...by speaking about religion only when it could be politically advantageous..

As if GWB and Karl Rove talk about religion out of their personal faith.

You lose all credibility by making this statement.

I always forget there's no presumption of good faith (no pun intended) in the blogosphere.

um.... you have a track-record.

Well, to be fair, it is a rather silly habit, this theism business. 'Mauvaise foi', and all.

Interesting - two comments and both personal attacks rather than an attempt to address the substance of what is said. Like it or not Americans perceive of themselves as religious people, and if democrats are going to appeal to this broad section of the society then they better at least understand the feelings, motivations and values of these voters. Instead, what we often get is the perception of hostility and condescension, which doesn't translate into votes.

Near as I can tell, Amy, conservatives have bitched the most about Rev. Wright's comments. Conservatives are the folks feigning shock and outrage. I don't know many progressives who were actually shocked by Rev. Wright's comments, and even fewer who were willing to hold his comments against Obama. Now there are a lot of Hillary supporters running around making all kinds of derogatory comments, but they are politically motivated to say bad things about Obama. You have to discount there comments. I haven't seen many of them pull their hair or rip their garments upon learning that Hillary is apparently a member of a right wing Christian cult called "The Family."

For decades, the Democratic Party has ghettoized religion, outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party.

Oh, come off it, Amy. You make assumptions about the entire democratic party based on your personal experience and expect us to let you slide?

How's this? My family, all life-long Democrats, are not black and go to a Catholic church in the south every week, as do most of their Democrat friends.

It isn't that the only religious Democrats are black, but that the party doesn't wear religion on its sleeve. And we like it that way. You have no credibility with me.

For decades, the Democratic Party has ghettoized religion, outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party.

Oh, come off it, Amy. You make assumptions about the entire democratic party based on your personal experience and expect us to let you slide?

How's this? My family, all life-long Democrats, are not black and go to a Catholic church in the south every week, as do most of their Democrat friends.

It isn't that the only religious Democrats are black, but that the party doesn't wear religion on its sleeve. And we like it that way. You have no credibility with me.

For decades, the Democratic Party has ghettoized religion, outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party.

Yes, I well remember noted African-American and Sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter. African-Americans Bill Clinton and Al Gore both also made a big show of their Baptist faith, while African-American John Kerry frequently mentioned his time as an altar boy.

One example of a democratic staffer, doesn't equate to "democratic party outsourcing religion to black churches".

That's a pretty strange formulation which, requires quite a lot of proof to sustain. Show me the goods.

Clearly John Kerry doesn't talk in religious terms when he speaks at a mostly white church, or perhaps even more bizarre, he's never been to one.

But in general, I think Amy is right. Democrats would have been wise to shun any black dude who seemed religious. Too bad we didn't know what we were getting into by pandering to those people!

Good thing we're all white here, so we can talk openly about this.

That anecdote seems to me a pretty good reason why the Democratic Party shouldn't be trying to put on a more religious face.

That is pretty thin gruel to make such a conclusion from. One anecdote and a few unsupported assertions.

As a scientist, I can't support any of your conclusions from the evidence you've provided.

hey mww, it's not a personal attack. In her zeal to be the uber expert adviser to the Democrats on religion, Ms. Sullivan makes statements that are quite remarkable in their ignorance of how the Republicans cynically use religion to garner power. The attack is not on her personally but on her approach to the problem.

Amy, doesn't your idea seem like bad timing, since the lead Democrat is in trouble for being a little too close to a black church? Knowing a bit too much about it, if you know what I mean?

My favorite anecdote about Republicans and religion is when Ralph Reed wrote a letter to Jack Abramoff, the criminal lobbyist for casinos and others, saying he could easily get the religious right behind anything Abramoff wanted for enough money.

I wonder what Amy makes of that?

I'd have to second the others asking for some evidence beyond an anecdote or two that supports the notion that Democrats have "ghettoized" religion. I'm not saying you're wrong; it's just that it's impossible to have a productive dialogue without looking at actual facts.

"Good lord. I always forget there's no presumption of good faith (no pun intended) in the blogosphere."

Yes, actually, there is. Sadly, you lost this long ago by the bad faith and abysmal quality of your arguments. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Mww: Here's why there was no "attempt to address the substance of what was said". There's no substance.

"I believe one of the reasons..." That's her opinion. And notice that she doesn't say "THE reason"-- it's "one of the reasons", and she doesn't list any others.

"For decades, the Democratic Party has ghettoized religion, outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party." That's Amy Sullivan's opinion, backed up by nothing. And, as people who have tried to debate the point with her know, she repeats it no matter how many counterexamples are offered.

"Most of John Kerry's religious references came in speeches to African-American audiences". This is also an opinion-- no dates, no quotes. It is also false. An article entitled "John Kerry on Faith" (available at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/149/story_14928_1.html) contains a number of quotes made by Kerry during the 2004 campaign, and most were not made at black churches. This also has been pointed out to Amy Sullivan, and she continues to say it.

The final portion of the post is a really stupid story about bad staff work. Anyone who has worked in politics has a comparable story. My favorite is the time where my candidate set up a forum where the keynote speaker was John Sweeney, head of the national AFL-CIO. When he arrived, and went over to the refreshment table, we discovered a bunch of Wal-Mart bags and bottles of Sam's Cola.

The difference between me and Amy Sullivan is that I didn't immediately start writing "The Democrats are hostile to organized labor", citing the story as proof.

You obviously are not familiar with Amy Sullivan's track record of distortions and evasions. One such case (which occurred when she had the keys to Kevin's blog) was the time she called Kerry's answer to a question about abortion (in the 2004 presidential debate) "just about perfect" and said she hoped he kept delivering that answer.

A week later, when everyone was mocking the answer and polls showed that it had cost Kerry votes, Sullivan started talking about how terrible the answer had been. And she continues, to this day, to deride it, without ever mentioning that she said that his answer was the key to winning elections.

Of course, the other possibility is that you are Amy Sullivan, writing under a sprezzatura. Given the ethically-challenged nature of Sullivan's writings, and her adamant refusal to address criticisms, I certainly think it possible that she employs a sock puppet.

I should know better than to throw up a quick post . . . .

Literally regurgitating right-wing talking points, I see.

Try some facts. According to this study, 52% of Democrats believe (or believed, at the time of the 2004 study) that the United States has special protection from God, compared to an insignificantly higher 57% for Republicans. And 50% of Democrats answered that belief in God is necessary in order to be moral, compared to an insignificantly lower 49% for Republicans.

The Democratic party doesn't pander as much to religion, but that's because we believe in separation of church and state, not because Democrats aren't religious.

so many white Americans were surprised/shocked by the snippets of Jeremiah Wright's sermons

Really? How many, roughly? I mean, as a percentage basis.

I don't know any white person that was suprised or shocked by those snippets, but the crowd I hang with tends to be informed.

So what is the rough percentage basis of white Americans that were shocked, Amy?

I assume it was high if you are journalisming on the subject.

writing under a sprezzatura

I so dig that this has become the universal eponym for SPing.

Religion in black churches, they seem to think, isn't really religion. It's an ethnic characteristic of an important voting bloc.

Of course that's not true. If any of those Democrats were surprised by Wright's comments, they must not have ever really listened in those churches they visit.

So when Wright started blaming the government for AIDS and spreading drugs around, was this religious doctrine he was reciting? Or was it a political expression of ethnic grievances?

Not that I consider this particular matter important, but if you're going to wade into the subject at large, you should probably strive for arguments that are actually coherent.

Good lord, I always forget there's no length to which Amy Sullivan won't go to tar Democrats as being anti-religion.

Let's not talk about the GOP's hypocrisy and cynicism when it comes to religion.

Let's not talk about positive religious examples involving Jewish, Catholic, United Church of Christ (my own denomination), and -- yes -- Black congregations, and their connections to Democratic politics. Let's not encourage more of that.

No, no, no. Instead let's talk about how "voters might think" (some people say...) that John was "pandering and insincere" about religion. Let's revel in one of Amy's "favorite stories" that portrays Democrats in a negative light regarding religious figures.

Let's all join Amy in the concern troll's crusade!

One of the things that makes Amy Sullivan's observations about Black churches so irrelevant is that she focuses on presidential politics.

Black ministers are very political, in my experience. The ministers are pretty clearly the intermediaries between voters and politicians.

Most of this relationship happens at the local level.

I know Amy Sullivan is a very important person. So it's probably a waste of her time to get to know ministers in the Black community who aren't directly involved in presidential politics. But maybe she could put her research staff on the case. They could learn about a Black community in some depth. They could watch how ministers relate to the community and how the politicians and ministers relate to each other. I recommend Ms. Sullivan's staff pay attention to the various ways ministers get money from the government for being regional precinct captains.

After Ms. Sullivan's staff have briefed her, I think she could provide better insights into Black religion and politics.

But until there's some meaningful research, it seems amateurish for Sullivan to try to fit a single anecdote from presidential politics--which isn't terribly representative--into her preconceived notions. And as plenty of people have observed Ms. Sullivan's preconceived notions are rather pedestrian.

There is no historical evidence of any successful political leader in a democracy who has sincerely used religion to appeal to voters. If Ms. Sullivan disagrees, she should start with sharing her data with us.

The Republican Party has been successful in appealing to evangelical Christians, of course, but it has also been successful in appealing to those who look for a Muslim terrorists under their beds every night. Unless the Democrats are willing to adopt the Karl Rove tactics on this front, any attempts to appear holier than Tom Delay and New Gingrich and Mitt Romney are foolish at best, no matter how sincere.

"Like it or not Americans perceive of themselves as religious people..."

Uh, maybe, but the number of Americans who do NOT is growing and growing. Up beyond 40% now, I believe I recently read.

It's just that those who DO think of themselves as religious put a great deal of store in their religious beliefs, while those of us who do NOT think of ourselves as religious generally don't vote strictly for agnostics. (As if ...)

"There's more to black churches than gospel music."

Yeah, but you have to admit that they have some kick-ass music in their churches.

Amy is, however, correct that most whites ignore what's going on in black churches.

Of course, a large proportion of whites are Republicans, and many Democrats are non-white, so I can't quite follow the inference Amy apparently wants to draw about the Democratic party based on what "most whites" do.

Some of the things you are saying Amy don't seem to add up to any kind of conclusion that I can grasp.

White Americans were shocked by Rev. Wright's statements - true. But you can't really blame the Democratic Party for that. The have been the ones going to the black churches, not the Republicans. It is not the job of the Democratic Party to educate white Americans about what goes on in Black Churches, (or Mosques, or Temples, or any other religious building)

Ghettoizing religion to Black Leaders? Come on, you can't really mean that. When they put Joe Lieberman on the ticket?

Speaking about religion only when it was advantageous. Well, why would you bring it up when it wasn't? What kind of fool candidate would bring it up when it was a known disadvantage to bring it up?
You wouldn't expect Hillary to bring up her ideas about unions at a Chamber of Commerce meeting.

The Kerry campaign should have had better staff making speaking arrangements - your anecdote proves that. But so what? That does not show anything about The Democratic Party and supposed hostility to religion.

I believe one of the reasons so many white Americans were surprised/shocked by the snippets of Jeremiah Wright's sermons that have been circulating is because they've largely ignored the black church.

And your evidence for this is, what, exactly? And when you say "white Americans", which specific group of "white Americans" did you have in mind? Conservatives? Evangelicals? Democrats? Republicans? Atheists? How many people were truly surprised? Shocked? How many are just using the comments to score political points? How many ministers, black and white alike, have said similar things in their sermons?

Or perhaps it's more accurate to say they've formed in their minds an image of what African-American religion is like and filtered out anything that doesn't match.

Since you're basically making shit up, I'm not sure why you think this statement is any more "accurate" than your first.

For decades, the Democratic Party has ghettoized religion

Your evidence for this is, what, exactly? Who, specifically "ghettoized" religion? Was this a deliberate move? If so, why? What advantage did they gain by so doing? And how did this happen?

outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party.

??? Hispanics aren't devout churchgoers? There are no devout Catholic Democrats? Jewish Democrats? Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist Democrats? Protestant Democrats? Even evangelical Democrats? Do you really not see the utter silliness of this assertion?

Democrats who give high-minded explanations for why they consider it inappropriate to mix religion and politics and why they don't approve of wearing religion on their sleeve don't bat an eye at politicians visiting black churches.

Nor do they bat an eye at politicians visiting churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions frequented by individuals of all creeds and devoutness. Nor should they, since it happens all the time, since religion is such a large part of community life in the United States, since Democratic politicians are, by and large, quite religious, and so on.

So far, this is vintage Amy. Not one shred of evidence to support some really, really stupid assertions. Sorry, Amy, but you should have listened to us on that earlier thread and not bothered to post this. It's going to get shredded, and with damn good reason.

Religion in black churches, they seem to think, isn't really religion. It's an ethnic characteristic of an important voting bloc.

Really? Who, specifically, thinks this? Where have they stated it or written it? Where have they even remotely behaved this way?

Of course that's not true.

Duh....

If any of those Democrats were surprised by Wright's comments,

Which Democrats are you talking about, Amy? Why do you not know whether they were "surprised" or not?

they must not have ever really listened in those churches they visit.

So far, we have only your word for it that such Democrats exist. Are you going to ever provide any evidence of any kind?

There's more to black churches than gospel music.

And, again, duh! Who has ever pretended otherwise? Nice strawman argument. And a rather demeaning one, at that.

Black sermons are often described as 'musical' or 'rhythmic,' but there are words being spoken, words that matter.

Amy, why would you think a nation moderately well versed on Martin Luther King's career and speeches would ever doubt that "words [were] being spoken"? Or that those words didn't "matter"? Who, specifically, do you think isn't aware of this?

In 2004, just to take one example, most of John Kerry's religious references came in speeches to African-American audiences (particularly before the convention).

And your evidence for this is, what, exactly? This should be a verifiable fact, Amy. Let's see the evidence to support it.

His advisers must have considered it good strategy to limit religious rhetoric to 'safe' crowds,

Really? And your evidence that this is what his advisers thought is, what, exactly? Who are your sources? What thinking led to that decision?

but the decision was problematic in two ways. First, by speaking about religion only when it could be politically advantageous, Kerry seemed to confirm the criticism that he was pandering and insincere.

How did Kerry's references to religion differ from those of George W. Bush? Where did Bush give his religious rhetoric? How did that rhetoric differ from Kerry's? How did either of them differ from other Presidential candidates?

These are verifiable facts, facts that strike to the heart of your ever-present thesis. Why have you done no research on this?

If religion was really important to him, voters might think, he would talk about it in other settings.

Sure, they "might". They might also think that pigs could fly. We have equal evidence for both assertions. Where are the polls that show that this is what voters actually thought? Again, this is a verifiable fact? Why have you not verified it?

But it was also insulting to African-Americans, leaving the impression that white politicians were at best humoring their silly religion habit and at worst using them for cover.

Really? And your evidence for this is, what, exactly? What did the polls show? How many African-Americans voted for Kerry? As compared to Bush? As compared to former Democratic candidates?

Again, these are verifiable facts. Why have you not cited them?

I'm not even going to bother to address your single anecdote of an inept Democratic staffer since it was entirely irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

I'm sad to say that this post was precisely what we all predicted. Completely devoid of content, of serious analysis, of actual data, and not worth the bother to read.

It's too bad this post of Amy's is such a jumble of unsupported thoughts held together by--I can't find a cohesive central point so I'm going with this--"All this attention being paid to Jeremiah Wright makes me think this is a good time to haul out the Democrats-hostile-to-religion canard." Really, nothing hangs together here. Nothing.

Here's what would have been an interesting topic: Narrow down "so many white Americans," which has zero useful meaning as broadly as Amy has written it, to the ones who were genuinely shocked and surprised by Wright's sermons, and see how many of them self-identify as religious, church-going, whatever markers of faith you want to apply. Then compare that to the same markers for those of us who weren't particularly freaked out by Wright. I'm guessing you'd find that generally speaking, it's the more religious group that had the heart attacks over Wright--and I suspect that would hold true for working-class religious Democrats as well as Republicans.

And if that proves true, do you seriously propose to bridge that divide by getting secularists, the white Democrats least uncomfortable with black churches, to more overtly reach out to religious Americans?

"Interesting - two comments and both personal attacks rather than an attempt to address the substance of what is said."

There was no "substance" to address. It was just more of Amy's usual unsupported blather. We've been down this road with Amy before, so you shouldn't be too surprised at the reception she's getting.

White Americans were shocked by Rev. Wright's statements - true.

There it is again, only now the assertion is trivial to the point of inanity. How many white Americans were "shocked" by Rev. Wright's statements? Two? Three?

Wow. Stop the presses: "Two white people were suprised today."

Amy is, however, correct that most whites ignore what's going on in black churches.

Most white people, like most black people, ignore everything except for what's currently showing on TV.

This is not a sufficient excuse to write the garbage that Amy writes, which really is pure drivel of the lowest form. Just join the Repukes, Amy. Then you can trash your bogeymen "Democrats" to your heart's content without your ignorance criticized by your fellow party members.

In 2004, just to take one example, most of John Kerry's religious references came in speeches to African-American audiences (particularly before the convention). His advisers must have considered it good strategy to limit religious rhetoric to "safe" crowds, but the decision was problematic in two ways. First, by speaking about religion only when it could be politically advantageous, Kerry seemed to confirm the criticism that he was pandering and insincere. If religion was really important to him, voters might think, he would talk about it in other settings. But it was also insulting to African-Americans, leaving the impression that white politicians were at best humoring their silly religion habit and at worst using them for cover.

How many different ways can you sneak your own biases into a paragraph? "Must have considered"? "Seemed to confirm"? "Might think"? "Leaving the impression"? Is there even a single word in this paragraph for which you can point to something concrete, observable, and verifiable?

This is the worst sort of lazy reporting.

There is no historical evidence of any successful political leader in a democracy who has sincerely used religion to appeal to voters.

Gregor: Unless you're categorically calling all politicians' religious sincerity into suspicion, I can't agree with this as an historical claim. Off the top of my head: how about Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and William Jennings Bryan?

If I have a question about any candidate's faith, I will ask. Since I am not voting for them nor hiring them to address where my dead arse winds up their faith is of no concern. The exception to this is if they feel part of their job description is to get my dead arse into heaven or hell according to their specific beliefs or non-beliefs. If that is the case the job they are applying for is the wrong position and they should look else where.

Democrats did not "outsource religion" nor "ghettoized" religion. Democrats considered religion to be a respected personal issue. Which is in my opinion the correct, respectable and most adult stance since no politician can get anyone's dead arse into heaven or hell.

As far as Wright's sermon, well it is not unusual for a religious leader to portray God as an angry freak about something just barely holding himself back from delivering a homicidal smack down. It's been happening for thousands of years.

Wright's "crime" was that he did not have the "cool" list as to what God is suppose to be an angry psycho about. He could have stuck with sex, gays or women and he would have been all right.

There is a large segment of the American population that believes that under no circumstances can America ever ever have any problems or flaws. It's quite childish in my opinion but blind nationalism does weird things to people.

The whole uproar about Wright is a whole lot of smoke being blown up our arses.

Wright is correct that racial issues have not been addressed. The whole God having a hissy fit was a tad over the top, but religious leaders do that. They can do that since it's their churches.

Rather than Dems getting more involved in the battle of religious sects they should stick to respecting faith as a personal choice.

I always forget there's no presumption of good faith (no pun intended) in the blogosphere.

You haven't earned such a presumption.

Monthly editors: why do we have to put up with this crap? She's got a gig at another magazine. Give someone else a chance.

So the point of this anecdote is that Dems dont' really care about religion, and I guess we are supposed to conclude that the republicans would have...what? Gone to the Adventist church service? Spelled his name right, because they really really love dem some religious? Seriously--are you arguing that, say Dick Cheney really loves Jesus? That Grover Norquist and, lemme think, Scooter Libby sat around memorizing the names of local preachers?

You are certainly right that the Dems could do a better job pandering. But as far as I can tell from the polls, were' doing really well without the pandering right now. Let the Republicans have religious people who are dumb enough to be duped. We'll take the ones that understand the difference between appearance and reality

Isn't this article what's known as a "concern troll?"

"But until there's some meaningful research, it seems amateurish for Sullivan to try to fit a single anecdote from presidential politics--which isn't terribly representative--into her preconceived notions."

Bingo. And yet, this is precisely what Amy does, over and over and over again, ad nauseam. As you mention, there is meaningful research that could be done in this area. It wouldn't even be particularly difficult. Just as I identified above several other areas crying out for research that could support (or completely contradict) Amy's assertions. So why has she not done so? Why has she never done so?

Every post I've ever seen from Amy has always consisted entirely of argument by anecdote. And, in this case, it was a particularly lame anecdote that didn't really seem to have a fricking point, much like her entire post!

I'd just like to endorse what Shortstop wrote. Very cogent.

What Amy doesn't quite seem to grasp is that the majority of commenters here aren't hostile to religion or opposed to a religious discussion: we're opposed to stupid, unsupported arguments, particularly stupid, unsupported arguments that are critical of Democrats and buy into Republican frames and offer no meaningful solutions to the supposed problems. And that, alas, is all that Amy has to offer.

"Isn't this article what's known as a 'concern troll?'"

Yup. Amy's stock in trade. The sad thing is that she appears to be able to actually make a living peddling this kind of crap.

As far as Wright's sermon, well it is not unusual for a religious leader to portray God as an angry freak about something just barely holding himself back from delivering a homicidal smack down. It's been happening for thousands of years.

Exactly. These folks getting their shorts in a twist over Wright need to read some Old Testament prophets sometime.

Amy, the reason you get such a hard time is not because you're necessarily wrong, it's just that you consistently use language that is offensive to secular Americans. To say that the party has "outsourced" religion implies that religion is properly the business of a political party. Yes, most Americans are religious. But no one faith forms a majority, so if you get too specific about what religion is supposed to mean, you alienate more than you attract.

Your anecdote about the offended minister has nothing to do with religion, either. That was just bad advance work. Atheists also prefer that their name be spelled correctly and that they not be contacted at times that they've already let it be known that they aren't available.

Even the dispute about Rev. Wright isn't really about religion. It's about the fact that black leaders of Rev. Wright's generation tend to have a very dark view of the role of race in America, and that they express this view more openly to black than to white audiences.

I hate to pile on such a one-sided affair, but if you're constantly getting torched by 99% of the people you're nominally writing to as being uninformed, out of touch, and generally not helping anyone by perpetuating stereotypes that no thinking person, honestly, should be worrying about, maybe it's time to reassess the angle you've been working.

More simply: Stop worrying about which party is/isn't hostile to religion in your opinion and recognize that people rightly should keep their politics and religion in separate intellectual baskets. That the Republicans do not, and really right now can not (without alienating a lot of their followers) do so is the Republicans' problem to deal with, not the Democrats' mistake to make.

I don't know many progressives who were actually shocked by Rev. Wright's comments, and even fewer who were willing to hold his comments against Obama. Now there are a lot of Hillary supporters running around making all kinds of derogatory comments, but they are politically motivated to say bad things about Obama.

I'm a Hillary supporter who wasn't at all shocked by Wright's comments, nor do I hold them against Obama. But given that he appears to have the nomination sewed up, I am FURIOUS with him for not seeing this coming, not realizing the damage it would do to his campaign, and for most likely putting McCain in the White House.

Of course I'll donate to his campaign, work for it, and vote for him anyway. But I have very little confidence in his judgment, other than that it has to be better than McCain's.

"These folks getting their shorts in a twist over Wright need to read some Old Testament prophets sometime."

Or contemporary Evangelicals. I think that Silver Owl above had it right: "He could have stuck with sex, gays or women and he would have been all right."

Amy Sullivan wrote: "Religion in black churches, they seem to think, isn't really religion."

PaulB replied: "Really? Who, specifically, thinks this?"

Amy didn't say that anyone "thinks" this.

She said that Democrats "seem" to think this. She is, you know, an expert on what Democrats "seem" to think.

There it is again, only now the assertion is trivial to the point of inanity. How many white Americans were "shocked" by Rev. Wright's statements? Two? Three?

No, I think it's pretty obvious that, removing the large number of white Americans who leaped in to use this incident cynically, there were a lot of people who were truly shocked and surprised. But it doesn't do any good to observe this unless you try to figure out who they are--their demographics, their own religious habits, their political leanings, the cultures in which they move.

And, if Amy's past work is any guide, it would never occur to her to do this, because it would require letting go of her beloved unsupported broad-brush generalizing and limiting her statements to something she can back up with a fact or two.

Wow, the hate directed towards Amy so thick a piece of lead would float. Most of it is not deserved, and, in fact, makes me sad on how intollerent some people who call themselves liberal can be. I'm shocked she's stayed with it all these long years.

That said, as harsh and horribly personal as most of the criticism is, there are good points in some of the replies. If only they were worded in a way that would encourage anyone to actually read them.

"In Israel yesterday, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum reports, Lieberman once again intervened when McCain made an incorrect reference about the Jewish holiday Purim -- by calling the holiday "their version of Halloween here."" [source] (via digby)

I know this is pointless as we are talking about Amy "I am immune to good faith argument" Sullivan here, but the only evidence that Sullivan can provide that the Democratic Party has "ghettoized" (nice turn of phrase, especially when discussing AA religiosity) religion is that the Party STARTED THEIR NATIONAL NOMINATING CONVENTION WITH A PRAYER.

Oh, but a staffer, see, did bad advance work and thus Democrats marginalize the religious. I wish I could see how the "thus" works. Perhaps it is stand in for "including unstated evidence that I feel no need to provide because my unsupported assertion is sufficient."

The stupid, it burns.

Wow. I've never seen a post subjected to this level of scrutiny.

Not to mention the freaking-out anger that a lot of the readership seems to think Amy deserves.

I guess a nerve was hit.

So, let's assume for the moment, that everything Amy said was true. What is Amy's proposed "solution" to this "problem"? Democrats should no longer "outsource" religion but bring it in-house? Democrats should no longer visit black churches? Democrats should visit more white churches? Democrats should tell black ministers to stop making statements that can be politically attacked? Democrats should write on the blackboard 500 times that "Words matter"? That "Religion in black churches is really religion"?

Even if you assume that everything Amy writes is true (even though it clearly is not), what on earth was the point?

Wow. Check out the vitriol. Thought we had enough on our hands just fighting the Constitution-shredding Bush administration and the power-hungry religious fundamentalists.

Calm down, people. Amy has never said that all Democrats are cynical about faith. She has never said that no Democrat is religious, nor is she ignorant of the fact that the Republican Party routinely uses religious rhetoric to whip up one segment of its base. She is not talking about individual Democrats, she is talking about the Democratic Party. She has been covering issues of religion in politics for many years and she is aware of the distinction between individual beliefs and a sort of institutional bias (if that's the right word, and it may not be) in some of the more prominent Democratic politicians that religion is best left alone unless they head to a black church and speak the language of faith there.

Her point, which is clearly made, is that prominent Democrats have been rather cynical about the ornamental use of religious figures like Elder Benoit. I'm not sure how anyone gets a Republican slant or frame out of an honest statement that Democrats are also capable of using religion for political ends. Nor do I understand how people think it's appropriate to contrast their own personal experiences as Democrats with what Amy has observed (and is clearly talking about) in prominent Democratic figures. Nor do I get why many posts on this threat are knocking down remarkably irrelevant straw men in an effort to argue against points that Amy didn't make.

Democrats are religious, just as Republicans are. But the Democratic Party has run away from religion as the Republican Party has embraced it, and their efforts to grapple with it as a political influence are sometimes clumsy and transparently insincere. Can we get back to attacking Republicans now?

Amy Sullivan wrote: "For decades, the Democratic Party has ghettoized religion, outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party."

That is nothing but baseless, offensive slander -- not only against the Democratic Party but against African-American churches.

Amy Sullivan is reciting scripted right-wing Republican talking points, lifted verbatim from the Lee Atwater / Karl Rove playbook. Her comments are indistinguishable from those of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.

Perhaps Washington Monthly will invite her to guest-blog about the Democrat War On Christmas.

"Wow. I've never seen a post subjected to this level of scrutiny."

We've been down this road before. Amy is a one-note poster here. And we are quite justifiably irritated that the Monthly continues to air her tripe.

"Not to mention the freaking-out anger that a lot of the readership seems to think Amy deserves."

Care to address the substance of the complaints and counter-arguments? Or did you just want to troll?

"I guess a nerve was hit."

Yeah, our anti-stupid nerve. Amy does that a lot.

In Ms. Sullivan's defense, I have met a Democratic operative who was so shallow, so trite, and so venal that all I could think throughout his interminable yammering was that if I ripped his spleen out, I'd go to jail. I'm sure he's not the only one out there - and judging from some of the advice given to Gore and Kerry, there are too many of them for our collective good. Her reaction to the idiot trying to book a 'black minister' without concern for his beliefs, his ideology, or even his name (!) is understandable.

That said, it does seem to me, every time I read one of these 'Democrats don't do religion' pieces, that the author has drunk the GOP Kool-Aid on this subject. Democrats do, in fact, do religion. They just don't throw it in other people's faces.

Which is it, Ms. Sullivan? Have the Democrats "largely ignored the black church" or have they "ghettoized religion, outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party". It seems to me that it can't be both.

Such sweeping generalizations don't fly very well on this blog when they are self-contradictory and are not backed up by tangible examples. I might even have agreed with some of your overly broad statements if you could come up with something illustrative other than John Kerry speaking at a couple of black churches.

Sorry, but this is a lame post.

I hate to pile on such a one-sided affair, but if you're constantly getting torched by 99% of the people you're nominally writing to as being uninformed, out of touch, and generally not helping anyone by perpetuating stereotypes that no thinking person, honestly, should be worrying about, maybe it's time to reassess the angle you've been working.

This angle, this shtick, this peculiar niche Amy is occupying--which, in its theme of the wiser Dem trying to help her own feckless and intransigent party, appeals to TIME and its ilk in the same way that Joe Lieberman and Sam Zell appeal to the GOP--is the only reason Amy gets any ink at all.

If she drops this, she has nothing.

"She is not talking about individual Democrats, she is talking about the Democratic Party."

Is she? Then she should be easily able to substantiate her assertions. Why has she never chosen to do so?

"She has been covering issues of religion in politics for many years"

Then she should damn well know by now the difference between unsupported attacks and a reasoned, well-supported argument. Until she learns that distinction, she will continue to be castigated, particularly if she continues to write silly crap like the article that launched this thread.

"and she is aware of the distinction between individual beliefs and a sort of institutional bias (if that's the right word, and it may not be) in some of the more prominent Democratic politicians that religion is best left alone unless they head to a black church and speak the language of faith there."

Really? I'll ask you the same question I asked Amy: Which "more prominent Democratic politicians" are you talking about? What is your evidence that they feel this way?

"Her point, which is clearly made,"

And even more clearly wholly unsupported.

"is that prominent Democrats have been rather cynical about the ornamental use of religious figures like Elder Benoit."

One anecdote, particularly a silly one like that, does not an argument make.

"I'm not sure how anyone gets a Republican slant or frame out of an honest statement that Democrats are also capable of using religion for political ends."

LOL... Since that isn't what Amy said, forgive me if I conclude that perhaps her "point" isn't as "clearly made" as you think? And the Republican slant or frame is that Democrats are somehow unfriendly to religion, insincere when they discuss it, "ghettoizing" it, pandering, and so on.

"Nor do I understand how people think it's appropriate to contrast their own personal experiences as Democrats with what Amy has observed (and is clearly talking about)"

Amy has never, not once, ever clearly stated precisely who she was talking about, just as she did not so state in the piece above (except for wholly unsupported and, from above, false assertions about Kerry). It is this very vagueness that arouses some of the ire.

"Nor do I get why many posts on this threat are knocking down remarkably irrelevant straw men in an effort to argue against points that Amy didn't make."

Then what point do you think she did make? And how was that point supported? What data did she provide?

"But the Democratic Party has run away from religion as the Republican Party has embraced it,"

And your evidence for this is, what, exactly? Sorry, but you have the same problem that Amy does -- a preconceived notion wholly unsupported by the data.

BWA! I said Sam Zell and I meant Zell Miller! Apologies--I can't stand either of 'em, but Sam gets my larger ire these days.

FYI, over 14% of the comments thus far are by PaulB.

Make that 15.9%. He or she made 2 more as I wrote that!

Wally wrote: "But the Democratic Party has run away from religion as the Republican Party has embraced it"

Neither you nor Amy Sullivan offer the slightest evidence that the Democratic Party has "run away from religion". And the assertion is absurd on its face. Every single Democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime has spoken publicly and repeatedly about the importance of his or her Christian faith (which is quite obviously the only religion that Amy Sullivan cares about). And certainly not only in black churches, as Amy Sullivan contends.

As for the Republican Party's alleged "embrace" of religion, that "embrace" consists of nothing but Republican pandering to the very worst instincts and fears -- racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia -- of a small segment of a particular religious group, namely white male southern conservative evangelicals, who can be thus manipulated in sufficient numbers that their votes help Republicans to carry some southern states.

If Democratic politicians like Clinton and Gore and Kerry and Clinton and Obama have been less willing than Republicans like Bush and McCain to exploit the worst aspects of religion as cynical, manipulative, fear-mongering, hate-mongering, lying demagogues, I for one don't regard that as a "problem" with the Democratic Party.

Must we "continue reading"? Nuff said.

Wally wrote: "Wow. Check out the vitriol."

Well, Wally, baseless and offensive slanders like "For decades, the Democratic Party has ghettoized religion, outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party" that are indistinguishable from the Republican propaganda that Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly broadcast every day are bound to provoke some vitriol.

I'm not even a Democrat, and I find Amy Sullivan's regurgitation of Republican talking points offensive.

"FYI, over 14% of the comments thus far are by PaulB."

I'm bored while waiting for my build to finish and I dislike Amy's particular brand of stupidity, even more now that she's adding an "everybody's picking on me!" whine to her shtick.

The content of Wright's sermons are not religious but political and they represent nothing typical of black churches in general but ideas typical of Afrocentrism and black separatism. If we are familiar with his ideas it is not because they come from African American religion but because they come from other African American movements and writings.

I was a teaching assitant for a class once that had only 4 white students out of about 60 students and an African American professor. The ideas discussed in that course included much of the territory covered by Wright and the readings were the intellectual foundation for some of the more extreme views. This stuff is neither new nor is it particularly religious (see W.E.B. DuBois, for example).

To attribute all of this to African American religion is wrong. To attribute it to all African Americans is also wrong. However, I doubt there are many African Americans unfamiliar with the views and I think there are even fewer who would be willing to dispute them in public before a white audience. We may not be at a point where race can be discussed freely but we are also not at a point where self-criticism of African American culture will occur in public either. THAT is what makes Obama's speech somewhat unique, although the criticism was particularly mild, in my opinion.

Amy Sullivan wrote: "For decades, the Democratic Party has ghettoized religion, outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party"

Compare and contrast: "For decades, the Republican Party has trailer-parked religion, outsourcing it to southern whites within the party."

I haven't read all the previous comments, and apologize to those I've missed.

I think this is a great topic for discussion, and applaud Kevin and Amy for putting the topic up. I think Amy made a good point in her post. I can also see how some might take umbrage at the suggestion that Dems should get into the whole business of religion, which can be a minefield of tribalism and prejudice.

Anyway, I represent the one true religion which is Unitarian-Universalism. The rest of you are heathen and should go back to your medieval castles, peasant domains, and money-changing centers. Just kidding (c;

It's really a good subject for discussion. When you engage people religiously, you are trying to engage them at the most fundamental level. If you are scared to do this, then maybe you don't deserve to run the country. Perhaps people will vote for you even if you don't fundamentally see things the way they do, as long as they see that there are points of commonality on some of the core values of our society...

Mary wrote: "The content of Wright's sermons are not religious but political and they represent nothing typical of black churches in general but ideas typical of Afrocentrism and black separatism."

Wright's sermons had both religious and political content but you make (if I understand you) a good point that it was not the religious content, but the political content, that was controversial.

When Wright talked about saying "God damn America" rather than "God bless America", it was not the religious content -- the assertions that (1) there is a God and (2) that this God has the capacity to "damn" or "bless" anyone -- that was controversial. Christian preachers of most any sort are expected to expound such views. And Christian preachers of many sorts down through the centuries have railed about fire and brimstone and damnation for those who offend God by doing whatever that particular preacher deems offensive to God, as did the Hebrew prophets before them.

No, what was controversial was the political content: that Wright found fault, grave fault, heinous fault, with America as a nation. That's what is causing trouble for Barack Obama. That's the rhetoric that is considered "beyond the pale" in America.

And you are right that anyone who has listened to the speeches of, for example, Malcolm X, would find little surprising or shocking in Reverend Wright's political views.

Let me take this from a position of one who is the Sullivan-supporters notion of a Democrat -- I am one of the few Democrats I know who IS personally hostile to organized religion, even if I overlook it if a candidate I otherwise admire professes a deep belief in it. All I ask in return is that they maintain a separation between the church and the state, so they can live their lives and I can live mine.

I know I should respect the sacredness of it all and embrace the pious platitudes, but I find it increasingly impossible to do so -- and why? Precisely because of this manufactured controversy. It's what happens when you drag politics into religion.

An indeterminate number of white people are freaked out about Rev. Wright, but I have yet to see ANY of them take even the slightest look at what their religion teaches. If the basis of their religion is the Bible, then there are rafts of ignorant, bizarre, hateful and genocidal exhortations in there, and yet many of these same white people so outraged about Wright profess that the Bible is the very foundation of their faith.

Why? Because they find in it solace, beauty and values they embrace, in spite of the litany of horrors it catalogs and tells people it should believe in.

It's lost of every single one of these hypocrites that this is exactly the rationale put for by Obama on his pastor. Like most Christians (save for the vanishingly few Biblical literalists -- of which there are a small minority who even know what's in the Bible anyway), they ignore that which they find most objectionable while embracing the good.

There's nothing particularly wrong with that, I guess. But then they don't see it that way.

Hypocrisy when it comes to religion is practically a necessity in order for people to think theirs is the one true faith. Anything else, say ecunmenicalism, becomes a jumble of contradictions and/or platitudes about how we should respect one another, live and let live -- which is all I ask in the first place and I don't need a priest, pastor, rabbi and imam to tell me this.

Hypocrisy of the first order is needed so religious types can avoid the unpleasantness of the Bible -- the book at the very core of their value system! -- while throwing stones at the unpleasant rhetoric of a black preacher who says mean things about the US government.

Someone wrote: "When you engage people religiously, you are trying to engage them at the most fundamental level. If you are scared to do this, then maybe you don't deserve to run the country."

Do you think that cynical politicians who "engage people religiously" in order to deceive and manipulate them by exploiting their worst instincts and fears, and having gained power with the help of those people's votes implement policies that are profoundly detrimental to those same people -- as Republicans like George Bush have done for decades to white southern evangelical Christians -- thereby demonstrate that they "deserve to run the country"?

Does a fake, phony preacher who collects money from low-income, devout Christians to build a church and then skips town with the cash "deserve" to have their money?

It's not important, but the counter examples of Roger Williams, Anne Hutchison and W.J. Bryan as successful politicians who based their appeal on sincere religious belief are a bit weak. Williams and Hutchison weren't really politicians and Bryan wasn't successful on the national stage, election-wise, was he?

If Amy Singer's question is "Why don't white Democrats do better at appealing to high-religiosity white (and Latino) voters?" the commenters here provide the answer: because a significant -- or at least loud -- chunk of the Democratic activist base finds religiosity as offensive and threatening as fundamentalists find homosexuality. That's too bad. A little practical multi-culturalism might allow us to win more elections.

If religion was really important to him, voters might think, he would talk about it in other settings. But it was also insulting to African-Americans...

The notion that Kerry speaking God-talk in front of black churches had any measurable impact on the election is, shall we say, extremely dubious. Equally dubious is the claim that blacks were insulted when they turned out in record numbers and voted 90% for Kerry. If that's "insulted", I say let the insults flow.

If Amy Singer's question is "Why don't white Democrats do better at appealing to high-religiosity white (and Latino) voters?" the commenters here provide the answer: because a significant -- or at least loud -- chunk of the Democratic activist base finds religiosity as offensive and threatening as fundamentalists find homosexuality. That's too bad. A little practical multi-culturalism might allow us to win more elections.

Mark, don't you see a contradiction between that suggestion and the idea that progressives are reality based? Practical multi-culturalism requires either holding no substantive views so that all are compatible or accepting some views that run counter to empirical evidence. How would you reconcile that?

Who the hell is Amy Singer?

Mark Kleiman, if you read the comments carefully, you will find that the "loudest" point of view expressed is not offense at "religiosity". It is offense at Amy Sullivan's (not "Singer") really, really bad writing -- her sweeping and baseless claims, her sloppy or nonexistent "reasoning", her constant prattle about what Democrats "seem" to think, her regurgitation of one insupportable Republican talking point after another.

As for the substance of her "argument" let's look at how you summarize it on the blog entry you linked to:

"Many white Democratic politicians have tin ears when they try to address high-religiosity voters."

What white Democratic politicians are you referring to? What are some specific examples of this alleged "tin ear"? You may note that Amy Sullivan has not answered these questions, despite being repeatedly asked. Moreover, as another commenter noted above, in 2004 Sullivan first praised John Kerry's reply to a religious anti-abortion questioner in one of the televised debates, when Kerry spoke (I thought eloquently) of his own faith-based opposition to abortion but also his strong view that public policy must take into account other people's values -- and then later Sullivan reversed herself and gave this as an example of a Democratic politician's "tin ear". Does Sullivan herself even know what she is talking about?

"If Democratic politicians knew better how to communicate with high-religiosity voters, and if the activists gave them room to do so, Democrats would win more elections."

First of all, it is hard to imagine how much more "room" Democratic politicians need "activists" to "give" them, since all Democratic politicians at the national level already speak frequently and ostentatiously about the role of their Christian faith in guiding their public policy decisions. It's not that Democratic politicians don't "know how to communicate with high-religiosity voters" -- it is that a certain particular group of "high-religiosity voters", namely conservative white male southern evangelical Christians, are greatly concerned to implement public policies such as banning abortion, banning gay marriage, teaching the Biblical creation myth in schools instead of evolution, and so on -- and these are public policies that they are simply not going to find supported by Democratic politicians. (Republican politicians don't much support them either, but they are more willing to pander to them.)

And as for "winning more elections" neither you nor Amy Sullivan have made a case that there is a problem to be solved, or that trying to peel off some small number of white southern conservative evangelical votes is the way to solve it. The Democrats won the last major national election in 2006, sweeping into the majority in both houses of Congress. The Democrats appear ready to win even more seats in Congress this year. They certainly have a shot at the presidency.

Moreover, Al Gore and John Kerry won the elections of 2000 and 2004, which were blatantly stolen by the Republicans through voter disenfranchisement and fraud. And in those elections, the corporate media's shocking campaign of character assassination against the Democratic nominee -- which focused on issues other than religion -- had a lot more to do with getting George Bush close enough to steal the election than the votes of conservative evangelical Christians.

So, the contention that Democratic politicians are somehow unable to communicate with religious voters -- and particularly that they are constrained from doing so by an imaginary mass movement of radical atheist "activists" in the Democratic Party -- holds no water.

And, the contention that trying to peel off a few white southern conservative evangelical Christian votes from the Republicans (at the risk of alienating not atheists, but liberal Christians and Jews all over the country) will help Democrats "win more elections" when Democrats are already winning plenty of elections without those votes, doesn't hold water either.

This is why commenters here get annoyed with Amy Sullivan. It's not a bunch of atheists offended by her religion. It's thinking people who are offended by her baseless claims and vapid arguments.

Thinking white people don't care what Bert (b@b.com), Ernie (e@e.com) and the rest of the many idiots with the made-up email addresses above (who are probably all one person) think of Amy Sullivan.

Thinking white people don't care what crazy uncle Wright said from his pulpit (although the CIA creating the AIDS virus bit starts moving the outrage meter).

Thinking white people think Obama has displayed terrible judgement to get into the position he's in and that's why they now won't vote for him.

It's sad when a gifted, attractive and charismatic politician makes mistakes which render him unelectable but there it is, get over it, move on.

As a white American male raised in the generally well-to-do L.A. suburb of Pasadena, I am really in no position and thus have no standing, to comment on the African-American perspective.

Therefore, I can only offer observations about my own personal perspective on the subject, which is that:

(a) Yes, African-Americans in general are probably angry, and at the very least unhappy about their general status in American life;

(b) African-Americans collectively draw upon three-plus centuries of adverse experience in their interaction with white America -- having suffered countless instances of degredation, discrimination, and outright hostility and violence during that period -- and thus have every right to be angry and / or unhappy; and

(c) The Rev. Jeremiah Wright might sometimes resemble a live-action cartoon whilst preaching, and probably deserves the harsh criticism he has received for some of his over-the-top comments, but neither of those invalidate the rationale underscoring his own justifiable frustration at the overall state of social justice in these United States.

Anyway, Rev. Wright is no longer part of the Obama campaign. And while I consider Sen. Obama's handling of the issue to be fair game for further political discussion, let's not use the incident as an excuse to flog African-Americans over how individual members of that community might choose to practice their respective chosen faith. Human spirituality cannot be defined as an objective personal experience.

I generally agree with Amy's viewpoint. This wasn't her best effort, probably due to time constraints. Some of the criticisms have merit. However, the level of the vitriol against her is consistently amazing. Her detractors prove the main point in most of her posts--Democrats have a problem talking about religion. Amy is trying to show a way to a Democratic majority; one being demonstrated fairly effectively by the Obama campaign. There are a lot of votes out there if the skeptics would hold their fire anytime a Democrat acknowledges faith and religion. You don't need to convert; just have a little respect and tolerance of faithful American.

The McCain campaign would be wise to provide a link to this discussion.

SA: "Every single Democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime has spoken publicly and repeatedly about the importance of his or her Christian faith (which is quite obviously the only religion that Amy Sullivan cares about). And certainly not only in black churches, as Amy Sullivan contends."

"And your evidence for this is, what, exactly? Sorry, but you have the same problem that Amy does -- a preconceived notion wholly unsupported by the data."

Mary wrote: "Practical multi-culturalism requires either holding no substantive views so that all are compatible or accepting some views that run counter to empirical evidence."

I don't think so. First of all, "culture" doesn't necessarily imply holding any empirical views at all. A lot of "culture" has more to do with preferences, values and social behaviors than with empirical views of reality. And multi-culturalism often has more to do with accepting that different people from different cultures have different preferences and values and acceptable social behaviors than our own.

Practical multi-culturalism merely requires that we live and let live. It merely requires that we accept that everyone is entitled to hold whatever views they wish. It merely requires that where differing views have practical consequences that create unavoidable conflict, that we agree to use nonviolent means to come to some accommodation that every one can live with.

I would have enjoyed this column if I hadn't decided to give up Stupid for Lent.

Jennifer wrote: "I would have enjoyed this column if I hadn't decided to give up Stupid for Lent."

Amen.

the commenters here provide the answer: because a significant -- or at least loud -- chunk of the Democratic activist base finds religiosity as offensive and threatening as fundamentalists find homosexuality.

It would be helpful to your argument here if you were to offer proof of this. I don't see that sort of behavior here in any substantial way. One or two comments are not really that significant.

Also, the very few commenters who have expressed such an opinion have done so in much more civil language than that to be found in those religious Republican forums that deal with "The Homosexual Agenda", as they put it.

After all no one here has called (whichever vague group of white christians whom Ms. Sullivan refers to as "shocked") a scourge, or an infestation, or a disease, a plague to be wiped from the earth.

Thus, the "Dems hate Relig