re: "85% of Americans say that religion is "an important part" of their lives"

How many of them actually believe, behave, or live in accordance with what they tell the pollsters?

More than a few tell the pollsters that because that's what they've been conditioned to say as the "right answer" (even if they don't actually believe it, much less live it).

Well, you really are implying that Democratic religious outreach will be decisive to future political success, at least in close elections, and I don't really see any problem with doing so either, because it's a sound argument.

Oh sure, as if Democrats just need to embrace preachers making radical claims more like those made by Hagee rather than hose made by Wright (which was unpatriotic).

Wright referred, among other things, to aggressive actions taken by the US government, as possibly having some being contributory (i.e.: "why they hate us") role in both domestic and foreign policy problems. Obviously, THAT is political suicide. Why, it's unpatriotic to even suggest it. You saw how far it got Ron Paul to try to make a some of the same case using more logical and less inflammatory rhetoric.

In comparison, guys like Hagee, Falwell & Robertson blamed major misfortunes that befall America on deviant sexual behavior in general (implicated as a possible causality in the 9/11 attacks) and gay pride parades in particular (implicated in the Katrina deluge). The primary characteristic that people who believe stuff like that have in common is gullibility, which makes them ideal members of the base of today's GOP. Face it: they've got this demographic group sewed up.

Well, since you asked, reposted from a few threads down:

As enozinho says, it's complete and utter bullshit...but also the next logical step in the "show us your faith!!!" game that for better or worse all political candidates seem compelled to play these days (the very game, in fact, that Amy Sullivan is so keen on playing). For my money, Howard Dean's been the only candidate of recent note who has had the right idea of how to handle it.

As I told my sister, who doesn't follow anything as closely as I do, when she called me and started breathlessly relating what Mormons believe (this was back when Romney was still in) and asked, "isn't that ridiculous?" and I replied, "well, there are other people who believe that a woman who had never been touched by a man got pregnant by a spirit and gave birth to a god...is that really less ridiculous?" And she had to admit that no, it really wasn't any less ridiculous or unlikely just because people had been believing it for longer.

The way to make this go away, once and for all, is for some statesmanlike figure, respected by all sides but not officially connected with any campaign, to step forward and make this point, perhaps even by pointing out the beliefs of different faith communities that people not in that community would find ridiculous...a statement that every person listening would nod along with in agreement up until the point their particular ox was gored. The very mild ridicule of aspects of each faith in turn would virtually guarantee wall-to-wall coverage for several days at least, since the media loves to cover nothing more than "let's you and him fight" but I think the message would sink in: yes, anyone who doesn't follow your flavor of woo-woo is going to see some things in it that strain credulity, just as you're going to see the same in theirs...and this is why it shouldn't be a political issue in the first place. Because if it is, we're going to quickly arrive at a place where NO candidate is acceptable to a majority of people, simply because the beliefs he or she has that cannot be proven do not match up with the beliefs a lot of individual voters have which cannot be proven. And isn't that the very DUMBEST way to decide who's best fit and qualified to lead - on the basis of everyone agreeing on something no one can PROVE? Yes, yes indeed it is.

As Amanda Marcotte says, WTF do I even know the name of Obama's pastor? Seriously, if we're going to vett candidates on this basis, let's get to work and talk about all the times other candidates may have been in the pews when the leader of their particular church said something sexist, or homophobic, or xenophobic, and so on. Lord knows there's ample evidence it goes on in to some extent in virtually every church. And all but the most brain dead fundamentalists know that they've heard things from the pulpit that they either found offensive or disagreed with from time to time, but just as you don't dump people because no single individual ever agrees with you 100% of the time, that's not a great reason for dumping an institution with which you have long and enduring ties, either. If it is, we're going to quickly find ourselves with lot of churches standing empty every Sunday. And as for those most brain dead fundamentalists who won't get the point, they aren't going to vote for us anyway so no point in worrying about pissing them off. So let's make the "faith homes" of all the other candidates an issue as well. What about their responsibility to denounce their personal minister and sever all ties because he preaches that women should do what men say or that god hates queers above all else? Let's get to work and spread the fun around. If the Republicans want to play that game, in all seriousness, bring it on.

....

See what's wrong with the picture? Here's a novel idea: why don't we reach out to ALL voters with the same message: regardless of what your unprovable beliefs may be and whether or not we are in 100% agreement in that regard, here are some things you need IN THIS WORLD: healthcare, good schools for your kids, a stable economy, decent wages, and so on.

My entire issue with this "you're neglecting the faith community" argument is that, no, we aren't. We just aren't trying to proselytize them on an issue where no one can prove what the truth is. If we're gonna proselytize, we should be doing it on things that are tangible needs that any observer can clearly see are tangible needs.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about how we can make this "issue" go away.

Like it or not, the U.S. is a religious country.

I'll take NOT. It is sad that in an advanced western country we have 85% of our population clinging to painfully stupid superstitions.

The way to solve the religion problem is to drive it underground. We need a cultural shift so people are embarrassed to admit they believe in a god, like they'd be embarrassed to admit that they believe in fairies. Much of Europe is there, and we should follow suit.

Religious belief deserves ZERO respect. Acting as if it does is a betrayal of the principles progressives are fighting for. Yes, Republicans have a near monopoly on throwing red meat to the rubes in exchange for the votes to put their pro-wealthy agenda into practice. If Dems have to do the same to win elections, I'm not sure it's worth it.

"Paul Baumann writes that I suggest Democratic religious outreach will play a decisive role in the party's future success. In fact, the book makes no such claim. ... the party that doesn't talk to religious voters is at an automatic disadvantage. In close elections, that can make a difference."

Huh?

I'm curious about something.

Is there a precedent for this; for proactively targeting, or "talking to" as you put it, religious voters within the Democratic party?

Did FDR do this? Did JFK give speeches to religious organizations and church groups?

This is an important question, because if the answer is no, then it calls in question why this is necessary now, since as you put stated the number of Americans who "say that religion is "an important part" of their lives" hasn't budges in the past four decades.

Also, an approach like this has some possible side effects. It's entirely possible that for every moderate "religious voter" you pick up you alienate a traditional, "wary of god talk", progressive. This could lead to a situation in which the democratic constituency grows in nature but not in size.

I know it is taken for granted that progressive voters will back the democrat even if they are uncomfortable with many of there more moderate positions. However, we are right now on the precipice of a potential cataclysmic event that could have a huge impact on the democratic party and the American political landscape for a generation.

Radical acts can have radical consequences. Hillary Clinton staying in this race is nothing short of a radical act and has the potential to change the political landscape in America for a generation if she succeeds in bringing Obama down, and winning the nomination.

I think a lot of pundits, including Kevin, are seriously underestimating what this is going to feel like and what effect this will have. Should this happen progressive voters will be abandoning the party in DROVES. It will certainly not be an ideal time for adding religious voters. It’s hard to colonize new territory when you have a mutiny on your hands.

http://100reasonsnottovoteforhillaryclinton.blogspot.com/

Rather than focus on religion I think now is the time to focus the political debate away from religion and more on the creation of sound public policy.

A unique set of circumstances gave rise to what we now consider to be the conservative Christian movement in American politics. Conservatives involved in hot-button issues in the early 80s -- anti-communism, re-build respect for the military, family values (anti-abortion, school prayer, anti-gay, creationism, etc), activist judges & anti-regulation -- these old-line & movement conservatives looked around and saw that many of the people active on these issues were also Christians and Republicans. They realized they had not only a common set of concerns but a platform (evangelical TV networks, large churches, the GOP) to brand their goals and missions.

At the same time liberals, who have always been religious (think who led the civil rights, anti-Vietnam war & anti-nuclear efforts) were focused on other issues that tended to have less of a religious consensus. Issues like the ERA/women's rights, gay rights, anti-nuclear, reproductive rights, homelessness & anti-poverty & immigration all had their religious advocates but not a unified, liberal religious response. And liberals generally are not into organized proselytizing so the desire & platform for mass marketing our faith was lacking.

Yet liberal people have always been active in faith communities and are very respectful of religion and religious concerns. We have been outgunned and perhaps unaware, until these last few years, of the extent to which conservatives have branded us as hostile to religion & used that image to portray us as big government advocates who used the levers of power to block religious expression.

What offends conservative Christians the most is that people disagree with them -- the believers in the infallible word of the One True God. And because the conservative political agenda is so closely intertwined with their religious agenda it's easy for them to assert that people who disagree with them are anti-religious.

Yet we have well-founded reasons for disagreeing with them on a variety of public policy issues. And we will respectfully disagree with them right through the November elections and beyond.

I am a non-traditional Catholic who rejects the old notions of the papacy and the hagiography of the saints and warmly embraces the Church's social justice teachings and traditions of helping the poor. I don't think being a Christian is at all incompatible with being a progressive, in fact, I think being a conservative is incompatible with being a Christian.

Count me as one of the religious left.

the religious right and the GOP spent a lot of time and effort pushing the idea. But they were able to claim a monopoly on religion because the Democratic political class bought their spin.

That's true, the Democrats should not be afraid of engaging with religious audiences. So, they can do that. Let's allocate 5 percent of the blame for the current state of affairs to skittish Democrats, 75 percent of it to the GOP jihad machine, and 20 percent to journalists who pound home the groundless narrative that the Democrats have had a "traditional fight or flight reaction to religion."

And then let's move on. Because this is a small point about which groups Dems meet with. (Not about tone, though-- no Democratic candidate for anything ever has said that faith is dumb or bad).

Also, I had the same reaction as Ovid.

Outreach?

Politicians speak some of the worst nonsense I have ever heard, so they should feel right at home with the religious illusionists. I talk to religious people all the time, I even go to protest marches with them, against Scientology.

They are nuts, but still my best friends, what do I care?

I like Obama, he will talk to anyone, why not?

The best the Democratic party can do is to cast doubt about the sincerity of Republicans as they manipulate the faithful for their political gains. The Democratic party should stress it's adherence to the separation of church and state.

In Alabama, Gov. Riley, a religious Republican, looked at the disaster of his state's financial picture and the corresponding dysfunctional educational system, and he put together a reform proposal based on a graduated income tax that was radical enough that it required a referendum to be enacted. He told his constituents what he was doing and why, including his firm conviction that Jesus would want it done to help protect the "least of my brethren." He also pointed out that most taxpayers would save money, that his plan would only increase the taxes at the top income brackets. And of course the good people of Alabama rejected it.

So given that episode, I don't see how appeals to religion are politically useful to Democrats. Here was a case where, for most of the voters, the religious case for altruism was pretty clearly aligned with self-interest, and still lost at the polls. (And Riley was no Democrat.)

Maybe there's a Christian case to be made for economic justice when all the people with JOHN 3:16 on their bumper stickers swap it out for MATT 25:40. Or maybe distributing those bumper stickers is the best thing the Democrats could do right now. Your thoughts?

> This is an important question, because
> if the answer is no, then it calls in
> question why this is necessary now,

Because white male authoritarians are starting to feel uncomfortable about their future place in American society, and it is necessary to comfort them.

Many of these white male authoritarians are also, (or call themselves, or make cynical use of) evangelical Christians. But somehow the need to reassure the white males has gotten conflated with the need to 'respect' their professed on-sleeve religion.

Cranky

Politics is the art of making friends. What's wrong with making friends with liberal religious voters?

I'm with The Conservative Deflator. I'm a United Methodist, and I think the teachings of the Bible fit quite nicely with the tenets of the Democratic Party. I'm all for taking care of "the least of these." Why fight it? My problem with religion and politics is that I think they should stay seperate. I can be a Christian and practice Christian philosophies, but I shouldn't have to prove I'm (not) one to qualify for office or for my party.

Frankly, I didn't know I didn't conform with contemporary Democratic Party views regarding religion until Rove and the Republicans claimed my type for the Republican Party, and Democrats rejected us.

BTW, I know several very popular people in Christian ministry that travel all over the country, preaching the gospel, who are Democrats. They are very astute -- they know what's going on with Bush and the Republicans. They are actually trying to convince Republicans they know, in a non-public way, that the Republican Party is wrong-minded.

Wake up, Democrats.

Here's some questions for your thesis, Amy.

1) Americans are pro-religious, but how many go to church? How much is "organized" religion and how much is just a vague "religion's good I guess and maybe I'll go to church someday if I can find the time" feeling?

2) Pro-religious people in America are all over the board politically, but aren't their leaders (or perceived leaders) generally much more conservative than Democrats? How do politicians appeal to religious voters when pastors, popes, bishops, etc. are preaching against them?

3) How do politicians attack religious leaders preaching conservative and ultra-conservative beliefs (anti-abortion rights, anti-gay rights, anti-evolution) without being taken as attacking all religious people?

Whatever happened to the notion of "separation of church and state?"

Never mind...

The longer this delusion of "supreme being" is propagated, the longer it will take for civilization to advance. I'm assuming, of course, that advancement is a shared goal.

I'm sick and tired of placating the "poor, mistreated" religious folk. Keep it in the tax-free churches, where it belongs. And another thing, about those tax-free churches...

In the short run (which might be all that Sullivan cares about) it might work. In the long run it will clearly promote irrational discourse in politics about what "God really intends" what "messages he meant to send in the Bible," what his "purpose for human beings" is, and other inanities. Americans already naively combine supernatural assumptions with an idea of their own national innocence in world affairs, how would this make that better?

Brian:Re:#3, at least in the last go around for this stuff, the answer to your question is don't. Don't view those things as being ultra-conservative. Those are perfectly acceptable moderate correct beliefs. Let those religious folks how superior they are for their bigotry, as that's what they want to hear.

That's why Sullivan is pretty much coming into a very hostile community (Actually, most of the blogosphere as a whole is very hostile, even some religious communities, for her amoral views)

2) Pro-religious people in America are all over the board politically, but aren't their leaders (or perceived leaders) generally much more conservative than Democrats? How do politicians appeal to religious voters when pastors, popes, bishops, etc. are preaching against them?

My own pastor considered himself a conservative Democrat until Bush came along and fell into the trance.

I just wonder how much of this "Christians are Republicans" began with Rove and Bush's efforts to form a wedge issue to claim religious voters for themselves. As I recall, religion was not discussed that much in elections until the 2000 election. How many young Democrats don't remember elections prior to the 2000 one? I'm over 50 and I recall Carter saying he was a Christian and making a big deal of it, but there was no effort to claim the Democratic Party for Christians only. Reagan did the same.

Everything else about the Republican Party as it stands is wrong-headed. Why are Democrats being hostile to Christians? Christian moderates aren't usually Bible thumpers -- they just want to be accepted in the party with which they fit most naturally - the Democratic party. I know - I am one.

Democrats "don't do white churches"

Damn straight. They ride dirty on the black churches like Bill on Monica.

I'm a life long Democrat and a fifth generation Mormon. I have spent most of my adult life trying to convince my fellow church memebers (most of them Republican) that our theology matches up better with the Democratic platform than the Republican (yes, there's that abortion issue but I assume that issue has an impact on all religious bodies.) Gosh, we even tried to live the United Order for a time in our history which could easily be defined as socialism.

I finds it hard to believe that 85% of the population defines themselves as "religious" when there is evidence all around that religious principles are being trampled in favor of temporal gratification, but that's just me.

My bumper sticker will read: Matthew 6:5-6

Interesting, Amy, that you claim religion is an "important part" of the lives of 85% of Americans (nice link, by the way), yet a 2006 Harris poll of over 2,000 American adults revealed that only 73% of Americans believe in God! So you expect me to believe that 12% of Americans don't believe in God, yet consider religion to be aan important part of their lives? I'm dubious, to say the least.

The fact remains that this union of states was formed on the idea of religious freedom, and that freedom includes being free not to worship at all. Anyone, liberal or conservative, looking to bring religion into the political sphere is going to meet with my derision. I will defend anyone's right to worship, but don't beat me over the head with it.

Your mantra of democrats being hostile to religion is such a tired canard, and feeds the republican misinformation obout the democratic party. So, from all liberals like myself, thanks Amy. For nothing.

Thanks for pointing out that stat, MeLoseBrain. Best thing I've heard in a while.

Hopefully at some point we can get that 73% number down some more.

//85% of Americans say that religion is "an important part" of their lives

Yes - and something like 60 percent say they attend church weekly - yet when someone actually went and counted the people in church it was more like 30 percent who actually attended.

There are three points about religion and politics that are often confused. One is the epistemological argument against religion itself. This is not part of politics. The second is an argument about the place of religious institutions in liberal democratic society. The conclusion of America’s founders, and those of many other, but not all, democracies, was that it would have no official role. Over time, as liberal democracies become more religiously diverse even unofficial religion in the form of professed faith has become taboo. This is for the practical reason that it emphasis factional differences. The third point is about religion and authoritarianism. The liberalization of society and increased freedom of the individual has been met by a modern countermovement of fundamentalism and authoritarianism. This is a particularly potent mix in the United States. Religiosity in American politics can serve as an indicator of authoritarianism. It is a form of ugly nationalism. In advanced secular societies religion has reappeared as an individual life-style choice and therefore should not be regarded as fundamentalism or as the older traditionalism.

Secular warriors are correct to suspect the mild inject of religion into politics. Like intelligent design it is often a Trojan horse for fundamentalist Christian religion. It seeks to stymie or overthrow immoral pluralistic society. But in their vitriol the secularists run the risk of alienating mildly religious people who have been made sensitive to the virtue of religion in the public sphere by the authoritarians. At some level this dynamic exists in most democratic countries. It usually follows the fault line of rural vs. urban politics. In the US for a very long time Dixieland Old Time Religion could be married to the all-important working-class Catholic vote by fighting the culture war. This is becoming less viable.

Amy Sullivan’s points made more sense in the Golden Age of centrist chastisement of progressivism when the Religious Right defined the playing field. But this is no longer the case. The Right have poisoned the water by their own actions, their assumptions are wrong and they are unmistakably corrupt. American voters can be courted without using the Right's playbook.

Wait--which came first, the television preachers with huge followings, or the binding of Republican politics and public religion? If it's the latter, then maybe there's a point about how the Democratic party needs to reach out to the faithful more. If it's the former, though, then maybe somebody outside the Democratic party needs to start organizing the religious left and center into a voting bloc.

Black churches can deliver votes. They get attention from the Democratic party. Liberal to moderate white churches? Not so much.

Religion is an important part of my life because I live in America, and we're goofy about religion. I'd answer 'yes' to that question, even though I'm fairly areligious and completely atheistic.

Also, I'm not convinced that 'religion' is the key element here. In 2004:

Bush Kerry
Evangelical Protestants 79 12
Mainline Protestants 54 46
Other Christians 67 33
Latino Protestants 60 40
Latino Catholics 37 62
Unaffiliated 27 73
Jews 25 75
Other Faiths 18 82
Black Protestants 14 86

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=240

And within each group, weekly church attendance (or really, I suppose, the -claim- of weekly church attendance) is worth around ten points.

I wonder if that's what Sullivan is talking about. Not the religious vote, really, but the 'people who claim to attend weekly' vote.

But really, I'm not sure how much more engagement the Democratic Party is supposed to have with religion. The idea that the Ds haven't reached out strikes me as another 'bipartisanship NOW!' demand ... onces the Rs lose power.

If you embrace a religion in a forest, does it make any sound?

Gimme a citation on that Kerry quote, too. This is the internets. There are links.

We need to start by calling them on the "pro-life" bullshit. They love the death penalty, war and torture-- they're about as "pro-life" as Attila the Hun. We need to speak up every time they try to use that phrase and point out how phony they are.

"If your response to the idea of Democrats engaging religious voters is either "why bother?" or "at what cost?", then most likely you're assuming that religious voters are conservative."

Um, not necessarily. I think the Dems do engage religious voters. As you note above, blacks, by your definition, for example. In addition, I would venture to guess a large part of the white or other Dem constituencies are "religious" in one way or another--Hispanics are pretty much Roman Catholic, while whites are a variety of religions (or non-religious). Dems engage them. You simply want Dems to pander to the evengelical element--and a portion of this element, those who actually use their brains and put facts before beliefs, already are in the Dem fold--particularly that portion of evengelicals who almost always put beliefs before facts and common sense, factually supported solutions to the problems we face in this country. Should some outreach be made to these folks? Definitely. But the question really is how much time, effort and money should be spent approaching them. IMHO, until they start coming around and working with non-evangelicals who are tyring to actually resolve such issues using methods that go beyond beliefs and are instead proven to achieve results such as reduce abortion, etc., then such outreach should be measured accordingly. There is some movement by some evangelicals--the congressman out of Ohio for example--but he is already a Dem. YOu really need to rethink what you are trying to do.

re: "//85% of Americans say that religion is "an important part" of their lives... Yes - and something like 60 percent say they attend church weekly - yet when someone actually went and counted the people in church it was more like 30 percent who actually attended."

Ummm, somebody can probably check this, but I suspect that the total seating capacity in all U.S. churches is nowhere near 45 or 90 million.

In fact, even if the services were held twice a day, every day of the week, would you get 90 million served? Anyone got the stats on that?

That's why I say that the '85% of Americans say that religion is "an important part" of their lives' is more of a wishful thinking answer than an actual reality answer.

Take a similar poll about diet & nutrition and see if the result flies in the face of a growing obesity epidemic...

The Conservative Deflator:
Jesus was one of the first DFH's. Would a Republican kick all the money changers out of the temple? Do the Republicans give a damn about the poor? I think you get my point.

FWI, atheists aren't ever likely to have much sympathy for this line of thought. We're used to voting the issues we care about without having to have politicians accept or mention our creed in a positive light. We get goose bumps when JFK throws in an indirect reference probably meant for agnostics or home-bound Christians.

Not arguing with the strategy. My guess is christians do like pandering if it seems sincere and comes in the style of an eloquent and charismatic preacher (or former US president assassinated in the 1960's).

I just think a lot of your ground work has been done for you. With Bush's approval rating at 15%, the other 85% realize they have something in common. Catholics realize that one issue voting on abortion my get them foreign wars with untold lost souls. Religious democrats realize that they have to stand up and speak out about the issues they care about so religious conservatives can no longer claim exclusive access to the media. Secularists and scientists are glad to have company. It was lonely back in 2001.

There's no atheist stepping on your throat. Stand up and speak.

More fun facts for Amy (from a 2002 Gallup Poll):

50% of Americans consier themselves religious (50 does not equal 85, Amy).

33% consider themselves spiritual, but not religious.

41% of Americans claim they go to church regularly. However, church attendance figures suggest that only 21% attend service regularly.

The last seven years have proven that it's not religion and it's not values. It's power. The Republicans have built a base of religious voters and in return for their support they give them what they want. Which is a theocracy. They want this country run according to their right-wing Christian fantasies. These aren't people the Democrats want to deal with.

Check out "The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual." It's a political satire of this and is hilarious. www.homelanddecency.com

BTW, I have no idea what FWI means :)

As an aside "regular attendance" is regarded as being at least once a week, not every day. I'd like to know where Amy got her stats, they don't seem to have any basis in reality.

Gah! It's clear that many of the anti-religionist commenters don't get it. You don't talk to religious groups about religion. You talk to them about shared political policy goals and values. I have deep reservations about religion as it pertains to my personal life, but I have no problems with talking to religious people about issues we share common goals on. You don't yield on core political beleifs like women's reproductive rights, to get support on the environment. You agree to disagree on some issues and work together on the issues you can.

I believe that Amy's point is that many progressives within the Democratic Party will be surprised to find that there are people within these groups that are willing to engage on these issues. The antagonism some have towards this idea smacks of bigotry.

I like what you've said so far--religion really DOES trickle down to both sides of the aisle--but there's a distinction missing (which I hope you'll get to) about the QUALITY of that faith. Specifically, the difference between liberal and conservative faith is also the difference between sectarianism and generosity, between fear and calm. Because although 80-85% of the nation is "religious," CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS/EVANGELICALS are the most active, vibrant "denomination," and they're overwhelmingly conservative. Not only that, but they're SECTARIAN--they claim (among themselves, but rarely in public) to be the ONLY "real" Christians, because they're the only ones who really take the Bible seriously/literally. And by the very nature of the case, the sectarian right wing is inherently more excited, more passionate, and has most of the p.r. ammunition.

It's like the battle between radical and moderate Muslims. You can say all you want, "Where are the voices of moderation in the Muslim world?" But when one side is shouting "Death to the infidels by any dramatic means necessary!" and the other side is shouting "Let's be open-minded and generous!", history--and human nature--shows us which side gains more converts, and who shouts louder. Evangelicals are like that: they have essentially claimed the "Christian" brand name in America, partly because they refuse to share it with anyone else, and partly because the liberal religious people, by definition, don't need to own it as much. (To take only one small example: Evangelical Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus Christ, you're going to hell for all eternity. Liberal Christians--including liberal evangelicals, as a look at any Emergent Church book will show--tend to believe that everyone's potentially saved. So the liberals have less sectarian zeal, less fear of the future, are more willing to dialogue with their opponents...and guess who doesn't get invited to shriek their foes down on Fox News?

It's like that principle of marriage: in any intramarital argument, the winner will be the person who cares more. Since the stakes here are the identity of religious voters, and since absolutely no one cares about their religious identity more than evangelical Christians (hell has a way of doing that), how can liberals EVER beat conservatives at this game? Particularly since the fear and rigidity that has marked the extreme right wing, and which tends to attract evangelicals, is matched on the left by a tolerance and open-mindedness that has tended to attract atheists and the religiously dismissive?

To win this battle, we'd have to redefine "religion," and I don't see that happening. Fundamentalists are too motivated by fear to ever release their grip on the ball. I look forward to any suggestions you might have. (For one thing, it would help my OWN book!)

Hey Amy,
Your link "85% of Americans say that religion is..." 404s

so is the other link

Amy Sullivan said this last year:

"Finally, the poll found that Americans have strong views about religion and politics in the era of George W. Bush. In May 2004, half (49%) of American voters said President Bush's faith made him a strong leader while only 36% said it made him too closed-minded. Today, voters have reversed their opinion about the role of Bush's faith: 50% now say it makes him too closed-minded and 34% say it makes him a strong leader. Similarly, while in 2004, only 27% said that Bush's use of faith did more to divide the country rather than unite it, today, 43% feel that way.

There is evidence of that division in the poll. By a two-to-one margin (62% to 29%), Republicans say a president should use his or her faith to guide presidential decisions. By contrast, Democrats reject this idea by a similar two-to-one margin (58% to 32%). In the same way, while three-quarters of Democrats say the president should not use his or her own interpretation of the Bible to make public decisions, Republicans are about evenly split (46% to 43%) on this. And while the overwhelming majority of Republican voters (71%) agree that religious values should serve as a guide to what political leaders do in office, 56% of Democrats disagree with this.

It remains to be seen whether Democratic voters would feel differently about any of these issues if one of their candidates took back the White House in 2008. It could be that respondents find it difficult to separate their general views on the questions from their opinions about Bush and religion. But it's also possible that the last seven have indeed fundamentally shifted the way many Americans think about religion and politics. The answer to that key question is something the Democratic frontrunners will be working to figure out."

85% of Americans say that religion is "an important part" of their lives.

They're lying.

Come on, how gullible can you really be? Self-reporting is a notoriously inaccurage gauge of something like this. Of course people are going to admit to doing something that is generally considered virtuous. A far more accurate picture would be to measure how many Americans actually, say, attend weekly religious services, or engage in other religious activities that require an ongoing sacrifice of time and/or money. I can guarantee you it's nowhere near 85%.

Change policy substance or attitude, or both?

It seems as though what you are advocating must take on one of two conceptions - or some mix of the two. One conception is that the "reaching out" to moderate religious people, that are not already inclined to accept Democrats, should take the form of changes to Democratic governmental policies stances (which is different from campaign strategies and tactics) that are amenable to such people. The other conception is to stress that particular Democratic candidates are motivated by religious conviction to make many of the policy choices they do.

As to the former conception - for Democrats to modify their governmental policy stances - that is a call to change the nature of the party itself. What specific policy changes do you suggest should be made that would not lead to major disenchantment if not disaffection and decampment of a significant number of people already in the party?

As to the latter conception - have Democratic candidates reach out to people whose religion is very important to them by stressing that the candidate sees many governmental policy decisions as being morally inspired by religious belief - how would that be accomplished without implying that one must have religious belief to be moral? Or are you suggesting that Democratic candidates ought to just simply acknowledge that religious belief is necessary for morality? (Which, I believe, would be disastrous.)

The answers to those questions is what I hope I will be seeing from you.

I attend church regularly. Once a year on Christmas.

I'm here for Ashley.

Since the Democrats get the votes overwhelmingly of the single most religious group in the country and the one with the most consistent history of translating Christianity into relevant action in the social sphere when the majority of white Christians were compromised or worse by the sins of racism and segregation, let's acknowledge at least for starters that the problem isn't with the Democrats and Christianity - it's with white conservative Christians and their racism. The Southern Baptist Church - in the worst case - isn't "Christian" in any meaningful sense historically - it was born of the sin of slavery and segregation. They can talk all they want about repentance on that score, but they've just updated their hypocrisy and traded a gospel of racial oppression for a gospel of contempt for sexual minorities and women to help provide political cover for an agenda of war and tax cuts. I'm all for openness to religion, but the truth is that when Democrats embrace religion - as Obama has - they have to embrace a certain kind of religion or we see them backed into a corner over issues like Reverend Wright's preaching. The GOP doesn't offer a haven for Christians - it's a safe harbor for the worst hypocrites and sinners. The biggest issue dividing Democrats from so-called "evangelicals" (which has become a code-word for fundamentalists for the most part) is the issue of race and oppression of sexual minorities and women. The ones who need to atone for their seperation from Christianity are the so-called Christians who have soiled the gospel they pretend to preach: The "Big Hair" TV preachers who are nothing more than money-changers in the temple, the guys who get rich building "universities" and such that are cloistered campuses to perpetuate bigotry and ignorance, the outfits like LDS and Southern Baptist Convention that are so soiled by their racism, sexism and bigotry that they if they didn't have billions invested in perpetuating themselves would just "strike themselves down" upon an honest reading of St. Mathew or reflection on their history of institutionalizing and propogating the most sinful ideas and practices. I won't even get into the Catholic Church - which thankfully ISN'T the centralized institution it often seems, but a host of smaller communities and traditions that manage to congregate under one confession and bizarre papal bureaucracy. Some of these Catholic faith traditions are very good and some of them are appalling. Clearly the larger church has several horrible problems and they church bureaucracy dealt with them in a way that would make the mafia proud. But most of this boils down to race - it's no coincidence that white "evangelicals" tend to gravitate to the contemporary GOP, which inherited the mantle of the Dixiecrats after the '60s, and that African-American Christians gravitate to the Democrats. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about who has the problem with authentic Christianity and who doesn't.

There's nothing inherently anti-religious about the Democratic Party. It's only that the anti-religious bigots on the left are every bit as loud as the fundamentalist bigots on the right.

The big problem I have with all of the politically active evangelicals and televangelists (Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Hagee, etc) is that they are essentially cults.

None of those men are associated with a larger church with a defined theology they have to adhere to. They all are free to make it up as they go along, say whatever they want from their TV pulpits as words directly from God, hence, the idiotic pronouncements like "knowing" that God is punishing homosexuals for 911.

In particular, the "end times" interpretation of Revelations is garbage as theology, and is not accepted by any Christian denomination. In fact, the originator (I forget his name) was excommunicated for his beliefs.

Another evangelical concept that is lacking as theology is the notion that all you have to do is say you accept Jesus and you are saved. This is nothing but convenient cherry picking. To be a Christian requires much more from the servant of Jesus Christ.

I do not think that any of those "one-man" TV shows constitute a valid religion and should not be elevated to the status of a denomination. The fact that millions of poor schmucks are suseptible to those snake oil salesmen is something to be deplored in our society, not encouraged.

The entire discussion about religion in politics today is driven by these cultists, and hence, is way off base. It's all about obeying what a self-selected group of men tells us what God wants. Why is it so rare to find actual theologians expressing countering beliefs in the public discourse? Instead, once a right-winger declares himself to be Christian, he is treated to deferential treatment from the press.

All political discussion should be about issues. Whether someone comes to a particular belief through religion or rationality should make no difference. Anyone who needs to hide behind religion as political discussion does not deserve a seat at the table.

This deference has led to black and white treatment of complicated issues, like abortion (see my comment below on how it has been shown that making abortion illegal will not reduce abortion, but generous, left-wing social policies will). The topic is rarely discussed in terms of what constitutes effective public policy and so any true discussion of the facts never happens.

I am sick of the "religion in politics" non-debate being dominated by a bunch of religious nuts. People like Amy would have more credibility if they started marginalizing them rather than taking them seriously.

Here's my problem, Amy. What, exactly, do you mean when you say Democratic politicians should "engage" religious Americans?

These assumptions had political consequences. The Dukakis campaign turned down all invitations from Catholic institutions, perhaps saving their candidate from some awkward conversations about abortion but also preventing him from interacting with voters who would have appreciated his opposition to the death penalty. The Kerry campaign told liberal Catholics in Ohio that Democrats "don't do white churches," effectively eliminating the possibility of outreach to three-quarters of the electorate.

The Democratic Party hasn't been hostile to religion. The problem isn't that Democratic candidates haven't been pious enough nor is the solution that they should just start using a lot of God-talk. Instead, Democrats have earned lower levels of support from religious constituencies like white evangelicals and Catholics than they otherwise should have because activists and operatives have been indifferent to religion and have operated under misconceptions about who the faithful are.

Don't you think that the laws connected with keeping tax-exempt religious institution from engaging in politics should be respected? The politicians you mention in the quote above presumably engaged religious voters in their audiences in religiously neutral settings, at townhalls, rallies, etc. In fact, if 85% of Americans are religious, presumably a large percentage of Americans at any political gathering are religious. I know it's too much to expect churches to obey the law these days, but I don't think any politicians should be "doing" any churches, black or white. If a church is taking part in politics, they should forfeit their tax exempt status.

Up until this election, Democratic candidates haven't been "indifferent" to religion. Most have attempted to stay neutral, observing the letter and spirit of the law. Unfortunately this presidential campaign has told me much, much more than I want to know about every candidate's religion, and I'm fully aware it's because Republicans have been using conservative religious groups like toilet tissue to take care of their business. So instead of taking the high road of maintaining that there's no religious requirement to hold office, Democrats are desperately trying to show they can breach the wall between Church and State as effectively as Republicans. I think in the long run this unconstitutional strategy will have bad effects, by making it a requirement that a candidate parade his/her personal beliefs about religion on the public stage, front and center, in order to be considered electable.

You are right that in the past Democrats haven't usually recognized the "religious" as a constituency, as they recognize women, Hispanics, union members, African-Americans, senior citizens, the middle-class, etc. Obviously there is overlapping in all of these groups. I would think the religious element would overlap every single one of them. But still, nothing wrong with recognizing that religious people have concerns connected with their beliefs, although this is just the God-talk whose efficacy you correctly doubt. The thing is, they shouldn't be engaged through institutions that are supposed to be politically neutral, which is the reason they are tax exempt. Now if we take away the tax exemption, there is no problem with politicians "doing" churches.

I do wonder if the progressive Christians you reference will reward targeted political overtures as richly as the conservative Christians who made up part of the Republican base. It does seem as though conservative Christians are much more easily manipulated by their religious leaders into taking any kind of action, political or otherwise, while progressives, religious or otherwise, are always more resistant to being pressured by authority. Conservative seems to be more compatible with group think. I think a political candidate will still have to win each progressive Christian over individually with character and policy, and their chances of doing so will be as good through a TV debate or an appearance at the local high school, as at that Christian progressive's church. I think the Christians you speak for are quite capable of seeing the connections between good policy and their moral beliefs.

re:
In 2004:

Bush / Kerry
Evangelical Protestants 79 / 12
Mainline Protestants 54 / 46
Other Christians 67 / 33
Latino Protestants 60 / 40
Latino Catholics 37 / 62
Unaffiliated 27 / 73
Jews 25 75
Other Faiths 18 82
Black Protestants 14 86

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=240

CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS/EVANGELICALS are the most active, vibrant "denomination," and they're overwhelmingly conservative.

Bingo. And they're the most gullible, or at least the most susceptible to a really well-told line of B.S., too. That trait is a big part of what makes radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's more financially successful: more listeners buy the advertisers' products.

In 2004, Bush got 79% of "Evangelical Protestants" voters, and 67% of "Other Christian" voters, while Kerry got 73% of "Unaffiliated" voters. But the rest of the story is turnout. The Evangelical Protestants have very high turnout. First, it's part of their activist nature, and second, it's compounded by their fervent belief in their candidate Bush.

In comparison, the potentially quite larger group that is "Unaffiliated" had lower turn out - they were not as motivated in general, nor all that enthusiastic about Kerry as a candidate, certainly not as much as Evangelicals were about Bush.

The Democrats would have to completely flip on major issues like abortion to appeal to Evangelicals (but then be criticized as flip-flopping panderers by the Dem. base... and the same media that touts McCain's 'straight-talk' cred).

Esaund makes the point that I should have made better. Christians should start this from a point of at least as much attention to marginalizing and fighting the haters and crazies that have found their way into the "Christian" tent and appear to dominate much of it.

I'm not interested in hearing anyone talk about the Democrats problems with religion unless they've made it fully clear that Rev. Richard Land has a much bigger problem with his religion than the Democratic party. These guys don't deserve an ounce of respect as "spiritual" figures. Liberal Christians need to take them on more aggressively on their own turf. "Moat in eye" and all that...

Reverend Wright may not have been much of a diplomat and he could be hyperbolic as "Hell" (certainly lives up to his name - "Jeremiah") but I'd like to see more Christians like him - especially some white ones - who don't play and who both take on the demons who have infested their own house and build churches that are as powerful in people's lives as some of these charlatans have been able to do.

This is not about religion. Sure it is sold that way but Hindus and Episcopalians are not crying out for more religion in politics. There is no crisis of oppressed religion. This is about the Republican appeal for the evangelical vote. It began as an appeal to Southern white voters and was broadened to include all conservative voters who tend as a rule to be religious.

The evangelicals took the Republican offer of political power seriously but their provincial religiously informed worldview had no place in national politics. This got mixed into the right-wing narrative of perpetual victim hood that works so well that even the most bloodthirsty neocons can charge their critics with anti-Semitism. Religion-out is hard to distinguish from the broader trend toward Dixification of American political life. Should religious people be alienated from politics?- of course not. But they are not. This is a myth used to wear down resistance to the conservative transformation of national government. The people of Tennessee may have no problem with professed religion in government, but the nation as a whole is rather uncomfortable with it. For religious minorities it is toxic. Now the transformation of the Republican Party into a regional party with one regional view is complete its power diminishes accordingly.

First of all, it is important to be clear that when Amy Sullivan says "religion", she means -- always and only -- Christianity.

Her entire shtick (which is too vague and lacking in factual basis to merit being called an "argument") is about -- and only about -- how Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party as an institution should relate to Christians.

Second, Democratic candidates already speak frequently and forthrightly about how their Christianity affects their values, policies and proposals. Democratic candidates already make frequent, ostentatious public displays of their attendance at Christian churches.

Third, Democratic values, policies and proposals already appeal to liberal Christians -- indeed, many liberal Christians are involved in grassroots organizations and movements for peace, social and economic justice, etc. that find mainstream Democratic policies and proposals to not be liberal enough.

So, what does that leave? It leaves the overwhelmingly white, conservative, Southern Christians who have bought into the toxic mix of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and Christian authoritarianism that the Republican Party and the fake, phony, money-grubbing TV-evangelist frauds allied with it have peddled to weak-minded ignorant dupes under the name of "values".

Those people are relatively few in number. They do vote, and in certain (eg. Southern) states they may vote in numbers sufficient to affect the outcome of elections. However, their views are fundamentally, diametrically in conflict with the core values of the Democratic Party and the vast majority of Democratic voters throughout the country. There is no way that Democrats will win any significant number of those votes by tweaking Democratic policies or rhetoric or speaking more about "faith" than they already do (which is plenty).

And there is no good reason for Democrats to bend over backwards to win that tiny number of votes, since there are much more effective ways for Democrats to win elections (eg. by bringing out more non-voting eligible voters in the high-population urban areas where the Democratic base is concentrated, and working to prevent voter disenfranchisement and fraud by the Republicans).

In the end, Amy Sullivan's shtick amounts to a demand that Democrats set aside, or at a minimum back off from, the traditional, liberal core values of the Democratic Party and the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters -- including liberal Christians -- in order to win a miniscule number of votes from white, male, conservative, Southern evangelical Christians.

It makes no sense at all.

What really needs to happen is for those white, male, conservative, Southern evangelical Christians to wake up and smell the coffee and accept the unpleasant realization that they have been duped by the fake, phony, fraudulent "conservative Christian" propaganda of the Republican Party into voting for politicians who do not serve their interests, and who are in fact bought-and-paid-for servants of America's ultra-rich corporate ruling class.

In other words, if Amy Sullivan wants to do something useful, then instead of writing books based on bogus claims about the Democratic Party being "hostile" to "religion", she should write books addressed to her conservative Christians explaining to them how they have been lied to, duped and manipulated by the Republican Party with its fake, phony, fraudulent appeal to "values" which have no actual content but fear and hatred.

I'm always amazed at how every time Amy's name comes up people start attributing things she has not said, written or even implied to her.

Being willing to talk with the mainstream religious is all part of going after every vote. Everyone loves it when Obama court Republicans or when Dean pursues the 50 state strategy. This isn't any different.

No one is calling on the Dems to change their platform on anything; we probably would never change the Falwell fan's mind. We can, however, start to increase our percentage of the vote with mainline Protestant suburban voters. They aren't all about abortion and gays, ya know.

Yes, it's true that many of these people are already getting the message through their membership in other secular groups with which we do interact. But there is no harm in meeting them on this turf, either.

I'd like to define the problem differently. How do we get religious folk-- especially conservative evangelicals-- to accept me as an atheist? I know atheists have neve been popular with the American public at large, but acceptance is becoming important as more and more people are driven to get off the fence and declare themselves.

It was once okay to be agnostic, then about 1980 many of our religious countrymen decided to not accept that choice and push for a more avowed stance, therefore atheism is on the rise.

I'm in favor of Democrats reaching out, but I think the root issue is getting the most extreme elements of the other side, who rule the GOP, to stop frightening their less extreme religious cohorts into dismissing outright the country's more secular half.

Always great to read your stuff Amy.

I hate to sound cynical, but one of the theories I proposed yesterday, that Amy is advertizing for a job as a campaign consultant and ambassador to the ever-proliferating posse of (mainly) Protestant nabobs, is looking better all the time. She has now explicitly denied that the Democratic Party is hostile to religion or that its overwhelmingly Christian (and overwhelmingly Protestant) candidates can't or won't do God-talk. (She's still punting on the nasty question of issues and policy, but maybe we'll hear something later.) Now it's a matter of marketing and mechanics: the largely secular professionals don't have (atheist) Karl Rove's technical chops for reaching out to the religious voter. There are probably people who do know how to do this for our side. Any names come to mind?

Amy Sullivan writes: Once neither party can claim a monopoly on religion, its effect is neutralized and candidates are forced to focus instead on issues that all Americans, whether religious or secular, care about: providing economic security, dealing with the mess in Iraq, reforming our health care system, improving our children's education.

This, madame, is the height of naïveté.

When, in the history of world politics, have two political factions divided on sectarian lines ever put aside those differences in favor resolving secular issues?

Great post Amy. But the real issue is in your first topic sentence: That 85% of Americans think religion is an "important" part of their life. That number needs to come way down. We can make it come way down through improving the education system so people aren't so easily distracted by shiny mirrors and silly myths like creation. The goal here should be to make religion a less important part in many lives and of no importance in the public sphere.

howie wrote: "Being willing to talk with the mainstream religious is all part of going after every vote."

Again, let's be clear that by "religious" you mean Christian. Neither you nor Amy Sullivan are lecturing the Democratic Party about the importance of the Buddhist vote.

And every single Democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime, from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama, has been more than "willing" to "talk" with "mainstream" Christians. Every single Democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime has spoken publicly, repeatedly, clearly and strongly about the importance of Christian faith in their lives, values, and public policy proposals.

Democrats already appeal to, and have strong support from, "mainstream" Christians.

Democrats do not have support from the relatively small number of overwhelmingly white, male, southern, conservative Christians who have bought in to the toxic mix of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and authoritarianism peddled by the Republican Party and its bought-and-paid-for money-grubbing phony-baloney TV evangelists -- for the simple reason that such values are strongly and diametrically opposed to the traditional, liberal core values of the Democratic Party and the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters, including "moderate" and liberal Christians.

There is no need for Democrats to change anything to appeal to "mainstream" Christians because the traditional, liberal core values and public policy agenda of the Democratic Party already appeals to such voters.

And there is no reason for Democrats to abandon or weaken their commitment to the traditional, liberal core values and public policy agenda of the Democratic Party to appeal to a small number of decidedly non-mainstream, white male conservative southern evangelical Christians who have been thoroughly duped into believing the fake, phony, corporate-sponsored Gospel According To Rush Limbaugh which has been carefully crafted and focus-group tested to appeal to their basest fears and worst instincts.

If there is any message that Democrats should bring to such voters, it is that they have been swindled and duped by crooks, frauds and gangsters masquerading as preachers, and that if they don't want to keep getting screwed they'd better take a closer look at the phony "Christian" politicians they've been voting for.

Martin Amis said faith was about seeking the approval of supernatural beings. I simply can't take seriously anyone who believes something like that. People who believe they can pray to some imaginary being for guidance are simply scary. I can certainly understand the social appeal of church, but religious belief systems are not appropriate decision-making guides for the 21st century.

"Instead, Democrats have earned lower levels of support from religious constituencies like white evangelicals and Catholics than they otherwise should have because activists and operatives have been indifferent to religion and have operated under misconceptions about who the faithful are."

And your evidence for this is, what, precisely? You have been engaging in vague messages like this for years and have never bothered to support these generalities. Who are these operatives? Who are these activists? What, precisely, have they done or said? What, precisely, are their "misconceptions" about "who the faithful are?"

"But, again, in a country where 85% of the people say religion is an important part of their lives, the party that doesn't talk to religious voters is at an automatic disadvantage."

The last time I checked, the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates were, in fact, talking to religious voters. Again, your evidence to support this assertion is, what, exactly?

"I know it sounds unbearably counterintuitive, but one way to take religion off the table in political elections is for Democrats to engage it."

Engage it how? In what way are they failing to "engage" it now? I've certainly seen Democratic candidates, including our two current presidential candidates, frequently speak at churches and to religious communities, talk about their own faith, and so on. What, specifically, would you have them do differently?

This was a typical Amy Sullivan post -- long on generalities, short on details, and absent on evidence.

Like Kevin Drum, I can't scan any one of the threads here following a post of his that mentions religion in American life without thinking that if, as Amy Sullivan says, "the Democratic Party hasn't been hostile to religion," a significant number of people who vote mostly for Democratic candidates certainly are hostile to religion, and are not particularly subtle about it either.

But in national Democratic politics, hostility to religion as such is not a driving force. The organized interest groups that have dominated the Democratic Party for the last quarter century all have very specific policy agendas, and religion isn't directly involved in any of them. Democratic politicians soliciting the support of these interest groups don't need to speak to religious concerns or use recognizably religious language; when they need to reach out beyond "the groups" -- usually this happens in general elections, and it has been an especially serious problem in Presidential elections -- they don't know how to talk, and don't know what to say.

"The groups'" dominance of Democratic Party politics does not, incidentally, pose a problem for Democratic candidates only where religion is concerned. It's been a huge problem with respect to foreign and national security policy as well; only one of "the groups" -- supporters of Israel -- has a policy agenda touching on international affairs. Democratic candidates have often appeared ignorant of and uninterested in foreign affairs and national security, and this is a major reason for it.

How do Democrats overcome their distance from the concerns of voters motivated by religion? I don't have a blueprint -- I am not a Democrat -- but at least three things seem to me to be required.

The first is time. The deeply religious voters who consider themselves very conservative are profoundly alienated from what they think Democratic politicians believe; this distance can't be closed overnight. Of course many Democrats don't feel this level of alienation on the part of conservative Christians is warranted, just as many Republicans can't fathom why few of their candidates ever get more than 10% of the African-American vote. Regardless of the reasons, disaffection as profound as that which exists in these cases almost never disappears within the course of a couple of election cycles.

The second is exposure. Modern campaign politics in the United States places a very low value on appearances before hostile audiences; candidates get elected by getting their own supporters to the polls, not for making people who will never vote for them in great numbers feel a little less alienated. Democrats should consider, though, that a large part of the reason deeply religious voters dislike their party is precisely because distance breeds alienation; if you never see a candidate at one of your events, you are more likely to believe he (or she) doesn't care about what you care about. Reducing the distance between deeply religious voters (as some posters here have pointed out, in American politics this means mostly white evangelical Protestants) and Democratic candidates may not win many more votes for Democrats in the short term, but it will help reduce the fervor with which these voters support Republicans.

The third and final thing required is respect for, and reasoning from, Christian values. Events are already pointing a way forward for Democrats in this area, to some degree. For example, stewardship is a very important concept in many Christian congregations; the idea that bad stewardship of God's creation might be inherent in certain kinds of human activity is potentially very powerful there. But Democrats also need to be aware of the opportunities given to them by the Republicans who have long gotten more votes from deeply committed Christians. Corruption in Washington is one such opportunity; you don't need a lot of imagination or a doctorate in theology to campaign on "Thou shalt not steal," and the use of public office for private gain will be seen by many motivated Christian values as a fully legitimate target. It should be obvious that Democrats who are not vulnerable to counterattack for doing the same kind of thing are in a better position to campaign against abuse of the public trust -- in other words, Barack Obama might be able to do this effectively, but the Clintons' probably can't.

There are some voters you will never get. That's just the way politics works, and it works that way for everyone, Democrat or Republican. Also, some of the differences between some Democratic candidates and some deeply religious voters are in fact based on profound differences, disagreements as to both values and views about what government should do. No amount of skill or tactical cleverness will bridge all of these. Democrats would do well to understand, though, that the Republicans' hold on deeply religious American voters is not as strong as it looks; Republicans have gained office and dominated the federal government for almost a decade now, professing belief in recognizably Christian principles but falling far short of delivering on their professions. Democrats are not likely to have a better opportunity than the elections of 2008 to undermine one of the foundations of Republican electoral strength.

This was a typical Amy Sullivan post -- long on generalities, short on details, and absent on evidence.

Why don't you libs have more tolerance for faith-based posting?

I attend church regularly. Once a year on Christmas.

Does never count?

I was raised as a catholic, and I am not hostile to religion. I agree that there are areas where democrats sshare values with evangelicals, but too many of them see abortion as the greatest sin, but the war in Iraq, care for the poor, welfare for the rich? Not so much. I'm all for appealing to them to express our shared values, but why does it have to be in a religious context?

Are evangelicals so misinformed that they don't know what the democratic party stands for? Are they so misguided that they can't see that helping lift the poor out of poverty was Jesus' overriding message? I'm willing to give them more credit than that. I don't think dems have to play religious footsie. Like every American, evangelicals have to look at the policy proposals of each candidate and/or party, and decide which most closely mirrors their values.

What am I missing?

This is just silly. Religious voters who vote on issues like abortion, evolution in schools, or scary gay people are going to vote Republican. Religious voters who vote on issues like the death penalty, war, or poverty are going to vote Democratic.

"Reaching out" only gets you so far when you actually disagree on substantive issues. Whether or not some blogger somewhere mocks people for their belief is meaningless.

Besides, the whole argument is disengenous. Amy Sullivan is really saying "you have to reach out to conservative voters." Not religious voters. Otherwise, she would be up there talking about how Wright should be embraced by Obama.

Amy,

It seems clear that you have gone to great lengths to establish your premise - but in the end the premise is empty, the facts in error, and the final truth in the whole matter is that you don't really know what you are talking about.

I find your writing to be really condescending and unbearable.

Kevin, what's your problem? Can't you find someone who can write honestly about religion rather than injecting her own objectives and prejudices into it?

I think everything you wrote here is easy to agree with up to and including the sentence "Obviously, the religious right and the GOP spent a lot of time and effort pushing the idea" but after that, I think a lot of what you wrote was unjustified.

You wrote:

But they were able to claim a monopoly on religion because the Democratic political class bought their spin.

Whether or not you believe the Democrats did this, probably much more influential was the media's complicity in the right's spin, especially in the run-up to the 2000 and 2004 elections, when everyone was talking about how it was supposedly true that there were now all of a sudden two and only two types of Americans- atheist, Starbucks-swilling Yuppies and forthright, humble, moral, working-class red-state cowboys. It belied everyone's experience of the typical liberal voter being just some chick who works in an office who isn't even that ideological and doesn't have any money, or a middle-class, down-to-earth black person, and the Republican being (1) the white guy pansy who learned to play golf growing up, had a dad who was a lawyer or an exec, went to a private high school, (2) and / or thinks he's tough because he grew up in a town with a "bad side," when he himself didn't even live on the bad side. You certainly know all this, so it's kind of glaring for you to ignore it.

You wrote:

Think about it: If your response to the idea of Democrats engaging religious voters is either "why bother?" or "at what cost?", then most likely you're assuming that religious voters are conservative.

You're totally missing the point of the criticism, which is typically "If we try to do [some specific thing] to appeal to Christians who would like that, then [we're going to be doing something wrong / we're going to sour some of our base on us]." So it's not that Democrats are foolishly dismissing people just because they're religious or just because they're conservative- and ironically not even realizing how prejudiced Democrats have thereby become- rather the concern is that by doing these stunts we're appealing to a rather small subset of the large religious constituency you talk about, and the small group's support isn't going to justify the effort. In this post, you just don't face that argument.

You wrote:

The problem isn't that Democratic candidates haven't been pious enough nor is the solution that they should just start using a lot of God-talk. Instead, Democrats have earned lower levels of support from religious constituencies like white evangelicals and Catholics than they otherwise should have because activists and operatives have been indifferent to religion and have operated under misconceptions about who the faithful are.

This sounds right, but it's a small number of party activists who are like this. I think you mischaracterize the problem by making it sound like it's something that permeates our entire message instead of something a few individuals reflect in their attitudes + actions.

You then wrote a couple paragraphs about what you supposedly said and didn't say, but despite all your apologies, you somehow left everyone with the impression that you were telling us to do everything you are now claiming you told us not to do. That is not cool. You even put a picture of a donkey with a halo on the cover of the book. I think you were trying to get a message across without having to take responsibility for it, so you didn't state conclusions you wanted people to take away from what you wrote, and you put in the facts that a lot of us would raise in an argument about this. But if you keep trying to lead us to the opposite conclusion those facts should call for, it's all the same.

Then you ended the post with "I'll talk about how that has worked in campaigns already, tackle the inevitable "what about abortion?" questions, and point to evidence of shifts in the evangelical community in future posts. In the meantime, have at it."

So you called the whole thing a misunderstanding in your title, but then you went and refused to talk about the stuff people were actually concerned about anywhere in your entire "answer" to the criticism.

Religious demigods like Parsley and Hagee are so popular because they damn Americans. Religious Americans want to be told their behavior imperils their souls. Condemnation tittilates and makes the sinning that much more exciting. Liberals misundertand how to communicate with dumbfounded religious Americans.

Abortion is an example. In 2004 Kerry tried to express empathy for a woman at a debate who did not want tax monies spent providing abortion services. Kerry practically bent over backwards relating to this woman's view before saying he could not impose his similar beliefs on other women, which is why he though abortion ought to be legal. Instead Kerry should have used the fire and brimstone style of America's most popular preachers to condemn the attitude of that woman for wanting to use state police powers to make women carry pregnancies they do not want. Had Kerry used such an approach during a nationally televised debate he would have energized his Democatic base and he would have shown many believers a way to accept his candidacy as righteous, which is what they require in a political candidate.

Liberals make the mistake of appealing to the reaon of believers instead of calling them sinners whose beliefs defy God's will. Religious Americans do not want to be reasoned with. Religious Americans want their sins exposed, but in a righteous way by a self-declared holy man. Democratic candidates should adopt the persona of a hell and brimstone preacher when dealing with sinful Americans. Religious Americans should be accused of turning their backs on the love Jesus preached, and be driven to seek forgiveness in the cleansing process of voting for a liberal, their only chance for salvation. Believers need to be told their conservative political behavior separates them from God and imperils their souls.

I've missed seeing you on the WaPo op-ed pages.

Any time I see Amy Sullivan's name on an article I tune out becaue it is about religion. who cares!!

Well, if the Dems would turn solidly to the task of legalizing marijuana, they would not only pick up Libertarians, New Agers, and Ron Paulistas, but they would be advocating a social policy recommended by every major commission to study the problem over the past century. My God, Gore would have won Florida if all those "felons" hadn't been struck from the voting rolls- how much of a wake-up call does the party- or Sullivan- need?

In the world I live in, which seems real enough to me, almost everyone is vaguely Christian. None of these people have any belief at all in the existence of Hell, or the idea that lying and stealing might take you there.

Sullivan sets up a straw man- that the Dems are indifferent to 'Christians'- but she's shadow-boxing herself. She's read mostly by liberals, who naturally wish to respond, because most of us do have deep religious feelings. The fact that we respond does not mean Dems should pander to extreme Christians.

"Maybe there's a Christian case to be made for economic justice when all the people with JOHN 3:16 on their bumper stickers swap it out for MATT 25:40. Or maybe distributing those bumper stickers is the best thing the Democrats could do right now. Your thoughts?"
___________________

The two Biblical citations aren't contradictory, of course. In fact, they are quite complementary. God gave us his only begotten Son in order for that Son to save us. We earn that salvation by following Christ's dictates, including how to treat the least of our brothers.

The disagreement comes immediately after that general dictate and other teachings. It's the how that most often separates the religious left and right, not the goals.

Oh, it's one note Amy Sullivan, the lying concern troll. Kevin, why bother to ask her to guest blog--just reprint any of her previous dishonest, fact and specifics free, theocratic screeds from years past. She has only one subject and has only one thing to say about it. No one would know the difference.

Amy S. wrote:

Think about it: If your response to the idea of Democrats engaging religious voters is either "why bother?" or "at what cost?", then most likely you're assuming that religious voters are conservative.

The concern is that the Democrats, religious or not, we would lose by ceding certain issues more than make up for the liberal/moderate/conservative/whatever religious people we might gain.

In a number of important ways, the political-religious landscape has changed since 2000. To wit:

Then: Democrats (ie Bill Clinton) were viewed as morally corrupt. The 2000 election was to a large extent about cleaning house.

Now: The GOP is viewed as morally bankrupt, having taken the party to new heights of corruption and self-dealing (Abramoff, Cunningham, the NRCC treasurer, no-bid contracts, US attorney firings, etc. etc.).

Then: Abortion clinics were being bombed and picketed, doctors assassinated.

Now: The rate of abortion nationwide is at an all-time low (amazing, isn't it, with Roe v. Wade still not overturned, how did that happen?).

Then: Liberals blocked the teaching of religious concepts (ie creationism) in schools.

Now: Intelligent Design has been thoroughly discredited following the Pennsylvania court's ruling against the Dover, PA, School Board last December. The Kansas School Board run out of office.

Then: The ownership society was a blessing bestowed by God on the faithful.

Now: Receivership (ie Enron, home builders) is a curse bestowed by banks on the greedy and short-sighted.

Then: Conservatives blocked any attempts to create a national health care program.

Now: The SEIU and Walmart hold a joint press conference calling for universal health coverage for all Americans.

Then: Conservatives blocked the implementation of Kyoto Accords & all manner of government environmental regulations

Now: In February, 86 Evangelical leaders publicly backed a major initiative on global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors."

In short, the poor record of Republican leaders over the last 8 years appears to have introduced a level of skepticism among religious conservatives about just who their Jesus was covorting with. I think we can build on this by demonstrating to conservative Christians just what constitutes the fundamentals of good public policy.

We don't need to pander to the religious right to do this -- they will just get in the way of the emerging will of the people.

Instead, Democrats have earned lower levels of support from religious constituencies like white evangelicals and Catholics than they otherwise should have because activists and operatives have been indifferent to religion and have operated under misconceptions about who the faithful are.

This sounds like -- because it is -- special pleading from the Mara Vanderslices of the world, who mistake themselves for Jesus and convince themselves that the Democrats would have taken the White House if only they had been given more respect and lots more money for Con'em Good Strategies. Ms. Vanderslice couldn't campaign her way out of a wet paper bag.

Instead of whinging about how the Democrats don't respect you, how about convincing your co-religionists, the ones who buy into the G.O.P.'s bigotry, that they're being taken for a ride and that the Democrats actually represent the nation's best interests? (Oddly enough, religious African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and Muslims have figured this out -- does that tell you anything about your thesis?)

If you can do that, you can come to the Democratic Party with something to offer other than a crying towel and a gigantic chip on your shoulder. And if you can't do that, you'll have to admit that your premise is false, if not fraudulent.

trashhauler: God gave us his only begotten Son in order for that Son to save us. We earn that salvation by following Christ's dictates, including how to treat the least of our brothers.

The least of our brothers? Like Muslim men who haven't been convicted of any crimes and languish in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Black Prisons? Or the innocent children of wanted men in Iraq captured and held in Abu Ghraib by U.S. forces as hostages?

I wonder how Christ looks at their treatment and how he factors that into the salvation equation for their captors and enablers?

I have my suspicions.

Jim Wallis of Sojourners is a much better writer than Amy Sullivan, and in his recent book The Great Awakening offers what in some ways is the mirror image of Sullivan's message: that evangelical Christianity is evolving beyond its narrow focus on the fear-based issues that the Republican Party has pandered to -- eg. gay marriage, abortion -- and is beginning to embrace concerns about social and economic justice and enviromental sustainability, which correspond to the traditional, liberal core values of the Democratic Party.

Perhaps Kevin would consider inviting Jim Wallis to guest-blog an article about how evangelical Christians need to reject fear-based manipulation by the Republican Party and reach out to both liberal Christian and secular Democrats to find common ground on issues that really matter to the well-being of human beings living in this world.

It would be a useful counter-balance to Amy Sullivan's insistence that liberal Christian and secular Democrats are the ones who need to change in order to reach out to so-called "conservative" Christians.

The Gallup Poll conducts yearly polls asking the question: "Did you, yourself, happen to attend church or synagogue in the last seven days, or not?" They reported the following attendance levels. 6The margin of error is ±2%:
1999: 43%
2000: 44%
2001: 41%
2002: 44%
2003: 41%
Sociologist Stanley Presser of the University of Maryland and research assistant Linda Stinson of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics completed a study.........
.....Presser and Stinson found that many Americans were not at church when they claimed to be. Their best estimates are that the percentage of adults who actually attended religious services during the previous weekend dropped from 42% in 1965 to 26% in 1994.

National Election Studies . Their poll shows that in 1996, 25% of adult Americans claimed to attend church, synagogue or temple every week; 12% almost every week; 16% once or twice a month, 18% a few times a year, and 30% never. 7Assuming that "almost every week" means 3 weeks out of 4, then these data indicate 40% attendance.

For example, a poll by Barna Research showed that 17% of American adults say that they tithe -- i.e. they give 10 to 13% of their income to their church. Only 3% actually do

The gap between what they do and what they say they do is closer in the case of religious attendance. It is "only" about 2 to 1.

The Washington Post reported that the analysis

"reveals a discrepancy between the diaries and the polls, and suggests that many Americans have been misreporting how they spend their Sunday mornings, inflating estimates of church attendance by perhaps as much as a third."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

America may or may not be a religious country (that's open to doubt in my opinion). In any case, it is certainly NOT a purely Christian country. Moreover, one of its bedrock founding principles is the separation of church and state. Religious conservatives in this country have repeatedly tried to breach that separation. I see no reason why we should give respect and comfort to a group that repeatedly assaults our basic constitutional principles. Liberals in that past have been closely allied with religious movements (Social Gospel, Civil Rights, etc.) It's the evangelicals who've created the current divisions, not the liberals. Evangelicals have abandoned true Christian principles for politics.

To Amy's defense:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/614/religion-social-issues

Trends in Attitudes Toward Religion and Social Issues: 1987-2007
March 22, 2007

Religion and personal belief continue to be important in the lives of most Americans. Large majorities say that they belong to a religious tradition and there is broad agreement with three statements about religious belief and practice. About eight-in-ten Americans say they have no doubt that God exists, that prayer is an important part of their lives, and that "we will all be called before God at the Judgment Day to answer for our sins."

Although, the article DOES say,

But the intensity of agreement with these indicators of religiosity has shown a modest decline in recent years, after increasing through much of the 1990s. While overall agreement with the three statements has remained fairly stable, the number of people who completely agree with each statement rose during the 1990s and has declined more recently.

and

The survey also finds that the number of Americans who say they are atheist or agnostic, or choose not to identify with a religious tradition has increased modestly over the past two decades.

Also, I'd like to make the point that a person can consider himself religious but not attend church frequently.

One idea from this thread that should not be readily accepted: that critizing the idea that values should come from beliefs about supernatural entities, evidence for which is non-existent, is a form of "bigotry." Bigotry is unfounded prejudice, not a view based on rational argument and evidence. The actual evidence for a religious world-view adds up to a grand total of zero.

Secular Animist has a great idea. I'd love to read a discussion with Jim Wallis of Sojourners. There are other experts out there as well about religion and politics in the U.S. who have much better data and rhetoric than Sullivan.

Diana

I believe your thesis is wrong from the very start. The number of americans who consider themselves religious seems very much to be changing. Look at the big City University of New York poll which found that atheism had tripled in america (as a percentage of the population) in the course of just two decades. Another large survey just recently (the name escapes me) came to a similar conclusion- the american public has fewer people who adhere to any religion at all and of those who do the strngth of their faith has waned significantly.

About eight-in-ten Americans say they have no doubt that God exists, that prayer is an important part of their lives, and that "we will all be called before God at the Judgment Day to answer for our sins."

Again, they're just lying. They may claim they believe this, but they simply don't.

Also, I'd like to make the point that a person can consider himself religious but not attend church frequently.

Indeed. A person can also consider himself faithful but still cheat on his spouse frequently. People "consider" themselves to be lots of things -- devout, faithful, kind, merciful, charitable, etc. -- that they are actually not in practice.

SecularAnimist said, "Perhaps Kevin would consider inviting Jim Wallis to guest-blog an article about how evangelical Christians need to reject fear-based manipulation by the Republican Party and reach out to both liberal Christian and secular Democrats to find common ground on issues that really matter to the well-being of human beings living in this world.

It would be a useful counter-balance to Amy Sullivan's insistence that liberal Christian and secular Democrats are the ones who need to change in order to reach out to so-called "conservative" Christians.

And do you think Wallis will be treated any better here? His thinking is very much like Amy's.

If moderate Christians like myself who actually vote Republican (which I don't, but I know plenty of those who do) begin seeking out the Democratic Party as a place to find solace and agreement with their principals, are you, SecularAnimist, willing to accept them? For I tell you, it's no fun trying to join in this blog with people like you putting down someone like myself just because they believe in Christ. Are you going to be tolerant to their questions?

I would think that the people who would seek out the Democratic Party would not be radical evangelical Christians -- it will be the Christian moderates --such as United Methodists -- if that is your fear.

Stefan -- And the point you're trying to make is???

How do you KNOW they're lying?

My best friend rarely went to church for years because her husband wasn't tolerant of her going -- however, she prayed a lot and often asked me questions about my beliefs. Many elderly don't go to church on Sunday, but they still believe in God. A good friend of mine, a founder of my church, goes to church about twice a year. That doesn't mean she's not religious. It means, for some reason, she does not attend church.

As far as that goes, I have been quite estranged from my church and no longer take part in the goings-on there, other to attend church on Sunday. I really don't feel very close to God sometimes, but I certainly don't think religion is not important in my life. It just means I'm going through a dry spell.

Being a Christian doesn't mean you're without sin, either. A person who commits adultery but attends church is the person who OUGHT to be in church. Church is not a place to go if you're perfect -- it's a place to go if you're not.

What I want to know is, if everybody starts bringing religion into politics, how long before the debate turns on who has the "correct" religion and who doesn't? We can already see that happening with Obama's pastor's sermons being mined for embarrassing quotes to discredit him. The same thing happened to Kerry when the Republicans tried to get him excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Is this really what religious people want to see happening every four years?

pol wrote: "If moderate Christians like myself who actually vote Republican ... begin seeking out the Democratic Party as a place to find solace and agreement with their principals, are you, SecularAnimist, willing to accept them?"

First, those folks can vote however they like -- they don't need anyone to "accept them". It's their responsibility to make up their own minds about which political candidates of whatever party to vote for. If they feel that a given candidate for a given office is most likely to implement the public policies that they favor, then they should vote for that candidate.

Second, I am not a Democrat. I am a registered Green Party voter. So those folks especially don't need my "acceptance" to vote for Democrats if they choose. I would encourage them to learn about the Green Party in their state. Most states have affiliates of the national Green Party, and there are Greens running for state and local offices all over the country.

pol wrote: "For I tell you, it's no fun trying to join in this blog with people like you putting down someone like myself just because they believe in Christ."

To the best of my recollection, I don't believe I have "put down" you, or anyone else, because you "believe in Christ." Indeed, the views, values and ethics expressed by different people who are self-described "believers in Christ" are so widely varied, and even contradictory, that the mere fact that someone says he or she "believes in Christ" tells me little about them, and certainly not enough to "put them down".

As for "people like me", to the best of my knowledge I am the only regular commenter on these threads who is an adherent of the religion of Secular Animism, which I invented. So I'm not sure who you mean by "people like me".

There is an irksome tendency to condemn religious believers as obvious hypocrites and frauds because they cannot maintain the standards in which they claim belief. The practitioners of this tendency to judge miscreant believers harshly can live by a private sliding scale of behavior in which their own personal conduct is, quite by definition, beyond reproach. As well as being beyond observation (from mankind, at least). Not for them, the admonition, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Instead, they hold unto themselves the right to judge others without reservation, mercy, or regret. And why not? There is no higher moral authority than themselves.

Of course, we believers often don't do ourselves any favors in this regard. It is easy to confuse teaching with condemnation and to mistake public righteousness for good example.

Oh, well. It's been noted that most people want to serve God - but too many only want to serve Him in an advisory capacity.

Stefan -- And the point you're trying to make is???

That people lie (both to themselves and to others) about possessing attributes, such as religiosity, that are generally considered "good" things in our society.

How do you KNOW they're lying?

Because if 80% of my fellow Americans really had no doubt that God exists, that prayer is an important part of their lives, and that "we will all be called before God at the Judgment Day to answer for our sins," then they wouldn't be acting like such venal miserable greedy swine half the time. If they really believed all that, you'd think that they'd then adjust their behavior accordingly. Since they don't adjust their behavior, I can only conclude that they don't really believe it.

Watch what people do, not what people say.

Freedom of religion means strict separation of church and state. Simple. Some want to push the envelope with sophistic argument and misdirection.

Amy, you're a good writer I think you've been unfairly attacked here by the militant securalists. But I think the issue is more complex than just "More Dems should start talking about the Bible." and the solutions less than clear.

I don't think the Democrats are necessarily hostile to relgious people. They're just indifferent to them. That explains Terry McAuliffe's reaction to Rick Warren in a nutshell. That explains why Howard Dean's favorite book of the New Testament is the Book of Job. Howard Dean would not be caught dead inside a church. That's not who he is nor what his political base is about and he certainly didn't campaign for the religious vote in secular New England.

Ask yourself this question, why would a political party which in the past had no trouble identifying itself with religious figures or certain relgions in general (Catholics and Jews being its most loyal voting base; Black preachers like Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King; Southern evangelicals like Jimmy Carter; Walter Mondale and George McGovern, the sons of a Protestant ministers) suddenly decide to become indifferent to religion? When did this happen? Why did it happen?

My guess is this break took place in the late 1970s early 1980s for five reasons (and one of them completly off the wall but hear me out).

1). The failure of Carter's presidency and rejection of it by chic liberals who supported Ted Kennedy, Jerry Brown, John Anderson and even Ronald Reagan in 1980. They were turned off by Carter's religiosity and moralism in an age of disco/cocaine hedonism.

2). The secularlization of Jewish left (Reform synagouges are dwarfed in numbers by those of Orthodox and Conservative persuasions).

3). The rise of the religious right, the first openly sectarian, organized political movement in the country's history since the 1920s version of the Ku Klux Klan. Obviously its rise and its prominence within the GOP invoked an inevitable counter-reaction among liberal Democrats as a defensive reflex.

4). The negative reaction of Catholic voters to the Roe vs. Wade decision which led them to Republicans. It's interesting that Geraldine Ferraro's name comes up again in the news because
her problems with the church over the abortion issue that came up during the 1984 Presidential campaign probably led many Democrats to write-off ethnic Catholics as a voting bloc. Roe v. Wade was one of the worst things to ever happen to the Democratic Party. It cut off religious Catholics from it.

5). (Here's the off the wall reason) Jonestown. The mass suicide of the Rev. Jim Jones' followers in 1978 in Guyana. I mention this because Jones was very prominent in leftist politics in San Francisco before moving away to Guyana and was close to political leaders there like then Mayor George Moscone, who appointed director of the city's housing authority, and some prominent Democrats. Roselynn Carter even had her picture taken with him. The People's Temple was seen as the model church and religion in the post-Civil Rights era which still had not desegregated the churches. Well he goes and kills himself and 800 of his followers in the middle of the jungle and how do you think liberals who were backing him are going to respond to this? By backing away from religion and religious rhetoric.

It also should be pointed out that the New Left and New Class figures that stepped into control of the party in 1972 came into politics arguing that the Democrats should be more than a party that just hands out material wealth and other government goodies to different voting blocs. They argued the Democrats should be concerned about more than materialism, they should be about a new morality where the government guarantees the rights of all citizens and corrects past grievences, doesn't go to war and is "honest and good as the American people" (that's a Jimmy Carter quote). Parts of this came out of the Civil Rights/anti-Vietnam War movement and the identity politics it led to in the 1970s. Parts of it came out of a new sort of secular morality based more on law than religious faith.

Ever since Bill Clinton however, the Democrats have become primarly concerned about the economy, particularly health care. Now you're asking the same question that Thomas Frank asked in his book What's the Matter with Kansas?" Why are downscale, religious voters voting against their economic interests? Because just as important to them as material well being are moral concerns, just as the New Left/New Class planned it back in 1972. Do you wish that such voters go back to only being concerned about who puts the money in their pockets?

You can have Democrats who talk a religious game like Obama run for President and perhaps he'll do better among religious voters. But I doubt if he'll do significantly better than say, John Kerry or Mike Dukakis (the epitome of the New England secularlists). Religious voters do by definition vote their faiths and their faiths include opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage. How are Democratic candidates supposed to square this circle if they expect to get any money from their wholly secular fundraisers? Especially from the militantly pro-abortion EMILY's List? Become a subsidiary of United Church of Christ, the Unitarians and the liberal wings of Protestant mainline churches? That would be quite a transformation of the party since 1933!

That brings up another problem the Democrats have: there isn't much of a religious left to work with. Most liberals have pretty much walked away from organized religion altogether or they worship pseudo-faiths that meet in coffee houses which are more of a reflection of consumer culture(shopping for the right church)than deep faith or tradition. Ask yourself why aren't liberal Protestant churches or Reform synagouges bursting at the seams with all these new members who are refugees from conservative religions like Catholicism because it opposes abortion and gay marriage? How can you rebuild Jewish and Catholic voting blocs when they've been shattered into itsy-bitsy pieces by modernity, by urbal sprawl and suburbanization and by the loss of white ethnic identity? How does one become religious when there's no religion? Does it not stand to reason then that the Dems are going to become mostly secular and indifferent to religion because a good chunk of their membership is mostly secular and indifferent to religion or (as some here have shown)outright hostile to it?

If anything, the Dems are going to benefit from recent polls that show the numbers of non-believers and non-church goers rising, not falling. They're going to benefit from members being a part of more non-traditional faiths or even from the growing Muslim and non-Christian populations in the U.S.

The problem and Kevin and yourself have is that you both see religious persons as just another voting bloc to try and manipulate with rhetoric in order to win elections. Republicans for years have talked about trying to get more of the African-American vote, yet fail every time because their fundemental interests are completely different than African-Americans. This is true of Democrats and religious voters. The only way this could change right now is if the Democrats truly had a significant pro-life caucus like it used to. But the party's fundraisers will not allow this to happen.

But that's okay because the last thing religious voters need are two political parties manipulating them. You may find this strange to believe but Republicans have no interest in seeing Roe v. Wade overturned. If that happened, the issue goes back to the states and ceases being a national issue. That would mean many religious voters might drift badck to the Democrats because of economic issues. That's why John Roberts, I believe, would uphold Roe or at least not allow the court to take up an abortion case in the forseeable future.

Amy, ask yourself this final question of mine: Why, if we are a religious nation, are we very permissive culture? Once upon a time it was the New Deal Democrats (mostly Catholic and Southern Baptists) who were the hardcore culture warriors (Alfred Kinsey was a Republican). If there are all these Christian conservative voters out there, why is there more pornography than ever before and more readily available? Why is our discourse and conversation filled with more dirty words? Why are our movies and TV shows more filled with sex and violence or have characters who one would hardly describe as being religious? Why no massive uproar from all the religious voters out there at how debased our culture is?

Because the persons who go to church on a weekly basis in the U.S., at least to mega-churches anyway, are not being filled with the strict dogma of Calvinism, Puritanism or pre-Vatican II Catholicism. They're being filled with New Age pablum which Rick Warren peddles in the Purpose Driven Life. There are chapters in his book which Warren revels in his breaking away from the strict Clavinist faith he grew up with in Michigan. Few of the religious in America attend churches where one hears fire and brimstone anymore. Many of the large churches today are more about catering to consumer culture and the on-the-go lifestyles in which we live. That is why mega-churches have coffee bars and health clubs. American religion does not stand apart from American culture. It is influenced by that culture and gets its ideas from that culture. What this means is, all the Dems have to do is wait until the worm turns, the churches talk about how global warming is a sin (which is already taking place) and pretty soon the religious will start voting their way.

As with some others here, my complaint with Amy's work is that it seems all about conflating "religious" with a particular kind of Christian. As I see it...

Half the country doesn't vote. Furthermore, the Democratic Party, the alleged alternative to the Republicans, shares with the Republicans a leadership actively hostile to the public will on matters both foreign and domestic. Pretty much all of Amy's attention seems focused on peeling off some fraction of Christians who are currently voting Republican, or strongly inclined to do so, and it all boils down to acting more Republican on personal and social matters.

I suggest that it's much more sensible to leave those people where they are and try reaching some fraction of those who currently feel - generally correctly - that they lack good choices. We've been seeing in both 2006 and 2008 races that candidates who talk about peace, law, and the like get out the vote from folks who haven't already made their nest elsewhere. That is where we should be putting our effort. I honestly don't see any reason to believe that it would be worth one bit more compromise on matters like abortion and government funding of religious charity, not when there are many more people out there happy to vote for someone who's wanting to make fewer compromises with American and Democratic tradition.

There is an irksome tendency to condemn religious believers as obvious hypocrites and frauds

Yes, isn't it irksome when Christ says:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

People tend to condemn religious believers as obvious hypocrites and frauds when they are being obvious hypocrites and frauds, as Christ does here. There is great grace and wisdom to be found in many religious and spiritual traditions from Greek Orthodoxy to animism and most things in between, but all higher truths are subject to perversion by avaricious cynics and deluded idiots who want to justify violence and oppression while passing them off as something "good" - and that's where the need for discernment arises.

because they cannot maintain the standards in which they claim belief

Can't maintain the standards??? We're not talking about abstaining from meat on Fridays or quitting hard drink, we're talking about not fucking imprisoning, torturing, and killing people for political and geostrategic gain!!! This isn't a matter of being attacked for some personal failing, this is a matter of being taken to task for advocating cruel and inhumane treatment of the least of your brothers!

If you can't resist staunchly defending torture and false imprisonment you have no business using the name of Christ to try and score cheap points on a blog - because that's clearly one of the things antithetical to his teachings. He was not a utilitarian and he did not buy the ticking time bomb scenario. He did not advocate killing them before they attack us or "taking them out" just because we can or to show the world who's boss. If that's your thing I believe the philosophy you're looking for is Stalinism or perhaps National Socialism.

Clearly, in the gospel stories the example Christ gave was to surrender his own life rather than do any evil, much less accept the offer given to him by the adversary: a worldly empire wherein he would be free to rule as he saw fit.

I'd say there is an important and timely lesson in that for American politicians and believers today who profess to be his followers.

Save your pitiful, sanctimonious complaints for your weak-minded, like-minded brethren. Torture and show trials and imprisoning people without evidence or just cause are absolute abominations in the eyes of any being with a properly formed conscience, much less the Supreme Being. To staunchly defend them while at the same time professing the Christian faith turns Christ into a demon and the gospel into a poison that warps and befouls the human heart, enabling people to justify their most bestial and unspeakable urges as right and necessary.

And that is sickening.

Here's what Christ had to say to the Pharisees of his time about that: "You help shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in."

This exchange is an illuminating example of why people should run screaming from belief systems that offer a false sense of justification while corroding the the precious human conscience in search of something - anything - that's Good and True.

85% of Americans say that religion is "an important part" of their lives ...

They're lying.

Will this Amy Sullivan "we are TOO religious" bullshit stop?

Churchgoing diminishes every year. The U.S is "far too) slowly approaching the irreligiousness of Europe.

Stop promotiing religion, stop promoting the make-believe and pretend and stop promoting bullshit.

trex wrote:

"Can't maintain the standards??? We're not talking about abstaining from meat on Fridays or quitting hard drink, we're talking about not fucking imprisoning, torturing, and killing people for political and geostrategic gain!!!"
_______________________

Well, that's what your talking about. The thread, on the other hand, was talking about Christians in general and the disdain some hold against them. If you cannot separate the two, it's no wonder you have little interest in their votes. And, if your attitude is prevalent, it's no wonder they shy away from Democratic candidates.

But, hey, as long as you got the chance to show indignation and demonstrate your superiority, that's all that counts, right?

And, if your attitude is prevalent, it's no wonder they shy away from Democratic candidates.

Actually, it's Republican candidates that religious voters seem to be shying away from. But given the Republicans' betrayal of and contempt for all Christian virtues of charity, kindness, mercy, and love, that's no wonder:

Born Again Christians Favor Democratic Candidates, Says Survey
By Jennifer Riley
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Feb. 04 2008 04:11 PM ET

A surprising new survey out Monday found that more born again Christian voters said they would support a Democratic candidate than a Republican candidate, breaking the long tradition of born-again support for the GOP.

....Barna noted that several factors are working against the Republican candidates including their stance on social issues and the “personal integrity” of some of the contenders.

....Similarly, a poll by GodTube.com on Monday showed that Christian voters currently favor Democrats over Republicans. The new poll found that 43.9 percent of Christian voters support the leading two Democratic candidates while 34.7 percent back Republican candidate Mike Huckabee.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080204/31077_Born_Again_Christians_Favor_Democratic_Candidates,_Says_Survey.htm

"Actually, it's Republican candidates that religious voters seem to be shying away from."
_________________

Ah, well, then there is no problem and the Democratic Party can continue on course with no concern about the attitudes and beliefs of religious persons. If the premise itself is wrong, then there is no downside to an anti-religious orientation - there is a poll that proves it.

Were the massive victories Dems had against Reps in 2006 a result of their religious pandering?

No. Talkin' that old time religion talk serves no purpose other than to waste valuable time that you could be using reminding people how bad our healthcare system is, how bad our foreign policy is, and how bad our economy is.

All you have to do is do what most democrats have always done: pretend to be a believing Christian (Karl Rove doesn't even do that) to pass their infantile religious test, and then immediately start talking about bread and better issues.

Mind if I fact check this post?

"Since Republicans aren't capturing 85% of the vote, that means religious Americans--and, by extension, religious voters--are much more diverse than typical public and media discussions imply."

Actually, this means that religious voters ARE ALREADY VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS. These are most likely liberal and moderate religious voters. (Without any more insight into that 85% figure, that particular piece of data is useless.)

"the religious right and the GOP spent a lot of time and effort pushing the idea. But they were able to claim a monopoly on religion because the Democratic political class bought their spin."

Like Amy Sullivan! Think about it, Democrats already receive a significant portion of the religious vote. Surely she's assuming that these liberal and moderate religious voters don't count, and won't mind if the Democratic Party starts pandering to conservative religious voters.

"These assumptions had political consequences."
Let's put aside the TWENTY YEAR OLD example for a moment, since that has no bearing on today's Democratic Party.

The Kerry campaign told liberal Catholics in Ohio that Democrats "don't do white churches," effectively eliminating the possibility of outreach to three-quarters of the electorate.
1) Much like only 45% of Americans completely agree that "prayer is an important part of my life" (Pew Research, 3/2007),
White Christians, let alone White Catholics ARE NOT 75% of Ohio voters!
2) As pointed out in the Washington Monthly review of Amy Sullivan's book, the Kerry campaign DID HAVE a religious outreach operation and DID SEND her to Michigan where she did good work. The problem isn't religious outreach, it was the disorganization of the Kerry campaign.

"Democrats have earned lower levels of support from religious constituencies like white evangelicals and Catholics than they otherwise should have because activists and operatives have been indifferent to religion and have operated under misconceptions about who the faithful are.

Amy Sulluivan forgets that Democrats have earned lower levels of support from conservatives in general. White evangelical Christians are much more conservative than the overall public. (Pew seems unable to tell whether younger cohorts of white evangelical Christians are becoming more or less conservative than the overall white evangelical population, but they are both more conservative than the overall public.

the party that doesn't talk to religious voters is at an automatic disadvantage.

Amy Sullivan believes that the Democratic Party doesn't talk to religious voters. As I pointed out above, IT DOES! The Democratic Party doesn't talk to conservative voters.

an unlevel praying field ... allows religion to be wielded as a divisive cudgel. I know it sounds unbearably counterintuitive, but one way to take religion off the table in political elections is for Democrats to engage it. Once neither party can claim a monopoly on religion, its effect is neutralized

This is the same argument that I've been told for being pro-Iraq War, so we know this WILL NOT STOP the Republican Party from attacking Democrats. Neither of these attacks are true, but as long as some Democrats buy into these false attacks, the damage is done. Neither party today ACTUALLY HAS a monopoly on religion; this does not stop the Republican Party and Amy Sullivan from SAYING IT WITHOUT PROOF.

How do we pander to white conservative evangelical Christians without losing more votes than we gain? After all, George Bush popular with white conservative evangelical Christians and unpopular with everyone else. Better idea: keep doing what is currently working and making inroads with independent, Democratic-leaning voters.

If the premise itself is wrong, then there is no downside to an anti-religious orientation - there is a poll that proves it.

Well, yes, the Republican Party did do quite well for a while even with its anti-religious orientation, but eventually, as I said, its total contempt for any religious values became too obvious to hide.