...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.

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.

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 Religion just like God Hates Homos" equivalency is irrelevant, at best.

First, let me apologize for getting Amy Sullivan's name wrong.

Now as to Mary's substantive point:

Yes, the extreme post-modern form of multi-culturalism does say that all beliefs are equal because none has any objective foundation. (Like all forms of relativism, that seems to be a self-swallowing claim: is the belief that no belief has an objective basis objectively true? And if not, why should I be convinced by it if I'd rather believe that my other beliefs are correct and their contraries false?)

But what I called "practical multi-culturalism" is just a combination of ordinary tolerance and good manners with a little bit of literary and anthropological sophistication. If I want to learn whether Sufism or Confucianism or Pentacostalism (or post-modernism or microeconomics or string theory) has anything interesting to teach me, I can't do so by insisting that my own current world-view has absolute priority, and that it's the job of the Sufi or the string theorist to show that her beliefs make sense in my terms. Instead, I need to make a good-faith effort to listen attentively and respectfully to what someone else is trying to say, and to understand what that belief means to the people who actually hold it.

Having done so, I can then justifiably say, "Now that I know what you're saying, I disagree with it" (or "disagree with this part of it"). Even then, I should reserve the right to change my mind.

K'ung fu-tse (whom the barbarians call "Confucius") says (Analects, I, 1) "How pleasant it is when friends come from afar." The desire to make friends across cultural distances is an essential tool for living well in a diverse world.

If Amy Singer's question is "Why don't white Democrats do better at appealing to high-religiosity white (and Latino) voters?"

The question is a good one but your answer is wrong.

Getting a citizen's vote is a zero sum game, and if the other side is will to stoop to any depths necessary to get the vote (Repubs's anti-gay hysteria every four years, their continued used of anti-Muslim rhetoric in guise of anti-terrorism, their abortion is murder stance, etc.) you cannot get the vote unless you also stoop to the same or even lower levels. Amy Sullivan's prescriptions of displaying very high minded religosity will be completely useless for all purposes except for her to sell some more books.

In the future, please think twice before relating "ghettoized" and African-Americans unless you are referring to an actual ghetto.

For all of you express utter disregard for Amy Sullivan, and I guess her little dog too, I would point out that the currency of any site like PA is the number folks who visit. That is generally large multiple of comments. An experienced observer can get a feel for the number of visits by looking at the number of comments. Today Kevin's 5 posts have generated 11, 37, 29, 71, and 93 comments. Amy's two posts have generated 83 and 87. You guys might hate Amy, but Washington Monthly's advertisers must love her.

Keep fighting gang, keep fighting. I bet she keeps coming back.

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.

Who might these Dems be? Care to name some?

And since when does a politican visiting a church constitute "mixing politics and religion"? And anyway isn't it "government and religion", or are religious people just SOL if they want to be involved in Democratic politics?

FYI the church is an important focal point in the black community. That's why you see so many shots of white politicians there and as for why they're most Dems, well I hope you can figure *that* one out.

Gregor's claim is true if all religious voters are rabid bigots. Else, not.

Shorter Sullivan:

The twenty-first-century lawn jockey has a Bible in his hand.

True, I think.

Blogosphere : white people :: churches : black people

(?)

I second the notion that the use of the word "ghettoized" is in very poor taste. Maybe you should avoid sloganeering on this one.

"Gregor's claim is true if all religious voters are rabid bigots. Else, not"

Since the history of white "evangelicalism" is rife with racial bigotry - institutionalised - and most of the "outreach" to the black religious communtiy by this crowd is an attempt to exploit homophobia, I'd say that while "all" is an overstatment, the problem of their bigotry is endemic. Sullivan ought to make it her mission to address this and be forthright about it at least as much as hectoring Dems (white ones at least) for not indulging this marked tendency. I just find a lot of this talk clueless as regards the racial aspect.

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.

Apparently, Sullivan has never considered the fact that these still unnamed Democrats' so-called "high-minded reasons" might be strongly held beliefs, and that "not batting an eye" when Democratic politicians visit black churches might be, not political calculation, but in fact a way of showing tolerance.

I never forget there's no presumption of good faith by Amy Sullivan. She always assumes that the Democratic Party is exactly as the Republican Party defines it.

Some white Americans were surprised/shocked by the snippets of Jeremiah Wright's sermons that have been circulating because the media does not cover the extent of the hatred in white conservative evangelical churches. Notice the lack of mention of John McCain's spiritual adviser John Hagee in Jay Carney and Amy Sullivan's article. She has admonished Democrats who daring to attack racism behind the pulpit and in the chapel.

For decades, the major faces of the Democratic Party on the national, state, and local levels have been practicing, discussing and expressing their religion openly. For decades, the Republican Party has been pushing an idea of "Democratic Party" that is anti-religious, wants to ban bibles and burn churches. For about a decade, Amy Sullivan has been pushing this idea of reforming a "Democratic Party" that is completely foreign to my experience outside Republican talking points.

Since none of John Kerry's visits to mainstream churches, synagogues, or any non-evangelical religious institutions count, I will concede that his campaign's religious outreach was hamstrung by incompetence, being part of the campaign. That concession, of course, requires the acknowledgment that the Democratic Party does reach out to religious white people, as it did 12 years ago in the Coordinated Campaign, 20 years ago, etc.

Again, Amy Sullivan has provided us examples of Democratic Party incompetence, not hatred. I suggest that interested parties go back and reread this article she wrote about how the press was selling Republican talking points about Democratic competence. I believe that she has fallen into a similar trap in this case; to be fair, if I listened to Al From say it over and over and over again, I might just believe the legend, too.

amy, you're an idiot and should be fired.

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. 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.

maybe you do this but i and many white americans don't. maybe it's a church thing?

For decades, the Democratic Party has ghettoized religion, outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party. 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. Religion in black churches, they seem to think, isn't really religion. It's an ethnic characteristic of an important voting bloc.

besides the fact that this language is absurdly loaded (ghettoized??), it's willfully obtuse as well. the black church is a more central part of the black community--beyond religion--and therefore is typically where one goes to speak to that community. not to mention, blacks have been the faithful backbone of the democratic party, so damn straight the dem candidates go to their church on sundays.

here's a suggestion, instead of your usual shtick of bitching at liberals for not reaching out to white god-folks, why not get your white god-folks to reach out to liberals?

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

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

Posted by: Jim on March 20, 2008 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

um... who doesn't have a track record? Was talking to a liberal friend with hard core conservative parents tonite about Obama and he was worried that Obama had an unspoken agenda? I asked, 'who doesnt?' He admitted no one doesnt. So what's your point?

"Gregor's claim is true if all religious voters are rabid bigots. Else, not"

This is blatantly false.

That the Republicans win the religious voters by appealing to their basest instincts does not imply that the all that these voters have are those basest instincts.

In any case, please provide any evidence that suggests that the Republicans appeal to the religious voters because the GOP leaders are uniquely virtuous, ethical and moral. If they are not, your (and Ms. Sullivan's) exhortations appear to be nothing more than opportunistic and irrational piling on on the democrats.

Amy Sullivan:

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

The smartest thing I've read all day. Thank you, ma'am.

Amy thinks that we can de-radicalize the right wing by being more tolerant of dishonesty. If we would just understand their need to impinge upon others who have a different belief system or set of values. Yeah.

Everything that needed to be said by about race and religion was covered very well by Obama. Not sure I need to hear any more of Amy's take on black culture, or her sweeping generalities about white America's take on that culture.

Here is something worth considering: separation of church and state. I am God-damned tired of hearing about religion in a political context. Enough. I want to strip tax-exemptions and air time. Let's accept that religion has no place in the political process unless one wants to emulate radical failed states. Find another niche, Amy.

He admitted no one doesnt. So what's your point?
Posted by: Michael7843853

Sullivan was complaining about a lack of a "benefit of the doubt". I was pointing out the rather obvious fact that she has a history with the blogosphere, with progressives, and this blog in particular.

So her complaint was something less than honest.

ah, don't you mean white Americans have more or less pretty much ignored the black American experience in general...all together, regardless of political or religious affiliations. For the most part,seems that way to me.

Jennifer on March 20, 2008 at 9:50 PM:

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

Oh, that's funny. Me, each year I give up Lent for Lent...I'm running, like, a 100 percent rate of success.

Who (besides Amy Sullivan) says lefties aren't good at the 'religion thing'? 100%, Baby! 100%!

I don't really care much for this topic, seeing that democrat and republican politicians seem to think that people of my religion deserve to have their countries turned to glass. But I will say this:

God Damn America, shitheads.

Now, do you see what happens, Amy?

I told you in the comments to your first post this week how this happens, but you don't seem to ne catching on yet. I suspect this is one of those cases of someone trying the same thing over and over again, and being surprised when the results are the same every time.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the department itself detected the instances of “imprudent curiosity,� which occurred separately on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14. He would not release the names of those who were fired and disciplined. The three were working in separate offices within the passport system, according to State Department officials.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300007

January 9*

On January 9, eight days before the InsightMag.com story was posted, Chicago Tribune metro columnist Eric Zorn wrote on the Tribune’s Change of Subject weblog, “The crazies are sending around an e-mail that attempts to establish that Barack Obama is actually a Muslim who masquerades as a Christian for political advantage. It goes under the heading ‘The Enemy Within’ and ‘Be Careful, Be Very Careful.’ �

Hey, what a coincidence. The first time his passport file is snooped into, the e-mails start flying around about the Madrassa…

Now, of course, it’s all innocent, right? I mean, would the GOP dirty tricks machine be capable of something like this?

Who knows?

Logical flaw in the Amy Sullivan's thesis can be pointed out using this factoid about American membership in nonprofit charitable organizations, trade associations and professional societies:

"Nine out of 10 adult Americans now belong to at least one association."

It does make sense that the Democratic Party would reach out to 90% of the adult population of the US. It does NOT make sense that the Democratic Party would focus its efforts on the most conservative association you can find.

White evangelical churches are the most conservative religious grouping you can find.

Me, each year I give up Lent for Lent...

Stop Catholic hating, Orange Crush.

Every year, no shit, I give up farting in the elevator. I know you think I'm joking, but this time...I'm not...I really have a good time farting in the elevator...

Wow--have looked over the comments thread here, and am quite impressed. The comments were so much better than the unsupported garbage which precipitated them. Like penicillin. I feel much better. Amy's "will concern troll for food" approach has been completely exposed and dismantled. PaulB's upthread dismemberment was one for the ages. Please God! Make her stop!!
(But I am not telling you which religious icons, imagery, omnipotent influencer, incantation or incense I am currently using).

Amy Sullivan needs to move her pundit act over to
Fox News, where she can be assured of everyone on camera taking her seriously and commenting politely. She'd fit right in with the other "liberals" Fox employs. And I'm sure it pays better than Washington Monthly.

I think Kleiman continues to perpetuate a huge stereotype. Many Dems find religion of the Religious Right type offensive, tis true, but that's another thing entirely than "many Democrats find religion offensive," which is what both Kleiman and Sullivan claim.

I'm going to do another takedown on Amy here. There are true multi-ethnic churches led by black pastors who also question Wright. And, as for understanding "black Christianity" in sociological terms, and the call for black and white Christians to understand each other, end "the most segregated hour in America," etc... well, that understanding and reaching out need to go both ways.

When I was still religious, I played the organ semi-regularly at a Lutheran, mainline Protestant church in Flint, Mich. The church was about 50-50 white black. The white pastor had what would certainly be considered for the conservative wing of Lutheranism a pretty "black" preaching style, and somewhat, a style of worship in general. And, he was married to a black wife.

He commented on real world daily social issues, etc. But, he was never bombastic, let alone a bomb-thrower.

In short, Amy Sullivan, beyond the stereotypes you perpetuate about "many Democrats," aren't you perpetuating another one about "black Christianity"?

I always forget there's no presumption of good faith

That's rich coming from someone who refuses to believe that most of us just want to be left alone, to not have to be browbeaten by others wishing to foist their articles of faith on us. Who get tired of hearing of the "faith" of those who support a pinhead who claims he was told to go to war by the same entity that told Son of Sam how to pick his targets, by those who blame and invoke natural tragedy on those who love the "wrong way." those who ... as nauseum.

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

I can think of two in my lifetime: George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter.

You may quibble as to whether they were "successful," but many people I know voted for Bush because he was a "Christian." Carter strongly broadcasted his faith.

"he was worried that Obama had an unspoken agenda? I asked, 'who doesnt?' He admitted no one doesnt. "

Indeed, which is why I'm concerned about what Amy Sullivan's unspoken (and perhaps even unconscious) agenda might be. Now, I have no reason to think that she doesn't sincerely want to help the Democrats win elections, whatever the actual clarity/ quality/ faintest relation to reality of her suggestions.

At the same time, it's also true that over the last few decades, the white evangelical left/middle has gotten badly beaten up by the religious right: in terms of market share, pew-filling, cultural influence, you name it. The Southern Baptists, for example, had a downright coup d'etat starting in '79, with conservatives taking over. For quite some time now - until very recently - 'religious' in the national media discourse often meant 'religious right' - they were the guys who got the coverage, whether respectful or repulsed, and who shaped the attitudes and terms of discussion (one of the reasons, of course there's been such a backlash against religion: it's come to mean, in much of the public mind, hateful small-minded ignoramuses ranting about creationism and the 'gay agenda' and screeching disgracefully about Terri Schiavo, etc.)

Again, I'm sure that folks like Jim Wallis or yes, Amy Sullivan are entirely sincere in their values, but there's also a politics to all this, and it would certainly help their cause - at least in the short run - to get the patronage of the other major political party (just as the religious right has GOP support).

Now, I disagree with their beliefs about God, but we share many of the same values (and the same enemies). I've been happy to work alongside evangelicals (black and white) in soup kitchens and food pantries, and I welcome their support in other causes. (Indeed, since my earliest awareness of religious politics, as a little kid in the early 80s, was of things like the sanctuary movement and push for nuclear disarmament, this seems entirely natural). But when it comes to government, as a secularist, an atheist, and a Jew, I'm can't help but worry what the long-run consequences of some wall-busting sectarian/partisan merger would be for me, my family, the party, and the country. (And while unavoidably of less concern, what they'd be be for the white evangelical left/middle, as well.)

They're also somewhat inconsistent allies (as is entirely their right) - Tony Campolo, for example, went apeshit over evolution earlier this year, albeit in a somewhat more sophisticated way than the usual drivel.

Also, the bizarrely incoherent & fact free Amy-arguments get kinda annoying. This one's particularly bad, in the ways that everyone's been pointing out. I kinda wish Amy would, as travy somewhat bluntly suggests, put some effort into explaining to her fellow white non-rightwing evangelicals why they should vote for the Democratic party - presumably a more convincing voice than some politician. Does she?

A 'danimal' writes:
"There are a lot of votes out there if the skeptics would hold their fire anytime a Democrat acknowledges faith and religion. "

Like I said, I don't agree with evangelical theology. But I don't think they're stupid. The idea that there's some relatively large group of people out there that share, as a part of their religious belief, pressing concerns about such things as social justice and good stewardship of the environment, and who would be happy to vote for Democrats, except they're gonna stay home because some anonymous blog commenters aren't respectful enough - actually, no, that's not exactly calling white evangelical liberals stupid, it's calling them incredibly, repulsively prideful. (Or grossly ignorant and immature - take your pick).

(And if they could be sharing such concerns on religious grounds, but just don't realize it - well, whose job is that?)

I really don't understand this proposed mindset. I don't ask that politicians scrape and bow before my atheism (and would be rather creeped out if they did). I'd prefer they talk to me as a citizen.

Imagine this: For decades the Democratic Party has ghettoized marital intimacy, outsourcing it to people's spouses within the party . . .

I don't want Democratic politicians trying to sleep with me,and nor do I want them pandering (competently or not) to my (in this case a-)religious beliefs. I just want them to present their case, as one citizen of the republic to another, and if elected, at least try to do their job. I didn't realize this was such a refined standard.

Blogosphere to Amy Sullivan: just shut the hell up already. Nobody believes a word of what you're saying.

I'm sorry, Amy. It's okay for people to disagree with you, but you don't deserve this kind of disrespect.

Reading this post has been like hitting my head against a cinderblock wall.

It's a patronizing post laying out accusations of patronization.

But it doesn't present a lick of evidence of anything new or remarkable or particularly heinous (or just "ham-handed") on the part of democrats beyond what every politician (every human being, really) has done for all of human civilization: posing where you want to pose, being seen with the people you think it would be good to be seen with, smiling emptily at people you intend to ignore, etc., etc., etc.

Get over yourself. I feel like I've been sitting in some horrible undergraduate classroom listening to some tedious young woman "speak out" as if she's the first person in human history to think or feel or perceive or anything.

Go erect thousands of tiny 5" crosses in the quad symbolic of whatever genocidal horror. Go sputter and hyperventilate at some other folks elsewhere who Need To Be Educated, who need to see How Things Really Are.

Kevin,

Since this is nominally your blog, why don't you share your opinions on the merits of what Sullivan says? She's proven her ability to avoid documenting anything she writes. Perhaps your polite critique would shame her into either supporting her claims or folding her tent.

Amy Sullivan is really scrambling to make everything she's been saying look less weird...

None of you get it. The conventional wisdom states that Democrats hate religion, being too busy with their gay pride parades and Satanic rituals and whatnot. That is just obvious. The only evidence required, therefore, for any of Amy's claims is an anecdote that reinforces the CW.

The bit about Kerry is hilarious, though.

>>most of John Kerry's religious references came in speeches to African-American audiences

evidence?

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

evidence?

>>First, by speaking about religion only when it could be politically advantageous,

Yeah, the mark of a good politician is speaking about topics when it is politically disadvantageous.

>>Kerry seemed to confirm the criticism that he was pandering and insincere.

You mean the criticism of Karl Rove?

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

So we have a "must have thought" and a "might think" -- I'm convinced! Not to mention that, uh, he did talk about it in other settings.

>>But it was also insulting to African-Americans,

According to whom? Oh yeah, you.

So let me get this straight: Kerry went before audiences at black churches and spoke about religion? That is outrageous. You know, I bet he went before Jewish audiences and spoke about Israel. How come Kerry didn't speak about Israel in other settings? I bet those Jews thought he was pandering to their silly religion and using them for cover because he never talked about Israel in front of the AFL-CIO. Jewish voters didn't like that. It was insulting to Jewish voters. And his aides must have thought they could get away with it. Probably.

The only reason the Wright video freaked out the honkies so badly and got so much airplay is the tone of it, the angry delivery. Most of what Wright said is hard to argue with, but the ranting, vehement style of his oration scares the snot out of the white folks. The in-your-face nature of Wright's sermon goes against the white American notion of manners. We like to make nice. African-Americans like to speak the truth.

"All of this has happened before and all of it will happen again"

Everything you need to know about Rev. Wright's preaching is explained very well by Rev. Joseph Lowery in an interview on AC360:

Reverend Lowery, thanks for joining us.

REVEREND JOSEPH LOWERY, CO-FOUNDER, SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE: My pleasure. My pleasure.

BROWN: By now, we have all heard Reverend Wright's more controversial comments, that the United States brought the September 11 attacks upon itself, that Hillary Clinton has an advantage over Obama because she's white.

But you have called Reverend Wright a scholar, a profound thinker, an electrifying preacher. Now, Obama today called his comments divisive. Do you agree? Are they divisive?

LOWERY: Well, they certainly separate us from the people who are not from the community of faith and who do not subscribe to prophetic preaching. There are hundreds and hundreds of preachers in black churches across this country who may not use identical language, but they have a common theology with Jeremiah Wright. They're in the prophetic stream.

The prophets of old, the Jeremiahs, the Amos, and they spoke angrily and sometimes with cruel phrases and words, to the rulers and kings of their day. That's who they were talking to on behalf of the poor and oppressed of their day.

The black church has been a place where black people take their sorrow, their travail and their longing for hope and for deliverance. They expect the preacher and thank the preacher and say, "Amen, hallelujah," to the preacher, who takes their burden to the Lord. And then they join in a movement to help bring new order and a new day into being. That's prophetic preaching, and it's traditionally the black church.

BROWN: So are Wright's controversial statements something that's commonly heard in black churches?

LOWERY: No question about it. The gospel itself, Jesus called some folks in his day a generation of vipers, because they were cross- cutting, undercutting the message of faith and the message of hope and the message of love.

And I think in that magnificent address today that Barack Obama's most powerful statement I've heard since Martin's letter from the Birmingham jail. I think he set the record straight. And the theme running through that, which may not have been mentioned, was something we're overlooking, that he did not leave his church, just as a man doesn't leave his wife or you may not leave your country, although you have disagreement, but you stay and work it through. And that's the leadership he's offering to America.

Yes, we've got differences. But we're going to work it through toward the end of reconciliation and justice. And that's the message he offers the American people.

And the ball is in the American people's court to see if they're mature enough to respond to this kind of very mature, spiritual leadership.

BROWN: All right. Reverend Lowery, you say as the pastor of a predominantly black congregation that you've repeated most of the same words that we've heard from Reverend Wright. Why?

LOWERY: I'm sorry. I missed the last part of your question.

BROWN: You said that you've repeated many of the same words that we've heard from reverend Wright. Why?

LOWERY: Well, I said we might not use identical language, but we have a common theology. That is, thus saith the lord, to let justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream. Jeremiah got in the street to preach to the rulers and kings. Amos and others, and Jesus himself, as you say, talked about he was called of God to preach the good news to the poor, to release the captives, to set the prisoner free. All of these in the context of justice.

One of the things I regret so much about what we're doing, particularly in media to Jeremiah Wright's message, we are hammering over and over and over the same sound bites out of context. We're not privileged to what he said leading up to and what he said following those phrases that might be controversial and might be objected to by some people, as they were objected to by Barack Obama.

BROWN: All right. Reverend Joseph Lowery, appreciate your time tonight.

LOWERY: Thank you.
I'd also add that if you actually listened to the whole Wright "Damn America" sermon, you would find that he is not the extremist he's made out to be. You might even wonder why Obama had to renounce him.

Bob5540 et al: I've said before that I agree with much if not most of Wright's comments that don't engage in reverse racism.

But, to deny that some of his comments ARE reverse racism is a big denial.

Plus, his AIDS conspiracy theory comments make me wonder just how sympathetic he is to gays. Obama's campaign has had a bit of an issue with that one already.

Democrats have "ghettoized" religion? For decades?? What an insult. You are certainly no student of history.

You probably weren't born when hundreds of churches organized for civil rights and peace throughout the 1960s and 1970s, but there are lots of books on the subject. Where were you when the rest of us were marching against Reagan's nuclear buildup in New York City in 1982? I was marching shoulder to shoulder with my church group.

Speaking of New York City (home of your fave mag, Time), did you ever attend one of the late Rev. Bill Coffin's bracing calls to action during his Sunday morning sermons up at Riverside Church? Oh, wait, that's a bad example -- Riverside is near Harlem. Let me think of another example . . .

Oh, yeah, National Cathedral in northwest DC, February 2003. Remember the thousands of clergy and lay people who gathered for an ecumenical service at the Cathedral and then marched the length of Massachusetts Ave. down to Lafayette Square to protest the Iraq war buildup? Or how about this headline from the Presbyterian News Service from March, 2007: "Thousands gather in Washington for ecumenical war protest." Were you there? I was.

Writers like you are why I don't subscribe to time Magazine. Your schtick is a shallow apology to right-wing charges that Democrats are hostile to religion. It may generate headlines and bylines, but it doesn't inform. It is simply wrong, as any investigation beyond Time Warner Center on Columbus Circle would reveal.

Maybe you should have finished your doctoral studies at Princeton before pontificating about religion to the media. There's still time. In the mean time I'll read & listen to Bill Moyers, Jim Wallis or maybe Chris Hedges.

A sweeping generalization based on an anecdote. What a load of crap.

Don't you think it just a bit weird that all those people who were using the Constitutional ban on religious tests to keep anyone from questioning Mitt Romney about his beliefs are using the religious test on Obama? Seems to be whose ox is gored - you can't question my candidate if his religious beliefs are offputting, but I can and will question your candidate if I can find something to criticize about his beliefs - or the beliefs of anyone he knows. And that, my dear friends, is why we should keep religion out of politics.

I think everyone up above has pretty much nailed it. I'd like to add my two cents though. Its clear that Americans aren't surprised by *religion* or by *african american religion* in the Wright comments--they are surprised because the whole*&^% society is so ghettoized and so segregated that white people don't have to learn what is really bothering black people. They have slid by in schools with educational programs designed to make real american history and real american society off limits for discussion. hell, there are a lot of schools that don't teach anything past the second world war, that teach no workers history, that teach the civil war as the "war of northern agression." Of course they were surprised to hear the politics of a different sub group. Believe me when there were street preachers and a more active left you would have heard that stuff daily, in the streets. Its been segregated and ghettoized but that has nothign to do with the democratic party. It has to do with the reality of public space in this country and the domination of white, conservative, media voices that tell us all how we ought to think.

This is just disgusting of you, Amy, and your shtick is really getting old.

aimai

Dear Amy, Please realize that the only reason Time buys your stuff is that you are a "liberal" who reliably bashes liberals.

If you don't believe it, instead of writing about Wright, start writing column after column on how nutty Pastor Hagee is.

I guarantee that Time will drop you like a hot potato.

"I'm sorry, Amy. It's okay for people to disagree with you, but you don't deserve this kind of disrespect."

Yes, actually she does. This disrespect is entirely warranted by the tone of her posts, their content (and the lack thereof), and their complete lack of anything resembling data, logic, or reason. Worse, she's actually getting paid to write this insulting, condescending drivel.

"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."

Bullshit. Hostility to Amy and to her silly assertions is not the same thing as hostility to religion. And anonymous commenters on a political forum are not the same thing as Democratic Party leaders and politicians, which is what Amy consistently says she is referring to.

As a poster above noted, I'm one of the more active individuals on this thread: can you find a single line in any of my posts that indicates that I "find religiosity ... offensive and threatening?"

"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."

Yup, that's the point that Sullivan and her supporters routinely miss: we're not anti-religion, we're anti-stupid.

I'm sure there are people who are anti-religion and that some of them post here. So? Amy repeatedly talks about Democratic politicians, as she did in the post that started this thread, not anonymous commenters on an unmoderated forum. That some commenters here may or may not be anti-religion is entirely irrelevant to Amy's posts and finding such individuals does nothing to validate Amy's arguments.

"his AIDS conspiracy theory comments make me wonder just how sympathetic he is to gays. Obama's campaign has had a bit of an issue with that one already"

Then UCC and Trinity are very "gay friendly" churches - Wright himself speaks of a "conversion experience" he had back in the '70s when the UCC held dialogs among their pastors when they made the decision to ordain gay people as pastors. Trinity has done a lot of work on these issues - sometimes against the emotional reaction of more conservative members. If anyone thinks Reverend Wright is one iota "racist", here's a great story about him told by the northern Illinois UCC conference minister - puts this stuff in perspective:

"Let me close by telling you one story from our experiences at Trinity that demonstrates the kind of radical hospitality the Spirit offers through the congregation. On one Sunday we went to worship with a group of young Germans, about ten people who had come to Chicago as 'emerging leaders in Germany'. A friend of mine was hosting them and wanted to give them an experience visiting an African American church. We were able to arrange for Pastor Wright to meet with them before worship and after he came into the room he greeted them in German and prayed with us, in German. After sharing some background of the church, the UCC and the African American church tradition, we all went to worship. The service was, as always, uplifting---lively gospel singing by the 300 voice choir, a moving infant dedication service, etc. Then, part way through the service, we noticed that Rev. Wright was again speaking in German, welcoming the German guests (in addition to the usual warm welcoming of all guests). The next thing we knew, the choir was singing God's praise in an anthem in German! (Wunderbar, Sie Nommen Wunderbar!). Tears came to some of the guests' eyes and to mine. Radical hospitality. A reality quite different from the cruel characterization of the church as hateful or separatist."

"I generally agree with Amy's viewpoint."

Then perhaps you can address the issues raised above and support her assertions better than she can?

"Her detractors prove the main point in most of her posts--Democrats have a problem talking about religion."

Complete bullshit. First, as noted above, the issue isn't hostility to religion, it's hostility to bullshit arguments. I'm one of the most "hostile" individuals on this thread. Can you find a single statement of mine that is even remotely hostile to religion? Morever, as I've already noted, Amy's arguments aren't about us, they're about Democratic leaders and politicians, none of whom have demonstrated any hostility toward, nor difficulty talking about, religion.

"Amy is trying to show a way to a Democratic majority"

Oh, garbage. With this post, in particular, she didn't show the "way" to anything.

"one being demonstrated fairly effectively by the Obama campaign."

Which pretty much destroys Amy's point.

"There are a lot of votes out there if the skeptics would hold their fire anytime a Democrat acknowledges faith and religion."

Which "skeptics" are you referring to? Maybe you can provide some names where Amy will not? And provide the data about these "lot of votes" that are available?

"You don't need to convert; just have a little respect and tolerance of faithful American."

Can you show me a single Democratic leader, politician, pundit, staffer, whatever, who has ever failed to show "respect and tolerance of faithful American [sic]?"

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

LOL... Yeah, right.

To add a bit more positive spirit to thise comments, I'm going to add the rest of that UCC person's testimony re: Trinity:

I want briefly to voice my own experience as a member of Trinity United Church of Christ. (By the way, I have spoken with several reporters about our experience at Trinity but am never referred to in print, I presume because my experience is POSITIVE!) Milt and I are members there very intentionally because it is a Christ centered, Spirit filled congregation where the worship is powerful; the preaching is spiritually insightful and prophetic; the welcome to all is warm and embracing; mission is both local and global ; tithing is encouraged and expected; members bring and read their Bibles; and disciples are nurtured in the faith. Yes, we are among just a few 'white' members. And yes, sometimes in worship I hear a painful biblical challenge to the white privilege that has been part of my own life and to the racism that is so destructive in our culture. That challenge has helped to shape my own journey in following Jesus as I try to live and minister in ways that contribute to a more loving and just world. But never---NEVER-have Milt or I felt unwelcome or unloved at Trinity because of the color of our skin. To the contrary, we consistently have felt loved and embraced because of our oneness with our sisters and brothers through Jesus Christ. Our church family has prayed for us when our granddaughter was ill and Rev Wright has pastored me through some personally challenging times. Milt and I have visited a village in Ghana West Africa where Trinity UCC has helped to build a community center with a library, provided computers for a classroom and a generator for the small hospital and they have strongly supported our UCC related Inanda School, for girls, in South Africa, in addition to significant support of Our Church's Wider Mission...

Do I agree with every word from Rev. Wright's mouth? No. (No more than I agree with every word my husband says! ) But I have seen and experienced the dominant direction of his whole ministry which is toward love and justice and peace for all people in the name of Jesus Christ. That is what I respect.

Holy Week Blessings,

Jane Fisler Hoffman

Good lord.

Tsk tsk, using the Lord's name in vain? (I jest!)

While I don't doubt for a heartbeat that an overwhelming majority of Americans, myself included, are largely ignorant of what goes on in black churches, this brouhaha has nothing to do with that misunderstanding, and everything to do with political expediency, opportunism and parttisanship. This "scandal" was manufactured by the right wing noise machine and, as always, the MSM fell right into line.

I would bet that a large segment of Obama supporters (including myself) are as ignorant of black churches as the loudest of right wing cranks. Yet we have little problem understanding that Obama has no responsibility for the words of Rev. Wright. And I would bet there are a large number of HRC supporters and uncommitteds who feel the same way. Why is that? Becuasse this is, and has been from the beginning, a manufactured scandal; one made to ensure that Obama gets nowhere near the White House.

I didn't need to know the intimate details of Vermont state government to know that Howard Dean's scream was completely overblown, I didn't need to serve in Vietnam to know that the Swift Boat vets were full of shit, and I didn't need to be a hairdresser to know that frothing at the mouth over John Edwards' haircut was not about economic largesse. They all share one trait, misinformation about a candidate in order to advance the GOP agenda. The only difference is, this time HRC is along for the ride.

Thanks for your testimony, Sister Hoffman. Those of us who are firm secularists but not anti-Christian (as I think most commentors on this thread are not) appreciate the good work of many Christian people and churches, and particularly that of the UCC. Our (at least my) beef is with the one-note careerist Amy Sullivan, not with you or with Christians themselves.

Happy Oestara,

fyreflye

When I was religiopus, I was bothered by the doctrine of original sin. Now that I'm not, original sin is the only doctrine I'm not bothered by. I know that, deep down inside, I'm basically an asshole, but I try to fight it. Therefore, it pains me when, having given into my asshole impulses and said something nasty, I get proved right by the person I thought I had wronged.
Way back when this series of posts started, I snarked that Amy is really advertising for a job as Senior Advisor for Religious Affairs to the Democratic Party and Rove-ing Ambassador to White Protestant Christianity (Low-Rent Division). That was cheap of me, and I regretted it. But now I'm not so sure.
Amy keeps telling us that there is some sort of problem (undefined, or redefined whenever she gets specific enough to be refuted) with the Democratic Party's approach to some (still undefined) subset of reachable white Christian voters and that she's going to tell us how we can fix that. But whenever Amy gets within smelling distance of her nominal topic, all we get is anecdotage about religiously tin-eared staff work. That's believeable enough, even if presented only anecdotally, but it's an old story to anyone who saw the first episode of The West Wing. Josh Liman and Toby Zeigler were rather clumsy in their handling of some Christian fundamentalist politico-preacher, for fairly obvious reasons.
It's a bad thing to have bad staff work. Candidates should be at least as well-briefed about major religious figures they may run across as they ought to be about NASCAR, and it would be a good thing if someone who knew something about these folks had a big-time staff job. So far, all I get out of Amy is that she wants the paying gig. If there is any other actual content related to her nominal topic, it eludes me.
Being right sucks; it encourages my inner asshole.

Apparently there are at least two topics that are beyond the pale of civilized discussion among progressives: religion and race. I don't know which is more disgusting about this comment thread: the misogyny or the bias against organized religion. Assailing Amy's presumption of good faith because she has a 'track record'? Of what? Speaking her mind intelligently on a subject most progressives would prefer to mock? When a progressive Democrat manages to win a national election and thereby actually influence policy in this country, maybe I'll be more sympathetic to the outrage expressed here.

Amy, you want a real religion story, you could/should be writing about the latest annual installment of Shroud of Turin believers' bullshit, the annual New Mexico Penitentes or Filipinos who get themselves crucified or similar.

PJ in Jesusland:

I will NOT listen to/read Chris Hedges.

His new book on atheism is a bunch of straw-man fucking bullshit.

SocraticGadfly,

FYI, I have issues with Chris as well. But he comes from an upstate NY minister's family with a long history of religiously inspired community service.

He's a very principled individual, but I think he chased too many atrocities around the globe for the NYT & lost his perspective.

PJ

ladybug wrote: "Assailing Amy's presumption of good faith because she has a 'track record'? Of what? Speaking her mind intelligently on a subject most progressives would prefer to mock?"

No, Amy Sullivan has a track record of reciting scripted Republican talking points about nonexistent "hostility to religion" in the Democratic Party, for which she provides no factual support.

She has a track record of ignoring the frequent, public statements by national Democratic candidates about the importance of Christian faith in their lives and the values that they bring to public policy.

She has a track record of dismissiveness towards liberal Christians and Jews, and African-American Christians, who have always been an important part of the Democratic Party.

She has a track record of vague demands that the Democratic Party and/or Democratic candidates and/or Democratic voters be more "friendly" to religion without ever being willing to say exactly what she wants them to do.

She has a track record of demanding accommodation (of some unspecified sort) with the values and beliefs of right-wing Christian groups whose political agenda (eg. criminalizing abortion, depriving gays of basic civil liberties, teaching the Biblical creation myth in schools as a "scientific theory", breaking down the separation of church and state, declaring the US a "Christian nation", and pursuing an aggressive militaristic foreign policy as a Christian "crusade" and a fast track to Armaggedon) is fundamentally antithetical to the core values of not only secular liberals but liberal Christians and Jews as well.

She has a track record of accusing Democrats of engaging black, urban, liberal churches for "political convenience" -- while the essence of her argument is that Democrats should engage white southern conservative evangelicals for "political convenience" -- ie. to win elections.

She has a track record of grossly exaggerating any possible electoral benefits that Democrats might conceivably gain by peeling off a few conservative Christian votes from the Republicans.

And perhaps most annoying to many commenters, she has a long track record of refusing to respond to intelligent, respectful challenges to the lack of factual support and the poor reasoning in her arguments.

Many commenters whose remarks exhibit what you call "outrage" started out -- many, many articles ago -- trying to engage Amy Sullivan respectfully, only to find that she ignores such attempts and just keeps reciting her fact-free slanders and fatuous arguments. At this point, a lot of people are fed up with her.

ladybug wrote: "When a progressive Democrat manages to win a national election and thereby actually influence policy in this country, maybe I'll be more sympathetic to the outrage expressed here."

Al Gore won the 2000 election. It was stolen by the Republicans through voter disenfranchisement and fraud. John Kerry won the 2004 election. It was stolen by the Republicans through voter disenfranchisement and fraud. In both cases the Republicans were able to get close enough to steal the election largely because the corporate-owned mass media waged a war of character assassination against the Democratic nominees.

The Democrats won the mid-term elections in 2006, to gain the majority in both houses of Congress, principally by campaigning on opposition to the war in Iraq. Every indication is that the major issues of concern to voters in the 2008 elections are the economy and the war, and that Democrats are likely to do very well in the Congress and certainly have a good shot at the presidency by focusing on those issues -- not on religion.

There is plenty of evidence that the Democrats can do very well in national elections by (1) working to ensure clean, open, honest, high-turnout elections where every eligible voter is not only able to vote but has his or her vote counted, (2) campaigning on progressive/liberal positions on economic and social justice, peace, and environmental sustainability that most Americans support, and (3) effectively countering the inevitable onslaught of character assassination from the right-wing extremist Republicans and their allies in the corporate-owned media.

There is little evidence -- and Amy Sullivan has certainly never offered any -- that Democrats stand to gain any significant electoral benefit by trying to accommodate the views of a relatively small group of white, southern, conservative evangelical Christians to whom the most important public policy issues seem to be abortion, gay marriage, creationism, etc.

ladybug wrote: "Speaking her mind intelligently on a subject most progressives would prefer to mock?"

Please substantiate your allegation that "most progressives prefer to mock" religion.

Perhaps you can begin by explaining how the liberal and progressive Jews and Christians, and liberal urban African-American Christians, who are traditionally supporters and political allies of progressive, liberal Democrats, "prefer to mock" religion.

Perhaps you can follow up by giving examples of how national Democratic candidates, from the born-again Christian Jimmy Carter to the Catholic John Kerry, have publicly "mocked" religion.

Some white, southern, conservative, evangelical Christians hold political views -- eg. criminalizing abortion, denying civil rights to gays, breaking down the separation of church and state, teaching the Biblical creation myth as "science" in schools, using American foreign policy as a Christian crusade and a fast-track to Armaggedon and the End Times -- that indeed, do not deserve to be "mocked". They deserve to be condemned and vigorously opposed.

...let's all take a deep breath and start over.

How about starting with how to depoliticize religion? If you think that's not possible, why?

Apparently there are at least two topics that are beyond the pale of civilized discussion among progressives: religion and race.

Really? And your evidence for this is, what, exactly? Quite a few substantive points have been made regarding Amy's assertions. And yet you ignore them to issue an idiotic ad hominem attack. Why is that?

I don't know which is more disgusting about this comment thread: the misogyny

ROFL.... Dear heart, if you can find a single misogynist post in this entire thread, I'll eat my hat. This was hilarious. Of all the things to accuse us of, that was the dumbest. Free clue: pointing out to someone that their argument is both stupid and unsupported is not evidence of "misogyny".

or the bias against organized religion.

And, again, if you can find a single post of mine that demonstrates even an iota of "bias against organized religion," do point it out to me, won't you? Of course you will not, because you cannot.

Assailing Amy's presumption of good faith because she has a 'track record'? Of what?

Of making idiotic assertions wholly unsupported by anything resembling logic, reason, or data, just as she did with this post, of course.

Speaking her mind intelligently

Dear heart, what Amy wrote was decidedly not "intelligent", as amply noted above. Frankly, it was both stupid and insulting.

on a subject most progressives would prefer to mock?

ROFL.... Yeah, you fit right in with Amy -- silly assertions wholly unsupported by any logic, reason, or data. Of course you cannot support this statement because it is utterly and stupidly false.

When a progressive Democrat manages to win a national election and thereby actually influence policy in this country, maybe I'll be more sympathetic to the outrage expressed here.

Dear heart, the "outrage" expressed here was not anti-religion. It wasn't even anti-Amy, really. It was anti-stupid. Deal with it.

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

More than that, they must not have been listening to what the Democratic community as a whole has been saying in or out of church! I missed the breaking of the Wright kerfluffle, so my imagination concocted all sorts of mortifying things the preacher had said. What did this guy say that has everyone in such a panic? When I finally located a piece that included a fair smattering of Wright quotes it was...deja vu. There was little there that hadn't been said over and over in various forms by much of the liberal/progressives community, especially over the past 7 years. The preacher may have put a little finer point on it, but it's not specific to Wright, and it's definitely not outside the range of progressive perspectives.
Someone wanted to create a "media scandal" and everyone fell for it. Even Democrats.

Give it up, Amy.

You come on here, or in the Washington Monthly (which would be a much improved magazine, incidentally, if they stopped publishing you), and bash Democrats about once every couple of months for not exploiting faith as cynically as Republicans do.

I cringe when I hear any politician talk about faith. I cringed when I used to be faithful. It seems like pandering even at the best of times.

To break out a ridiculous (and racist) statement that Democrats have "ghettoized" religion with such thin gruel for evidence is insulting, banal, and, incidentally, quite Republican of you.

May I suggest in the future that you seek work with NRO. There's a fabulous space for you at the Corner of Bewildered Boulevard and Confused Court. And they probably won't even mind if you write and submit the same post every month or so and pretend it's new work. Jonah Goldberg does it every day.

Hello everyone. So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. Help me! Looking for sites on: Tanning beds in canada. I found only this - Tanning bed hidden camera. Do not settle for cheap discount store tanning products, buy quality name brand tanning lotion at discount. Drayton drayton valley western review. Thank :cool: Dewitt from Greece.

Badly need your help. The great thing about a computer notebook is that no matter how much you stuff into it, it doesn't get bigger or heavier.
I am from Afghanistan and also am speaking English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "This considers substances, cells, nega'im, reassignment, breakfast, hydroxyl, compound's sewing, enhancement's appearance, years, ends, cells, lyrics, and vessels."

Thanks for the help :-D, Dunstan.

architect lionville donors substitutes scroll figure appoint praises whenever baxer

teenbrooks reduces gain samuelson attributed bind seeks utopianism

prenatal ankita smug delivery malappuram guardians valsad funder usually byand