather than to express a clear position on meaning of the principle of separation of church and state. If politicians should not have to "check their religion at the door when entering the public square," does that mean they may legitimately use their religious beliefs as a basis for their actions as a public official? Or what?

I know several non-religious people who are obsessed with taking religion out of the public sphere. I understand their intellectual position, but I don't think its politically practical. As for the ACLU, in my experience it depends on the local chapter. In southern California, the affiliate, as it is called, is strongly secularist and jumps on the chance to fight minor skirmishes against public observation of religion. The fight over the Los Angeles County seal was one example. Meanwhile, this same group stayed silent when a Pasadena school teacher was censored and publicly humiliated for discussing race in an email message to his fellow teachers. That's not being neutrally supportive of free speech, it's being politically correct in the worst sense of the term. One local chapter was turned into a leftist anti-Bush group and continues. The fact that the Bush administration has been anti-libertarian in terms of privacy has resonated with that approach, to the extent that the locals might as well be a chapter of the revolutionary socialist party. We really do need an American civil liberties union, it's just that the ACLU isn't it, much of the time.

I think that Obama is more or less on the right track here: The goal isn't to push either extreme (atheism as public policy vs. a theocratic republic), but to work on the liberal impulse that at least some religious people have; It's not going to be possible to recruit southern Baptists in droves to the Democratic side, but it may be possible to mute some of the intensity of their devotion to the Republican Party. In other words, those of them who have some economic kinship with Democrats need some excuse to reject the political totalitarianism of the religious right.

BTW, we could use a few more "Bertrand" Russells these days.

Touche. It's been a while since college... He at least deserves to get his name spelled right.
And as I remember he certainly gets his points across quite capably.

"Good point Kevin. Obama was simply trying to point out how much liberal Democrats hate people of faith by supporting gay marriage and murder of the unborn. Moderates, indepedents, and people of faith are unwilling to support liberals so long as they are against traditional American values. Unfortunately, Kos has already sent his army of secular atheistic leftists the marching orders to attack Obama and anyone else who stands side by side with people of faith in their defense of traditional American values. Once again the Kingpin Kos is the undoing of liberals and democrats."

When you read stuff like this, its difficut to avoid the feeling that 30's commies sounded much like this, but with slightly different terminology. Its a different language. Like a Pat Benetar song, literally every line is a cliche. "You're a real tough cookie, with a long history..."

Everyone has a set of moral values. To think that people can extricate themselves completely from any value judgement is pretty childish.

I don't think, and didn't say, that people can extricate themselves from value judgements. I said that every vote a politician casts as an elected public official must serve a valid secular purpose.

Do you disagree? Do you think politicians may legitimately cast a vote that serves only a religious purpose?

Obama was simply trying to point out how much liberal Democrats hate people of faith by supporting gay marriage and murder of the unborn. Moderates, indepedents, and people of faith are unwilling to support liberals so long as they are against traditional American values.
Posted by: Al on July 5, 2006 at 12:28 PM

All I can say is that if Al is posting seemingly in agreement, giving you accolades for having a good point and such, this can't be good!

Now, this is going to get confusing -- I will change my name to "Doug M." for the sake of some clarity.

Just change it to Charlie and be done with it.

Religion: Of the delusional, by the delusional and for the delusional.

Put me in the "where the sun doesn't shine" group.

More importantly, to think that any policy decision can be made without reference to morality, or to think that one can neatly compartmentalize religious from non-religious morality in the same person, is idiotic.

To think that religious purposes and secular purposes cannot meaningfully be distinguished is beyond idiotic.

athos wrote:

So now "some say" that Michael Newdow (and by extension the majority of the Ninth Circuit Court) are morally equivalent to Ann Coulter?

I meant to make a facetious comparison. I was unclear. My apologies.

And I agree with your overall point. But...most people do view Newdow as a crank, even if they agree with him. Sorry if that hurts!

cranky wrote: snarky liberal secularists telling everyone else to take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.

Doug replied: Hostile and SecularAnimist are the most prominent ones here -- you really need 8 more examples, Cranky?

I have never told anyone to "take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine" and I most certainly have never said that myth is "stupid". Myth is a powerful and important part of the human psyche and of human culture. Nor is myth antithetical to secularism or vice versa.

By far the most outspoken, aggressive, hostile and belligerent atheist and basher of religion to comment on these pages is Don P, who recently has been posting with the handle "GOP", who is a right-wing Bush-supporting conservative, and his attacks on religion have consistently been focused on liberal Christians.

To think that religious purposes and secular purposes cannot meaningfully be distinguished is beyond idiotic.

To think that they are exclusive is also beyond idiotic; any purpose which addresses an effect on other persons, or on the material world, is "secular" whether or not it is also "religious".

(Whether it is a valid secular purpose, of course, involves an additional question, whether or not it intrudes into an area in which government action is forbidden, secular purpose or not.)

Kevin,
Simple question, yes or no: should the resources of the United States Government (federal) be used to promote Christianity?

Cranky

Apologies for the multiple postings. I was having trouble getting the thing to upload and cancelled it (or so I thought) in order to try again. Apparently my cancellation is not the same as the web site's.

I have a problem with the big announcements that Democrats need to adres religion more, because of some shift of the country to the more religious or, as someone above, because of the 85% or so that go to church.

The religious shift is an imagined one, pushed by the media, not a real one, as one can see when looking at studies, one of which just cited in Esquire (Survey of the American man). Here you can read:

A"merica is an increasingly religious, increasingly conservative country, right?

Wrong. That was just one of many things that surprised us as we sifted through the results of Esquire's Survey of the American Man. In fact, while 78 percent of our panel of more than one thousand men said they believe in God, 64 percent either never go to their houses of worship or go only on holidays."

http://esquire.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&EXTRA_ARG=GO.X%3D0%00%26GO.Y%3D0&CFGNAME=MssFind.cfg&host_id=42&page_id=126&query=state%20of%20the%20american%20man&hiword=man%20of%20the%20AMERICA%20american%20AMERICANS%20AMERICAS%20STAT%20state%20STATEMENT%20STATEMENTS%20STATES%20STATIC%20STATING%20STATION%20STATIONS%20STATURE%20STATUS%20

Some religious people those are.

Kevin quotes Obama as asking: So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will?

Partnerships between religious and secular people of good will are longstanding, and strong. Just to think of two examples, they were crucial to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, and to the opposition to the Reagan administration's murderous policies in Central America in the 1980s. And they have been the foundation of anti-war and pacifist movements throughout American history.

By far the most outspoken, aggressive, hostile and belligerent atheist and basher of religion to comment on these pages is Don P, who recently has been posting with the handle "GOP"

And, perhaps more relevantly to this thread, also the handle of "Atheist". But then, I don't think "Don P