How about people on the left and the right all learn to shut the fuck up about religion and keep it private, just like you'd keep your sex life private?

I ... really disagree. The Fellowship was specifically founded as an anti-labor Christian organization. The membership tends toward the far-right. And, well... read this:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525

-- ACS

No. No.

If this is what being a sincerely committed Christian gets you in the Democratic Party, why should we bother?

An excellent question. As I recall, the Gipper rarely bothered to attend services, which didn't prevent his posthumous consecration as a GOP saint. OTOH Hillary will be seen as the devil incarnate by the fistulan chrundamentalists no matter how much holy rolling she does.

Religion for the Christianists, like all else, is simply a club to be used against non-tribe members.

The way to cure the current political illness of the country has nothing to do with displaying or not displaying sincere belief in imaginary sky fairies, and everything to do with marginalizing and removing from influence of this group of political psychotics. They are wrong about practically everything and cannot be bargained or compromised with. Destroy their propaganda networks and force them back under their rock. It's the only way to restore sanity to our polity.

Exactly, Kevin! (I don't think I've ever said that before)

For Democratic politicians and religion, it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. The only strategy that makes any sense is to emphasize values, not religion, and to keep hammering away at those hypocritical rethuglicans who value only power.

And on the subject of Obama & religion--the thing that has always bothered me about him his use of faith and hope as ends in themselves-- the classic mechanism used to keep the proles accepting of their condition, waiting only for the sweet release of death and their reward in heaven. Given O's reluctance to actually promote any actions or goals remotely progressive, he seems like just another preacher on the make.

Thank god I'm not religious.

Barbara Ehrenreich has an outstanding reputation in the progressive liberal world.

What does it say about her, or about us progressive liberals, that she would write such an article?

For God's sake, worship for religious reasons. And a religion founded by martyrs has no call to get upset over mean comments by bloggers.

I wish all of these "christians" would do as Christ commanded and keep their religion private, also

Well, I didn't read all of Ehrenreich's piece; I didn't have to.

I give Hillary Rodham Clinton the benefit of the doubt that the reason she started participating, and continued to participate, in the the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, was and is because she resonates with the religious and spiritual feelings and ideas there. I do not assume, as the Mother Jones writers and Barbara Ehrenreich do, that she participates for political reasons. But even if she does participate for political reasons of some sort, I would be willing in that case to assume that her purpose is to liberalize fellow Christians, not to support their illiberal agenda.

Based on this, I reject Kevin Drum's question as based on false premises. Mrs. Clinton's purpose wasn't to get something, it was to get a weekly dose of spiritual fellowship. If I am right, then the Mother Jones writers and Barbara Ehrenreich should apologize and retract their stories.

If a particular religion, e.g. Methodist, is really important to a candidate, I have no problem with them saying something like, "I'm a Methodist, my values are rooted in Methodist values, it's part of who I am, I respect others who aren't Methodists, and if elected, I will do my best to uphold the Constitution." What is the problem here?

It was never about religion. It isn't about religion now. It's about the GOP coming up with whatever attacks they believe will secure them the election.

I think Obama has done as good a job handling this issue as possible. Now it's up to the media to determine what they want this election to be about.

Barbara Ehrenreich has an outstanding reputation in the progressive liberal world.

What does it say about her, or about us progressive liberals, that she would write such an article?

Do you mean the article that she wrote (as well as the articles she referenced, by Jeff Sharlet and Kathryn Joyce), or what Kevin Drum purports?

Honestly, I'm shocked by these words by Drum: "If this is what being a sincerely committed Christian gets you in the Democratic Party".

If Kevin Drum is that kind of committed Christian (the kind that is like John Ashcroft, Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, George Allen, Charles Colson, Ed Meese, James Inhofe), I have no idea what his attraction to the Democratic Party is. What values does Drum claim to share with any of those men?

Is one a Christian merely because he says he is? Can I claim to be a vegetarian because even though I try to not eat animals, I can't make it through a day without a Big Mac?

Barbara Ehrenreich has an outstanding reputation in the progressive liberal world.

What does it say about her, or about us progressive liberals, that she would write such an article?

The article is based on the investigative journalism of Jeff Sharlet which sheds much light on the mixture of church, state and economic power that rose up to reverse the new deal, which they saw as creeping Communism. Why shouldn’t we become better acquainted with Biblical Economics.

Abusing one's religious affiliation as a cudgel to politically beat others over the head didn't evolve into the current epidemic until the Reagan era. The only reason Democrats are being encouraged to drag their private beliefs into the political arean (and by their own, no less!) is because the Republicans have been doing it so shamelessly and so hypocritically for the past couple decades. (I know all about Kennedy, but he put a nail in that coffin by taking religion off the table, and the damned thing stayed dead.)

This has resulted in a state of affairs where a person isn't taken seriously as spiritual unless they are known to blab ad nauseum about their beliefs, to the point that we now have candidates enumerating their theological creeds to the crowd as if they were trying to sway some Inquisitorial jury.

As a kid I was taught by my mainstream Methodist church-going parents that one's beliefs, like one's bank account, were a private matter and not open for discussion outside family. They knew how intractable people's beliefs could be, and how much rancor and hatred could be stirred up by dragging them into the light for public argument. And where has all this as-religious-than-thou bullshit gotten us? No closer to tolerance, but a lot closer to the religious litmus test for office that the Founders warned us against. Can we stop this now?

Biblical Economics:

Welcome to American Enterprise Publications, the home of biblically based, free market books on economics and constitutionally based limited civil government. We have been publishing books on biblically based, free market economics for over 32 years.

If the American people of today can be said to be guilty of one sin, it is the national sin of idolatry. Americans have been seduced into looking to the civil government for solutions to all their problems. In short, we have made civil government into a secular god! Thus, God has cursed us with an ever-growing centralized, autocratic political power in Washington, D.C., as well as in our 50 State capitols. The rise of totalitarian civil government in America during the last 100 years is reminiscent of the godless rulers whom God imposed as a judgment on the nation of Old Testament Israel more than 2,500 years ago.

Our publications explain the principles of godly freedom and self-responsibility by applying biblical principles to economic exchange, to civil government, and to America's social institutions. Our publications show the outworking of free-market based economics in society.

The question arises, "How can sinful man live in peace and harmony with other sinful individuals?" Don't we need a powerful civil government to keep sinful individuals from harming each other? The answer is no! The answer lies in the nature of voluntary free-market exchange, which is the very bargaining process through which each individual seeks to maximize his or her own welfare. As long as civil government is restricted to its biblically mandated role of punishing wrongdoers, rather than transferring wealth from one set of pockets to another through "legalized theft," the system of voluntary free-market exchange will flourish to the benefit of all concerned. In summary, biblically based principles naturally produce true free-market economic exchange which benefits all who take part in the voluntary process.

It is our conviction that all the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge, even those of the sciences, can be sought most successfully and profitably only if the seeker constantly keeps his eyes focused on the Person of Jesus Christ. Thus, we don't hesitate to take a biblical approach in our study of economic science and practice.

Thank you for visiting our web site.
Is it in the water Christians drink?

Please Shut Up ...: "... just like you'd keep your sex life private?"

Speak for yourself.

Can we stop this now?

I don't think it's going to stop until another group of something is identified by those in power, a group who can be targeted to swing an election as the evangelical Christians can.

I don't think these are sincere people of faith. If a group of, oh, I don't know, let's say donut eaters, if donut-eaters could be identified and targeted for voting in a particular way, these politicians would become devout donut eaters, too!

Republicans went after evangelicals as a voting bloc because they were at a place, churches every Sunday, where they could be pitched to and manipulated into voting a particular way. For Republicans. All Republicans had to do was tailor their own beliefs to a couple of the evangelicals' hot button issues, like abortion and school prayer, and the evangelical Christians would give them the power with their votes to achieve their real agenda: Get all the money.

That's the extent of Republicans', and now DLC Democrats', interest in Christianity.

Do not seek to judge the spiritual life of others, lest you also invite the same scrutiny upon your own.

I am an Obama supporter, an agnostic and I am horrified by this woman's demonization of this group. I have had personal experience with The Fellowship and I can say that they are good and decent people who make our world better just by being here.

The Ehrenreich piece was one of the most vile smear jobs I have ever read. I am still having trouble believing it was written by the someone I had so much respect for and thought would have been an excellent permanent columnist for the NY Times.

The give away (one of many) is the following:
"What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton."

Are you f***ing kidding me. I thought this purple prose pseudo psycho profiling was restricted to the Maureen Dowds of the world.

The religious beliefs of a candidate are only important in so far as their beliefs inform their political and policy values. I don't think that there is anything wrong in the media investigating those beliefs. Its too bad they can't just report the facts instead of trying to whip up hysteria, shock, and outrage.

Now, maybe I'm not paying attention, but I thought that Amy Sullivan's point wasn't that Democrats need to be talking about religion, but that Democrats shouldn't be dismissive of religious people. I thought that she was arguing that many religious believers share common values with many progressives and that many of those believers are not single issue voters.

In fact I thought that Sullivan was saying that these same believers would work with progressives on important issues if those believers were not patronized or made to feel uncomfortable for their beliefs. Of course, if religious belief means that they're not cool enough to join our club, then I guess that we don't need their votes in November.

Very good question, Kevin. If (a) you're going to be perceived as a hypocritical panderer, who's just putting on a show to win elections, and/or (b) the people or church you connect to will receive a forensic analysis and every unpalatable tie or connection (no matter how tenuous) will be attributed to you, why bother trying?

(Especially when John McCain can accept endorsements from John Hagee and Rod Parsley and people just laugh away their disgusting comments and say that McCain is just doing what he needs to do to get elected.)

You don't think Amy Sullivan will actually answer this question, do you? She might say "They both have strong religious vies and since polls have both Clinton and Obama ahead of John McCain, the lead proves my crackpot theory."

Or maybe we'll get "Kevin, since they're the first Democrats since Thomas Jefferson ever to mention their religion, of course people are skeptical."

Of course she might just do a "Well, I really enjoyed my time here, and I hope I answered all your questions. Remember that the Democrats hate religion and they'll never win elections until they stop hating religion."

One reason this divide exists is the growing number of social issues issues that are fundamentally incompatible with the text of the Bible. I could not be a good practicing Catholic and support homosexuality, birth control, etc... I could either come up with some tortured rationale or say "OK, I guess I'm not a Catholic."

Second, there has been the rise of the people who insist that every word in the Bible is literally true-- earth 6,000 years old, Sun goes around the world-- and demand that the schools teach it. Again, it is impossible to profess strong religious beliefs and oppose these people-- you're opposing the teachings of God.

Now if you're willing to say "Well, a lot of the stuff in the Bible bible is really stupid, so I just don't pay any believe that part", great. But then don't:

1. Insist that you're a member in good standing and that there are many people like you.

2. Ask me, absent proof, to reshape my party platform to reflect views that you hold.

To make the point again, Amy Sullivan has never run a successful political campaign that used the techniques she proposes.

Nor has she been able to identify candidates who could win by using these techniques, in advance of the election. She's adept at claiming campaigns for her own, after the fact (e.g. Ted Strickland in Ohio), but a 100% batting average is hardly impressive.

Well, I will thank you for having her, because it did provide one piece of valuable information: based on his response to a number of comments, reading Mark Kleiman is clearly a waste of time.

AK Liberal, I've never seen Democrats being dismissive of people's religions. What I thought I saw, up until recently, was Democrats strictly keeping their noses OUT of people's religions, which is as it should be. I can talk to you about the morality and decency of ensuring everyone has health care without pointing to a place in some holy book to legitimize the idea. And maybe that's the problem...people thinking that there can be no morality without organized religion. We should be able to tap into those common values without resorting to categorization by belief.

Ms. Sullivan's premise, which she has been sticking to for years, is essentially that "religious" voters need to be convinced by Democrats as to WHAT IS IN IT FOR THEM?

That's pretty rich, coming from the supposed disciples of Christ or whoever (it seems to be Christ in Ms. Sullivan's formulations).

If I need to explain to you how you will personally benefit from the Democratic party, instead of how society as a whole will benefit, I suggest you go to the other side of the aisle. I am not a Democrat because it benefits me personally. I am one because I can see that Democratic policies make things better for all people, not just my chosen group. I am a Democrat because choice, freedom, and tolerance are what I believe in, because they are political ideals worth striving for in their own right, and because the outcomes of such policies move this world in what I think is the right direction.

If I need to convince you that you, personally, will benefit or somehow be elevated, well, piss off. You are interested in yourself, not in others, and I don't mind saying it. Take your need for self-affirmation elsewhere, while the rest of us try to make the world a better place for everyone, whether we agree or disagree about God. I am not hostile to your religion. I am hostile to your need for me to affirm you before you will work with me to make things better. And that is what Ms. Sullivan whines about in each and every flippin' post. I do not care what your religion is, I care what your politics are, and that is how most Democrats feel, ergo our tolerance for race, sex, gender, religion, etc. We do give a rat's ass about that stuff, we just want fewer poor people, fewer dead people, fewer wars, better education, higher wages, better transit, and all kinds of other stuff. How your personal religious beliefs fit into that...I just don't see it and if you want to talk about it...fine, but don't expect me to think you are wiser or better or anything else. You are just talking, and I am just listening (because I am polite, and a Democrat, and am willing to do such things so we can get something done).

(Sigh!) So much for all that noble and lofty rhetoric last Tuesday:

New York Times | March 20, 2008
Photograph of Bill Clinton and Rev. Wright Surfaces -- "During one of the most difficult periods in the presidency of Bill Clinton, he addressed a group of clerics at an annual prayer breakfast in September 1998 just as the Starr report outlining his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about to be published. Among those in attendance, was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who is seen shaking hands with Mr. Clinton in a photograph provided today by the Obama campaign."

(Emphasis mine.)

I'm curious to know why Kevin has not done a comparison study on how many American pastor's have blamed America for events like 9/11, Oklahoma City bombing, Katrina, or other destructive situations that have occurred over the pass 25 years as punishment from God. (You know: Sins like allowing Gays, Lesbians, a secular society to exist, etc.)

Not one journalist, none, has done this type of study. Either, the Media has simply not thought about doing it for it's usefulness on context; or Media is just too darn dumb on how to go about doing it. (But then, to be fair, no one has every said FoxNews, CNN, ABCNews; or even folks who run blogs are that smart.)

The results would be down right interesting and the list should be posted all over the world. It would politically kill McCain, (and FoxNews to boot.)

Anyone wanna guess which religious Faiths is in the top 15? (Hint: Anyone wanna bet it's all the same Faith?.)

Anyone wanna guess who the top name is on the list who has done the most preaching about on blaming America for all the attacks/terrible events as punishment from God?

Anyone wanna guess which position in the top 100 Rev. Wright holds?

No one? Ah well. Never mind.

"If this is what being a sincerely committed Christian gets you in the Democratic Party, why should we bother?"

AAARRGH! Jesus Christ! Make som sense, for crying out loud! The attacks on Obama--they aren't something he "got" in "the Democratic Party." They came from the right. What weird self-defeating logic allows you to blame the Wright affair on democrats? Seriously,it's just a really tedious, mindless script. Now O' Sullivan will respond with some jive claiming that yes, democrats attacked Obama over Wright, and the meme goes on, Democrats hate religion.

Ehrenriech is indeed a "well known progressive." But what has religion "gotten" Hillary in the democratic Party? Well, it got her a position in the Senate, and months as the putative front runner; it got her Ohio and MA and probably PA; it got her a chance at the nomination. What else COULD it have gotten her? Is the fact that she hangs out with those Fellowship creeps supposed to endow her with the capacity to fly?

Really, Drum, your question makes ZERO sense

Donald,

I guess we should ask your point.

While John McCain has eschewed commenting on the Wright flap, it is reported that Team Hillary has been quietly pushing the story. I guess Obama isn't supposed to fight back when your gal throws the kitchen sink at him.

Anyway, it's only fair that Obama provide the press with the New York Times photo of Wright shaking hands with Bill Clinton on the morning of Ken Starr's report. You wouldn't expect reporters to actually research the story would you.

"If this is what being a sincerely committed Christian gets you in the Democratic Party, why should we bother? Are the benefits really worth the costs?"

Hmm. Kevin, I'm one of your close readers -- have been for the past 2 years. I gotta say, this is a tendentious question -- you're too smart not to know that. Look. Do you really want anyone -- not just candidates -- to pick how they worship as part of a conscious calculation about what it will "get them"? Surely we should do Clinton and Obama the courtesy of assuming that they worship and think about God they way they do for reasons having to do with their own internal life? I'm completely with many of your earlier commenters like Joel on this one. Otherwise we're left with a world without any privacy. Step back, Kevin; your question is undignified.

This will be an interesting test. Ms. Sullivan has refused for going on two years now to give a direct answer to any of the substantial questions or criticisms directed at her thesis, regardless of how politely they are put. This has now led to the situation where she can post her usual argument and then immediately claim that she is persecuted and that all criticism of her thesis just reinforces it.

Now Ms. Sullivan has been asked a direct and very pertinent question by a WM front pager, Mr. Drum himself. I will wager 100 drumaroos that she will not respond, and 1000 drumaroos that if she does respond she will slip around the question and never answer it directly.

Cranky

> Do you really want anyone -- not just
> candidates -- to pick how they worship
> as part of a conscious calculation about
> what it will "get them"? Surely we should do
> Clinton and Obama the courtesy of assuming that
> they worship and think about God they way they
> do for reasons having to do with their own
> internal life? I'm completely with many of your
> earlier commenters like Joel on this one.
> Otherwise we're left with a world without any
> privacy.

Except that it is Ms. Sullivan's thesis is that Democrats (and liberal in general) /must/ "engage" the extremely conservative, and extremely political, hard right evangelicals. How exactly is that supposed to happen without Democrats making an issue of their religious beliefs in the political arena - and in public in general?

Personally I stand with many (and perhaps most) liberals on this issue: absolute support for absolute freedom of religion for the individual. And, to make that possible, absolute support for the Constitutional principles of separation of church and state and prohibition of religious test for government office. In order to achieve that I think it is also necessary - both to protect the polity **and religion itself** - to oppose social and political coercion by the small-e evangelical of all religions.

But Ms. Sullivan seems unable to grasp that argument. Kevin I think gets it, at least in outline.

Cranky

Ehrenreich's article, if you want to call it that, is a vicious smear job. It reeks of desperation. I doubt that it will work. But nice try, Babs.

That is odd, while I was writing my little comment, James said what I was thinking, only better.

Where the hell are the "real" reporters? The press coverage of the Wright story could have been handled by any race track announcer in America.

Obama called us to an adult discussion, but so far the people who are paid to provide context for a story like this one have been absent without leave.

Where are the context stories? Where are the pieces that go deep into issues of race or look at the intractable social problems confronting black pastors every day? Where are the stories examining how we have gotten to the point where millions of blacks and whites work together everyday, but rarely invite each other to their churches? How about a little adult discussion? How about it from Amy Sullivan and Kevin Drum?

Instead of Amy mouthing Republican talking points, how about Amy examining some inconvenient truths. When was the last time she attended a black church? When was the last time her church and the local black church worked together on a community project? I am sure they could find a house in need of painting. When was they last time her lilly white church and the local black church a shared a sunrise Easter service? Following a shared service with a pancake breakfast might do more to bridge the racial divide than a dozen sermons. Why is it that Barack Obama can say that "Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in American life" and everybody nods with quiet approval? Where the hell is the white church, Amy? Especially yours.

Today Show today.

Obama campaign links Bill Clinton to Rev. Wright by showing a photo of Wright with Bill Clinton at a religious leaders breakfast? And, as the Today Show says, the photo was taken "at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal."

Then Obama tries to explain why his grandmother is a "typical white person" because of her racial resentment twoard blacks.

Yes a brillant speech, but, again, was it the right political move?

"This story has yet to play out, but it's at least possible that it could end up sinking Obama's candidacy."

More likely it will end up sinking Democratic prospects for victory in November. I agree, re Hagee and Wright, that "religion" is a preoccupation for dirtbags.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

I guess that if there was still a "Fairness Doctrine" (either as a legal mandate, or as a nearly universally understood ethical obligation), voters might routinely see mainstream news stories that include all examples of "controversial statements" by ministers and others with whom candidates have closely associated themselves.

That's what we might see if we actually had a "fair and balanced" news media. And if any of them actually were that, they wouldn't have to keep trying to convince viewers by using that as a slogan, either.

But hey, no need to bother with all that nuts-and-bolts work. Sloganeering is where it's at these days. Just ask that "straight talk express" guy.

Christ gave us specific direction in this matter - it was good advice regardless of one's take on biblical absolutism.

INARGUABLY, UNQUESTIONINGLY AND WITHOUT FAIL, RELIGION IS THE GENESIS OF ALL EVIL.

"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
--Matthew 6:6 (New International Version)

Yes a brillant speech, but, again, was it the right political move?

Well, it seems to have got him the endorsement of Bill Richardson, which will help him out with New Mexico in the general election and possibly Latinos nationwide. Richardson cites the speech directly in a letter to his supporters:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/richardson_endorses_obama_at_1.php

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

sorry, the last paragraph of my last post isn't me speaking, It's still Bill Richardson.

Yesterday I was struck by the utter inanity of the current administration versus the discourse that's evolving out of Wright's mouth.

Why is he vilified anymore than someone who says/thinks/acts like ..."the US Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper, stop waving it in my face." ?

Know anybody who says/thinks acts like the US....?

The inflated posturing by the babblers sounds more and more shrill against a much larger sense of
understanding/awakening and acceptance of others that
is sure to follow Obama's speech.

We have got to all get along or else we will send this country down, down, down.

I kinda think it's time to celebrate life , surely we have killed enough.

Kevin, I don't know you, but I'm very surprised at this cynical response. Barbara linked to work in Harper's in which I describe the Fellowship's activities, which are based on an explicitly un-Christian theology, contempt for religion as it's practiced by most ordinary believers, and which have contributed to some of the worst abuses of power around the world. As Barbara notes, I've written a book based on years of research in which I go into greater depth about those activities. I'm a contributing editor for Harper's and Rolling Stone; former faculty in the religious studies program of New York University; and editor of websites in which I've published many fine evangelical writers (including Amy Sullivan). Which is only to say, A)I can hardly be accused of being anti-religion; B) it would have been easy and obvious for you to contact me about the basis of Barbara's critique before you pronounced on a subject about which you're under-informed. Have you read the Family's archives? If not, on what basis do you offer your characterization of them? The experience of a few friends? Is that journalism?

I'll happily turn this over to Amy, though, for whom I have tremendous respect even though we disagree on some points of how religion and politics work best together. Amy and I have spoken about the Fellowship before, she's known my critique for years, and if she thought I was practicing character assassination, she forgot to tell me. I think Amy, like me, envisions a Democratic Party that celebrates faith (as well as those who don't have faith) and does so openly. That's not the Fellowship's theology.

I'm not the only one concerned about the Fellowship's anti-democratic approach. Numerous former members, many of them very committed Christians, are concerned about its influence. And even Francis Schaeffer, the late theorist of modern fundamentalism, no liberal he, thought that the Family abused both the teachings of Christ and the democratic process.

It's simple Kevin. 1) There's no doubt both Hillary and Obama are more religious than McCain. 2) Everyone knows we rip apart our leaders like a pack of hyenas on a zebra carcass. 3) Therefore we have to stop being so mean to religious people and elect some atheists.

The typical white person makes Obama cringe?

Why is Ehrenreich's piece a "smear job"? I don't get it. If Clinton is involved with a creepy religious group why is that not a legitimate political issue? Indeed, the same way Wright is for Obama. If a candidate says religion is really important to them, attend events regularly, then the people they do it with are fair game.

These religious skirmishes among the Democrats, who goes to the "better" church, belong in the last century.

Is McCain religious, or is he sliding by while Clinton attacks Obama's religion (the last thing left for her to attack BTW)?

Kevin wrote: "If this is what being a sincerely committed Christian gets you in the Democratic Party, why should we bother?"

Kevin is, intentionally or not, reinforcing Amy Sullivan's blatantly, absurdly false claims about Democratic "hostility" to religion.

Kevin's own post discusses an article critical of Hillary Clinton's affiliation with a particular, conservative-leaning, religious group -- an article by Barbara Ehrenreich, who is an independent writer not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and an article which says absolutely nothing critical or negative about Hillary Clinton being a "sincerely committed Christian". Ehrenreich's criticism of Clinton relates to the right-wing political orientation of one particular religious group. And Hillary Clinton has received ZERO criticism from within the Democratic Party for being a "sincerely committed Christian".

Kevin's own post describes attacks on Barack Obama from the usual gang of lying blowhards in the right-wing extremist Republican propaganda machine -- again, nothing there about Obama encountering problems "in the Democratic Party". Like Clinton, Obama has received ZERO criticism from within the Democratic Party for being a "sincerely committed Christian".

The question is, why are Amy Sullivan and Kevin Drum so insistent on perpetuating the baseless, slanderous, scripted right-wing extremist talking point that the Democratic Party is "hostile to religion"?

The typical white person makes Obama cringe?

And Hillary is a Nazi. I thought we were supposed to wait for about 10 comments before we compare our primary opponents to Hitler. Huffingtonpost.com, breaking new ground in internet. But they're right. Hillary likes multi-point plans. The nazis liked multi-point plans. Hillary supports social security for old jews and strong government support of medical research. The nazis supported subsidized housing and transportation for old jews and related medical research.

"If this is what being a sincerely committed Christian gets you in the Democratic Party, why should we bother?"

But isn't it the Republicans that are raising these issues - not the Democrats. I will reluctantly admit that I am a devout memeber of the same church as Mitt Romney but I find that I have to repeatedly tell my Republican fellow church members that it was Mike Huckabee and other evangelical Republicans - not the Democrats - that disparaged our church and called us a cult. Certainly there is exploitation of these issues by the Clinton and Obama camps for their own strategic purposes but it is a clear indication of Republican hypocrisy that they promote the idea of a committed religious life (usually a Christian life) and then bend over backwards to find ways to condemn someone for living such a life.

Maybe it's just the hazy memory of an old man, but it seems to me that Jimmy Carter was the politician who introduced the phrase "born-again Christian" to the mainstream media. Anyone who had been hanging around protestant churches in the 50s and 60s had heard the phrase, but when Carter referred to himself as a born-again Christian the phrase becamse fodder for comics and pundits all over the place

I'm still amazed at how cynically the GOP claimed the mantle of religion so swiftly after 1980.

Neither Clinton nor Obama claims that God tells them what to do or that His orders will inform their administrations.

Hillary Clinton, as anyone who's ever read anything about her knows, is a devout, lifelong Methodist. So when she came to Washington DC in 1993 she joined the "Fellowship,"...

Uh, you're missing a step there. Lots of lifelong Methodists come to DC and don't join anything like the Fellowship. The Fellowship was controversial before Clinton was connected with it, it's not Methodist, and it sounds very different from what you find in the typical Methodist church.

I get tired of being told I need to be like the Republicans in order to be properly religious. Amy Sullivan has a hobby horse that she injects at every possible moment. Is there a good reason to keep printing or posting her diatribes?

Hedley Lamarr?!

Aren't you the one who said:

I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.

LA Times:
"A four-story townhouse on C Street, two blocks from the Capitol, is owned by a sister organization of the Fellowship, and is registered with the IRS and the District of Columbia as a church. It pays no taxes. Yet eight members of Congress live there."

Weird. Very Protestant.

It is worth noting that when Amy Sullivan, who constantly criticizes the Democratic Party for its alleged "hostility to religion", turns to the longstanding, strong and positive relationship between Democrats and black, urban, liberal-leaning Christian churches -- a relationship which of course reveals her entire premise to be false -- she chooses to disparage it in the most offensive possible terms, accusing Democrats of "ghettoizing religion" by associating with those churches for "political convenience".

But the main point of Sullivan's entire argument is that Democrats should engage religion for political convenience -- that Democrats need to be more friendly to religious people in order to win elections.

Two things are entirely apparent.

First, the only "religion" that Amy Sullivan is concerned to have Democrats engage is white southern conservative evangelical Christianity. So Democrats have strong relationships with black urban liberal churches? Forget about it, that's just ghetto religion and it doesn't count.

Second, Amy Sullivan's argument is nothing but a patchwork of baseless allegations, sweeping generalizations, flimsy "reasoning", and outright falsehoods, and self-contradictions, all of which consistently converge on a single point: bashing the Democratic Party with the scripted right-wing extremist Republican talking-point that Democrats are "hostile to religion".

Why doesn't Amy Sullivan just declare herself a Republican and go on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's program to promote her book? Probably because the market for books of right-wing Republican propaganda bashing Democrats for being anti-religion is already saturated by more established authors, and in the conservative sphere that line of propaganda has been pretty well worked over by the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly. Whereas by writing Democrat-bashing screeds as a Democrat she gains some degree of novelty and controversy that helps her sell more books. It's just a marketing ploy.

Kevin,

Your characterization of the "the Fellowship" differers considerably from the description used in a long article on Hillary's faith in this September's Mother Jones Magazine. That writers of that article described the organization as, and I quote,...

"a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan."

I dont know enough about the subject to know who's mis-characterizing the nature of the Fellowship.
BUT, the two characterizations differ enough that I determine this. Either the writers of this story are exaggerating the secretive and Chistianist nature of the Fellowship, or you are downplaying it considerably.

100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

I don't think Democrats need to talk *religion*. I think they need to talk *morality*. Big difference. And morality is not the exclusive province of religion.

War, poverty, stewardship of the environment -- public policy generally -- are moral issues, and we should talk about them as such.

FWIW, these should be spelled "assassination" and "Adolf." ...

As for the Family, there appears to be a none-too-well documented connection between Nazism and evangelism. Martin Bormann, Hitler's chief executive, who ran the Nazi business empire from South America after WW2, grew up in a Lutheran evangelical household; other top Nazis including Maj. Gen. Karl Wolff turned (or returned) to evangelism after the war. What, if not closely shared values (notably, anti-Communism), provided the bridge for defeated fascists to become Christian fundamentalists? Is it a coincidence that so many top brass in the US military, especially the Air Force, espouse that tasty mix of Christian fundamentalism and American exceptionalism that is, in value terms, indistinguishable from fascism?

Boy, talk about missing the point:

"If this is what being a sincerely committed Christian gets you in the Democratic Party, why should we bother?"

Um, the idea isn't that we Dems should all go out and cynically join churches so that we can reap political benefits from it.

To do so would obviously produce, not sincerely committed Christians, but a bunch of hypocrites.

The idea is that we atheists shouldn't be so dismissive of sincerely committed Christians, whether Democrat or Republican.

And we shouldn't. Period. It's called the right thing to do.

Also, putting Ehrenreich's column on the same level with the massive frenzy over Wright is simply silly.

What a sad post.

Lifelong Dem wrote: "Maybe it's just the hazy memory of an old man, but it seems to me that Jimmy Carter was the politician who introduced the phrase 'born-again Christian' to the mainstream media."

Here's an anecdote.

In 1982 I had a part time job telemarketing magazine subscription renewals. My job was simply to call people whose magazine subscriptions had expired and ask them if they wanted to renew.

The company I worked for had various magazines as clients, one of which was Christianity Today.

Christianity Today had just recently run a cover story about Jimmy Carter, in which he was interviewed about his born-again Christian faith and its role in shaping his views of government.

In the course of calling CT subscribers, I reached one fellow who became quite outraged. He began bellowing at me, "No I am NOT renewing! How can you call yourselves a Christian magazine when you put that Godless Communist Jimmy Carter on the cover?"

"Godless Communist" were his exact words.

I was just a musician between gigs trying to make a buck selling magazines, so I apologized for disturbing him and moved on to the next call.

As far as I am concerned, Amy Sullivan's "arguments" amount to little more than bellowing that Democrats, even born-again Christians like Jimmy Carter, are "Godless Communists".

That is unless you're of the Sam Harris camp, as I am, and think that Obama and Hillary shouldn't be left alone- they should be embarrassed by their faith, as should the religious electorate. The whole religious orientation of this country is a disgrace.

(Apologies in advance, this reads like a missive - or a tract - to Kevin Drum.)

Kevin,

Since you're not religious, let me fill you in:
Methodists are a mainstream (used here meaning non-evangelical) Protestant Christian denomination. They are not dominated by conservatives as evangelical churches are; as a result, the Democratic Party has indeed made inroads with Methodists over the past twenty years.

Unfortunately, the only religious group that Amy Sullivan is interested in is evangelical Christians, the most conservative of all. If she was interested in supporting politically liberal Christians, let alone liberal religious people of any faith, she might have brought up this story instead:

United Methodists Upset With Bush / Cheney

A group of Methodist clergymen have written a letter condemning the actions of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, both ostensible Methodists. They are sending out the letter as part of a petition to get Methodists to encourage Bush and Cheney to change. The media likes to report on conservative Catholic opinions about Kerry, so why do they ignore this?
According to the letter:

George W. Bush, in his role as President of the United States of America and Commander in Chief, and Dick Cheney in his role as Vice-President, led the United States into an illegal war against the sovereign nation of Iraq. In article 23 of our Doctrinal Standards and General Rules (2000 Discipline, p.65) the U.S. government is described as "a sovereign and independent nation, and ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction." We hold that Iraq is also a "sovereign and independent nation" and is granted the same rights as the United States, no matter what anyone's opinion is of its former head of state. Attacking a sovereign nation except in cases of legitimate self-defense is a violation of international law.
We, the undersigned, are also very much disturbed by President Bush's many references to the significance of Christian faith in the decisions that he has made as President of the United States. George W. Bush has called Jesus his "favorite philosopher", said that Jesus changed his life, and that his decisions are often guided by prayer. In fact, we feel that most of his actions as president have directly contradicted the philosophy of Jesus. Jesus said to feed, clothe, and shelter the "least of these", not to starve, strip, and bomb them.
We are also concerned that the respondents seem completely ignorant of their denomination's stances on many weighty moral issues and have consistently ignored the advice and pleadings of their own Council of Bishops. We, the undersigned, recognize that the Methodist tradition is founded on both support and accountability. Our leaders and our members have tried to support the respondents with prayers and petitions, but we fear it has been to no avail. At this point, we cannot be expected to "encourage and enjoin obedience to the powers that be" (2000 Discipline, p.66) when they are reckless and irresponsible with power given them by our democratic process.

The letter quotes extensively from the "Doctrinal Standards and General Rules" to argue how Bush and Cheney have violated Methodist principles or standards. I don't know exactly just how strong their argument is, but it seems strong enough to be worth making and for Methodists to take seriously. It is at least as strong as the arguments offered by conservative Catholics against John Kerry and his support for legal abortion. Curiously, though, Kerry's issue has gotten a lot of attention while Bush's haven't.

At the end of the day, Amy Sullivan wants to repel the majority of religious Americans who have been turned off by the conservative extremism of conservative fundamentalist evangelical Christianity as practiced by the Republican Party. It would be nice if she recognized the vast majority of religious Americans are not evangelicals, and remembered the inroads that the Democrats have made with religious people of all races or creeds, but per the past ten years, she has refused to do so.

(I assume everyone knows how dismissive Amy Sullivan is of outreach to black churches by now, so I didn't comment about that aspect of Kevin's post.)

I find all the vitriol against Sullivan bizarre.

The Democratic agenda has common ground with the evangelical agenda in areas like poverty relief and environmental stewardship (now there's a word evangelicals understand). If Democratic candidates approach evangelical groups and emphasize those areas, it could help them win elections.

Having followed Sullivan's work from the days when she was a featured writer in the Gadflyer, I gather that that is the gist of her message. And it seems to me to be good advice. Why all the nastiness?

lampwick wrote: "The idea is that we atheists shouldn't be so dismissive of sincerely committed Christians ..."

The problem is that Amy Sullivan's contention that "atheists" who are "dismissive of sincerely committed Christians" have a dominant, or even significant, role in Democratic electoral politics, is utterly, absurdly, demonstrably false.

And when Amy Sullivan refers to black, urban, liberal-leaning churches as "ghettoized religion", is she not the one being "dismissive of sincerely committed Christians"?

If an atheist commenter on this site referred to African-American churches as "ghetto religion" what would be the reaction? Why does Amy Sullivan think that she can make such offensive remarks with impunity?

Kevin wrote:

Ehrenreich informs us, "she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama." Why? Because the Fellowship worships Adolph Hitler

Wow, Kevin- are the Washington Monthly editors reading you anymore?

Please explain the facts to us somewhere before or after this kind of snark (i.e., saying someone a Democrat is associated with "worships Adolf Hitler") in all of your posts from now on.

Whatever personality trait you have to exercise or develop in order to carry that out, please do it.

I certainly don't think anyone associated with The Family, or with their Prayer Breakfasts, is interested in spiritual religion in the sense of John 18 or Matthew 19. It is a power cult like so many in the 20th century that merely takes on evangelical trappings in the American context. Nothing remarkable here. Jeff Sharlet's research shows that the core of this organization is authoritarian, although we can suppose most who are associated with the Prayer Breakfasts are interested in a more moderate strain of political power.

Amy Sullivan's assertion from yesterday that "For decades, the Democratic Party has ghettoized religion, outsourcing it to African-Americans within the party." comes straight from the Republican hymnal. They have been trying to convince the African-American community of this for years hoping to woo them into the Republican Party- a party that uses religion in the most cynical way imaginable. Is this what the Democratic Party should do?

Few in the Democratic Party have a problem with religion. Public religion to the exclusion of other religions in this diverse religious country is a problem. The standard bearer most favored by the progressives- who are supposed to be secular warriors- is a fairly religious black man. No one cares. No one cares about Mormons or anyone else. It is the hard-core right-wing evangelicals and their Republican leaders that are exclusive. These are the people who want to make the nation, not a Christian nation, but an evangelical nation with the tone and tenor of right-wing religion in the evangelical South. Everyone else can get in the ghetto.

After all, why shouldn't Protestants have their own version of Opus Dei? The "cells", the private meeting houses, the spiritual guides who know just how loudly power can talk, the chaste, gender-segregated acolytes, and above all the opportunity to pray in an exclusive club of those as truly holy as yourself.
And the regalia! From Brooks, probably. Not like those awful things the Scientologists wear.

"[Interviewer:]When you were growing up, did you have pastors who were open political partisans?

[Amy Sullivan:] Many of them might have been Republicans, but you would never have heard that from the pulpit. They didn't see it as relevant to what was going on in church. Church was all about what was going on with your soul. They focused on saving your soul. That changed probably sometime in the mid-'80s. And tragically, it went along with the rise of the religious right. Pastors began to get more political. Congregants got more political." [Salon.com interview]

Also, while trying to find the above:
"Not God's Party
A NEW POLL SHOWS DEMOCRATS ARE LOSING (MORE) RELIGIOUS VOTERS.
By Amy Sullivan
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2006, at 5:00 PM ET"

Although her last paragraph isn't horrible. Amy, perhaps if your next post would be what your ideal campaign/party strategy would actually look like - showing rather than telling, since the latter obviously isn't working that great?

Read "Jesus Plus Nothing" from Harper's a couple of years back (it's on their website) for some background on this group.

Creepy as hell.

scott_m wrote: "Why all the nastiness?"

You don't find Amy Sullivan's disparagement of the longstanding, strong, positive relationships between Democrats and black, urban, liberal-leaning churches as "ghettoizing religion" to be "nasty"?

scott_m wrote: "The Democratic agenda has common ground with the evangelical agenda in areas like poverty relief and environmental stewardship (now there's a word evangelicals understand)."

And indeed, it appears that at least some evangelicals are beginning to recognize that they have things in common with the traditional, liberal core values of the Democratic Party, and are beginning to recognize the Republican Party's cynical pandering to the worst instincts and basest fears of white conservative southerners for what it is. Author Jim Wallis of the progressive evangelical Christian ministry Sojourners has referred to this evolution in the Christian evangelical community as "the great awakening".

The more of that, the better. But that's about evangelical Christians changing to move closer to the Democratic Party, not the other way around.

Nothing in that supports Amy Sullivan's contention that the Democratic Party needs to do anything to be more "friendly" to evangelicals who still hold views that are entirely contrary to core values of held by the overwhelming majority of Democrats on issues like reproductive rights, basic civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation, the teaching of evolution in schools, separation of church and state, and so on.

And nothing in that remotely supports Amy Sullivan's endless repetition of the scripted right-wing extremist Republican talking point that the Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, and/or Democrats in general are "hostile to religion".

Without making this comment too long right now- I'd like to give a more detailed rebuttal, but it's unfortunate that it should be relegated to so far down on a WM comments' thread instead od somewhere more prominent- I think the attacks on Hillary's religion or her association with a Bible study group are unfair. I think, from what I've read in the comments, they basically amount to an unwillingness to consider similar failings in other religions, and use of "smear words" to describe basically typical, bening elements of what Hillary's doing (i.e., calling her Bible study-group a "sex-segregated cell"-- P.S. to the more brainless liberals: I don't care that it was somebody writing for Mother Jones who said it).

Secular Animist has a good point about Amy Sullivan in all SM's comments- any perception of the Democrats as hostile towards religion at this point has to have a lot more to do with the media blowing it way out of proportion than it has to do with how Democrats or liberals actually behave.

..the "Fellowship," a well-known organization run by Doug Coe that's basically a collection of Bible study groups..

Not according to this guy, Kev...Say what you will about using Clinton's affiliation to this group as a smear - personally, I don't like it - but your description of the Fellowship can be disputed.

If this is what being a sincerely committed Christian gets you in the Democratic Party, why should we bother?

Did the Democratic Party launch the Obama-Wright 'controversy'? If not, then you can't really use Obama-Wright as a frame for your question, Kev.

I wrote: bening

Should have been "benign." Ack.

If we don't get political brownie points for being open to religious people, then maybe we should cut all the other electoral losers too, like African-Americans and Latinos, or the gay community. Did you know that voters who self-identified as gay voted D rather than R by only 60/40? After all the risks the Democrats take by supporting various forms of progressive legislation on gay marriage, the rational thing for us to do as a party would be to disown teh gays. Yet we shouldn't and won't; why? Because we believe that it's the right thing to do.

Sullivan's use of the word 'ghettoized' is being criticized by people who can't read. She's using a hot-button term to draw attention to the inhumanity of the Democrats' shameful and embarassing approach to religious communities. If I say that Duncan Hunter is 'demagoguing' on the immigration issue, it doesn't mean that I support demagogues; quite the opposite. And the same with 'ghettoized'.

Personally, I don't believe that God exists, and I hate joining 'communities'; but I do believe strongly in there being right and wrong things to do. And the right thing to do is to treat believers with as much respect as, say, people from some another race or ethnicity.

By the way, as someone has alluded to on the preceding thread, has Ms. Sullivan ever written anything about McCain's association with Hagee in particular, and, in general, Republican leaders' association with various assorted nutjobs who pass themselves off as priests and pastors?

Does she think that, for example, Tom Delay, who has the support of so many so called religious leaders, has this support because he is a religious man?

I will take her more seriously if she honestly answers these questions.

we'd be better off leaving the God talk to the Republicans and keeping our own faith private.

Amen, brother!

There must be more than a few Democrats surveying the rubble of the past week and thinking that maybe we'd be better off leaving the God talk to the Republicans and keeping our own faith private.

The Democratic agenda has common ground with the evangelical agenda in areas like poverty relief and environmental stewardship (now there's a word evangelicals understand).

This has been true for years, but every time that the Democratic Party has tried to reach common ground with conservative evanelicals the same way it has (and it has) with liberal and moderate mainstream Christians, somehow reservations about abortion, banning Bibles, banning condoms, or coded (and not-so-coded) racism always comes up. I like how Baptist minister Robert Parham described the actions of the Southern Baptist ministers (the evanelical Christian denomination) this way:

Unless a 21st-century Moses comes down from Stone Mountain with a new commandment about global warming, don't expect the majority of Southern Baptist clergy to tackle the issue of human-induced climate change anytime soon.

He goes on to describe how evangelicals are willing to "keep talking about global warming and keep real action locked away in personalized initiatives and the private sector."

I've heard people in the Bush administration talk about the environment and poverty, too. Have Democrats been able to work with them?

"She's using a hot-button term to draw attention to the inhumanity of the Democrats' shameful and embarrassing approach to religious communities."

I thought she was using a hot-button term to draw attention away from her propagandizing and inability to recognize the Democrats' approach to religious communities of which she is not a member.

There must be more than a few Democrats surveying the rubble of the past week and thinking that maybe we'd be better off leaving the God talk to the Republicans and keeping our own faith private.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Committee chair Barbara Boxer was forced to reason with Inhofe as you would deal with a young, troubled child—and Gore did something similar. "I'm sitting here trying to think what I can do or say that might make it possible to reach out to you," he softly said to Inhofe. "I'm serious about this. We've got a mutual friend in [evangelical leader] Doug Coe. I'd love to have breakfast with you. Just the three of us without cameras and lights and tell you why I feel so strongly about this.�

And then there's this, from Max Blumenthal, writing about Charles Colson for The Washington Monthly:

In his search for answers, Colson sought guidance from emerging leaders in the insular evangelical subculture, men like Doug Coe, Francis Schaeffer, and "Jim" Dobson. Their names are dropped into Colson's story without any background information, suggesting not the slightest hint that Colson had integrated himself into an incipient political movement now known as the Christian right.

These men are not your normal man's Bible study partners. Aitken notes that it was Coe who first introduced Colson to evangelical culture through a group with the friendly name of Fellowship House. But he neglects to mention that Fellowship House is a front for "The Family," a highly secretive, all-male cadre of largely right-wing congressmen, industry chieftains, and members of the military. Jeffrey Sharlet, a journalist who infiltrated The Family for Harper's magazine, has described the goal of The Family to be "an 'invisible' world organization led by Christ." Similarly, while Aitken writes about the influence of theologian Francis Schaeffer on Colson, he fails to explain that Schaeffer was the chief proponent of a theology known as "Dominionism," which commands Christians to put the United States under the control of biblical law, not the Constitution.

.."basically a collection of Bible study groups"...

I attended a fairly mainstream evangelical Christian church for many years, to support my wife, who was a believer. The general consensus there was that you could not be a Christian and vote for a Democrat.

Last June at a CNN sponsored discussion on poverty and faith, Hillary Clinton was asked by host Soledad O'Brien to explain how her faith helped her through the difficult situation surrounding Bill Clinton’s infidelity, here's how she responded…

"my faith and the support of my extended faith family,
people whom I knew who were literally praying for
me in prayer chains, who were prayer warriors for me".

To repeat what's been already stated in comments above - There aren't many people in the Democratic party who are "put off" by your average Methodist. But Hillary Clinton isn't your average Methodist.

The average Methodist doesn't use terms like PRAYER WARRIOR. The average Methodist doesn't belong to organizations like The Fellowship.

http://100reasonsnottovoteforhillaryclinton.blogspot.com/2008/03/1-her-christian-conservative.html

lampwick wrote: "She's using a hot-button term to draw attention to the inhumanity of the Democrats' shameful and embarassing approach to religious communities."

No. Amy Sullivan is using a "hot-button term" to accuse the Democrats of a "shameful and embarrassing approach to religious communities" -- an accusation which she utterly fails to substantiate with any evidence whatsoever. Beyond the deliberately offensive and inflammatory insult, she's got nothing.

And that's the sum total of her whole shtick: recitation of scripted Republican talking points that slanderously bash Democrats for being "hostile to religion", completely unsupported by any facts whatsoever.

Amy Sullivan accuses Democrats of "ghettoizing religion" by allegedly engaging black, urban, liberal-leaning churches for "political convenience" -- but her entire argument is that Democrats should engage religious communities for "political convenience", ie. to get more votes and win more elections. That is hilarious hypocrisy.

It's evident that the only religious group that Amy Sullivan cares about, the only religious group that she wants Democrats to be more "friendly" to, is white southern conservative evangelical Christians -- the folks who consistently support Republicans because, in fact, these folks sincerely support right-wing Republican policies with regard to abortion, gay marriage, teaching creationism in schools, America as a "Christian nation" and so on.

That the Democratic Party has longstanding, strong relationships with black, urban churches and with liberal-leaning Jewish and Christian denominations all over the country, just doesn't count with her. And such relationships completely undermine her fake, phony, Republican-scripted accusations that Democrats are "hostile to religion", which is why she feels it necessary to disparage and denigrate such relationships.

The problem that's been revealed by the hysteria over the Wright controversy is that many Americans (most likely white Americans) seem to give the USA God-like status. That is, to many commentators Wright's comments were not just treacherous because they were seen as anti-American, but actually blasphemous. I can't understand how a country with such a strict separation between church and state has this confusion about the place of the nation state in spiritual matters. Secular Western Europe (that gets a 4 day weekend this weekend thanks to Easter) has no such strict separation for the most part (France excepted I think) and yet manages to accept criticism for state actions or inactions without people losing their minds about it. Just an ironic observation.

"And indeed, it appears that at least some evangelicals are beginning to recognize that they have things in common with the traditional, liberal core values of the Democratic Party, and are beginning to recognize the Republican Party's cynical pandering to the worst instincts and basest fears of white conservative southerners for what it is. . . . The more of that, the better. But that's about evangelical Christians changing to move closer to the Democratic Party, not the other way around."

Yep. And there's dissent in the evangelical community over this sort of thing, with old-line, old time xtian right leaders screaming in fury that people dare to pay attention to things like helping the poor or the environment instead of completely and narrowly focusing on GOP-linked issues like abortion and gaybashing. And while I'd like to think that it's an weak and impotent fury, I'm not all that confident - they still have followers, even though things do seem to be changing. Maybe this time the religious left is actually going to get some traction . . .

I think its a entirely helpful idea for Democratic politicians to talk to any group that shares - or at least potentially shares - their values, including liberalish-leaning white evangelicals. If that's all Amy's saying, it's all good. But it never seems to come across quite like that . . .

I would really hate, on the other hand, for the Democratic party to just do their own version of 'let's cynically exploit us a religious voting bloc', corrupting both religion and politics in the process.

I'd love, on the other hand, for folks to speak out about why we value sep. of church and state, and why 'Dems hate religion' is such a dumb claim.

Heather wrote: "That is, to many commentators Wright's comments were not just treacherous because they were seen as anti-American, but actually blasphemous."

There is an important discussion to be had, in regard to the reaction to Wright's harsh criticisms of America, about how an idolatrous hyper-patriotism has become the de facto "state religion" of America, and criticism of the actions of the US government have come to be regarded as a form of "blasphemy".

That would be a subject much more worthy of space on Political Animal than Amy Sullivan's vapid and dishonest axe-grinding.

Excellent post Kevin. I whole-heartedly agree. I think it is best that we leave this nonsense to the nonsensical party.

Rather than giving Amy Sullivan more grist to preach about, I wish you'd just send her on her way.

According to Amy Sullivan, Democrats are hostile to religious voters. Yet according to Barbara Erenreich, mainstream religious Democrats are hostile to Democratic party goals. Gosh, what's a God-fearing Democrat supposed to do?

Perhaps Amy and Barbara should get together and work out the ground rules for just what kind of religion Democrats should be allowed to practice:

Rule #1: No admiration of Hitler expressed during worship services.

Rule #2: No outreach to murderous thugs.

Rule #3: . . .

By the same logic, then, should religious groups abandon their prison ministries because they are associating with "murderous thugs?" Stop those prison literacy programs! Stop those knee-jerk pacifists who advocate on behalf of death row inmates (and get dozens of convictions overturned). Keep former Illinois Governor George Ryan in jail another 10 years for ending the death penalty in his home state! Pitch Sister Helen Prejean over the balcony!

Liberals like Erenreich are the embodiment of dogmatic "political correctness." They hate it when liberals talk to people whose opinions they don't like in forums liberals don't control.

Erenreich resembles George W. Bush in this regard. Presisdent Bush, as we well know, sets all kinds of impossible pre-conditions before agreeing to speak with disagreeable foreign leaders. Then he condemns them as enemies of America when they choose not to speak with him. I guess Erenreich would not have wanted Nixon to meet with that thug Mao Zedong, nor Carter to meet with terrorists like Arafat, nor even George H. W. Bush to meet with Gorbachev.

When Hillary starts advocating for Ingelligent Design in the schools or for building statues commemorating the reign of Agusto Pinochet then I'll begin to worry. Until then I'll worry more about liberal political correctness being crammed down my throat by the likes of Barbara Erenreich and the authors of the "shocking" expose in Mother Jones, Joyce and Sharlet.

SecularAminist: You don't find Amy Sullivan's disparagement of the longstanding, strong, positive relationships between Democrats and black, urban, liberal-leaning churches as "ghettoizing religion" to be "nasty"?

Not if “ghettoizing� means “containing it in a limited area.� If the attitude of a politician is “I sat in an AME church this week, so on my checklist of reaching out to all constituencies, I can put a tick mark by “religious�, that would be ghettoizing religion.

SecularAminist: But that's about evangelical Christians changing to move closer to the Democratic Party, not the other way around.
Politics is persuasion. Passively waiting for someone to see the superiority of your point of view will achieve, at best, slow progress.
SecularAminist: Nothing in that supports Amy Sullivan's contention that the Democratic Party needs to do anything to be more "friendly" to evangelicals who still hold views that are entirely contrary to core values of held by the overwhelming majority of Democrats on issues like reproductive rights, basic civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation, the teaching of evolution in schools, separation of church and state, and so on.

I don’t get where she’s advocating that Democrats abandon any of those core beliefs. On the other hand, there’s little upside in playing up how unscientific creationism is when you’re trying to get someone who believes it to vote for you. Emphasize the similarities. She has said that politicians should be able to speak the language of evangelicals, but it’s things like talking about global climate change in terms of “being a good steward of the earth we’ve been given.�

SecularAminist: And nothing in that remotely supports Amy Sullivan's endless repetition of the scripted right-wing extremist Republican talking point that the Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, and/or Democrats in general are "hostile to religion".

Among the millions of professing Democrats, more than a few are hostile to religion, just as more than a few embrace it, and more than a few are indifferent. If “Democrats are hostile to religion� is a right-wing talking point, and even if it's not entirely accurate, Democrats need to challenge it. “John Kerry didn’t deserve his medals� was a bogus right-wing talking point, but it got the job done.

Maybe it's because politicians in both parties use religion as a political tool. They don't have any sincere spiritual beliefs, or they wouldn't go into politics. It's like trying to maintain your virginity while working as a prostitute.

AJ on March 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM:

I attended a fairly mainstream evangelical Christian church for many years, to support my wife, who was a believer. The general consensus there was that you could not be a Christian and vote for a Democrat.

My stepdaughter attends a Lutheran elementary school. On the eve of the '06 elections, she came home stating that we had to vote Republican. When asked why, she simply said, "The teacher Christians only vote Republican". Between that, the cost of sending here there and me having to explain that the Earth is probably more than 8000 years old, she'll be going elsewhere next school year.

Maybe Amy should consider reversing her one-note theory: Instead of asking why Dems are hostile to religion, she should ask why some branches of Christianity are - somewhat irrationally - hostile to the Democratic party?

scott_m wrote: "If 'Democrats are hostile to religion' is a right-wing talking point, and even if it's not entirely accurate, Democrats need to challenge it."

I agree. So why does Amy Sullivan repeat it, over and over and over again, instead of challenging it for the falsehood that it is?

SecularAnimist, at 11:11 am There is an important discussion to be had, in regard to the reaction to Wright's harsh criticisms of America, about how an idolatrous hyper-patriotism has become the de facto "state religion" of America, and criticism of the actions of the US government have come to be regarded as a form of "blasphemy".

You have hit the nail on the head. Best comment all thread.

We will never discuss the new de facto "xtian" state religion because that would take us uncomfortably close to treasonous blasphemy.

grape_crush wrote: "My stepdaughter attends a Lutheran elementary school. On the eve of the '06 elections, she came home stating that we had to vote Republican. When asked why, she simply said, 'The teacher [said] Christians only vote Republican' ... Maybe Amy should consider reversing her one-note theory: Instead of asking why Dems are hostile to religion, she should ask why some branches of Christianity are - somewhat irrationally - hostile to the Democratic party?"

Good point. Instead of repeating demonstrably false accusations that the Democratic Party is "hostile to religion", why doesn't Amy examine the very real, bitter, seething, irrational hatred of "Democrats" and "liberals" that is so prevalent in the evangelical community?

...is a devout, lifelong Methodist.

I was born and raised in that church, and I never realized my fellow parishioners were "devout." Seems like something that should be applied to more zealous denominations.

It's really an abortion issue. A liberal Supreme Court legalizing abortion through judicial activism with no constitutional authority versus the holy rollers and Catholics trying to reverse abortion rights by forcing their religious dogma on the entire citizenry in defiance of the 1st Amendment.

Since there is really no guidance in either the Constitution or the Bible on abortion, I've always felt the sides should agree to decide the issue by coin toss. In order to give the decision the greatest weight, it would be staged at the intermission of the SuperBowl, with an umpire tossing the coin and either the Pope or the head of the Nat. Org. of Women calling it.

I don't think that the accusation that Hillary Clinton is a consummate political opportunist who would engage in a religious affiliation with a bunch of right-wing crackpots among the Beltway elite for other than "spiritual" purposes is any "uglier" than her bullshit about John McCain being a person of "Commander in Chief" quality while her fellow Democrat, Obama, was not. The Clintons also called Billy Graham to the White House (along with Reverend Wright if the foto evidence is to be believed) for crass political purposes, just as Richard Nixon did when he was caught in his own bullshit. What's so horrible about pointing out these people's opportunism. The low point of this campaign for me as regards Hillary was, frankly, when she spoke in that black church in Selma in an affected "black/southern" accent. What a creepy display - made me want to wretch, especially considering that she was campaigning for Goldwater when others of her generation - I was just as young at the time and very involved - were working with CORE, SNCC, SCLC, etc. She's the consummate phony - which is one of the worst traits in a person. Mike Huckabee has shown himself to be a more "standup guy" than Hillary when its come to the Wright issue - she's been silent while Mark Penn, Lanny Davis, et al have been oozing the slime. Horrible woman, I've come to believe. Horrible Presidential material. I'm sick of these "Stockholm Syndrome" Democrats who allow themselves to continue as hostages to the Clintons. Time to move the fuck on from that sorry duo.

Here are the URLs to both the Mother Jones article on Hillary Clintons faith, and the expose of The Fellowship in Harpers.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525

Kevin, I really think an apology is in order for not accurately depicting the full nature of the The Fellowship and, as a result, suggesting that Hillary Clinton's decade-long involvement with the organization is no big deal.

Any readers skeptical of the need for Kevin to apologize should check out these two articles.

SecularAminist: So why does Amy Sullivan repeat [the right wing talking point that Democrats are hostile to religion], over and over and over again, instead of challenging it for the falsehood that it is?

She’s saying to challenge it by demonstrating that it’s a falsehood. What you see as repeating the meme, I see as acknowledging its existence.

Ehrenreich's article would be character assassination if it's false. But it's not at all out of bounds to question someone's affiliation with a religious organization whose goals are in direct opposition to the spirit and letter of our constitution.

Sullivan has no evidence to back up her assertions about Democratic obtuseness towards religion? Why lo and behold, what's that in her post here? A detailed and extremely telling piece of evidence, in her anecdote of the Seventh-Day adventist pastor!

Want to see even more evidence for yourself? Go click around the liberal blogosophere, starting with, say, the sites on DKos' blogroll. What you find is either studied indifference to religious issues, or sharp hostility to them. I actually agree with the theology of atheists like Cole and Atrios, but their attitude of Nietzchean scorn is, I think, wrong, blind, and self-defeating.

Well, I guess Mike Huckabee couild tell 'pj in jesusland' a little story about those prison ministries. A story about a 'born-again' Christian who went on to rape and kill a few more women after Huckabee got him sprung, in case you've already forgotten.

Ehrenreich actually spent some time working in America's low paid jobs, so she may have a little different take on religion than Hillary or Sullivan.

In any case, the numbers are unequivocal- the faux-Christian approach to solving our problems has been a big failure, right across the board. Appropriately, the number of atheists is rising and the number of true believers is falling.

A lot of religious people during our Civil War thought God was making us pay in blood for the sin of slavery. But if a preacher suggests today that God would make us pay in blood for the sin of helping foreign dictators murder millions of their citizens, or the murders we've committed, they call that preacher an extremist. Times sure have changed.

There's one lesson I've learned from sad experience, and that is that when somebody starts talking about how Christian they are, it's time to get a firm grip on your wallet and make sure the henhouse is locked tight. YMMV.

When Hillary Clinton came to Washington, she joined a mysterious organization called "The Congress", which has supported slavery, segregation, alliances with fascist dictators, and went on witch-hunts against American citizens.
What ordinary nice Methodist girl would join such a group?

It's really an abortion issue. The abortion issue has just about destroyed America and has taken the focus off of far more important issues. It has allowed the Catholics and the "xtians" to feel good about themselves as they have avoided following the Christian teaching that we should love our brothers and sisters.

As long as their cynical leaders are allowed to thump the issue pompous "born again" white American xtians can avoid feeling any moral responsibility for the 14 year old black girl who finds herself pregnant, the 16 year old Hispanic youth who is drawn into a gang, the white boys and girls who are victims of the drug culture, the old woman whose house is in need of repair, the hungry vet living under the bridge down the road, or the man who can't find work to feed his family. Those kinds of real life problems hardworking and well meaning ministers like Rev. Wright face every day.

Because they are "committed" to fighting the "abortion" issue every day, mostly by sending pocket money to immoral televangelists or mega church superstars, they tell themselves that they have already "given" so they don't have to act to help the people in need they encounter every day.

Don't even get me started on the gay issue. I have never read anything in Christ's teachings that authorized gay bashing, but it seems to be preached in "xtian" churches across the nation.

Kevin,

Kevin,

I am very glad you added that update.

One more thing though. While Hillary's involvement might be shallow and as a result "no scandal", however, the level of her involvement does seem out of the ordinary for a Democrat.

You and others have described The Fellowship as a bipartisan organization, but just how bipartisan is it? How many other democrats take part in the thing?

What'sthelatin . . .

Your argument is silly and fatuous. All religious organizations tend to call for loyalty to a "higher power," so every religious organization is at odds with their government at some level.

Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religious association. Hillary's association with The Fellowship is not "fundamentally in opposition to the spirit and letter of our Constitution" but rather an exercise of her Constitutional rights.

The Pope calls for an end to legalized abortion, which is in direct opposition to the letter of our laws (he also opposed the Iraq war). Is it therefore open season on character assassination of all our Catholic friends?

Get real . . .

Steve

You ask too much of Kevin. That would require real reporting, or at least talking to the real reporter up thread who has covered the fellowship.

> She's using a hot-button term to draw
> attention to the inhumanity of the Democrats'
> shameful and embarassing approach to religious
> communities.

Strict separation of church and state exists to protect **religion** as well as to ensure equality for all citizens. It was specifically written into the Constitution for that reason by people who have very direct and unpleasant experience of what happens when the State gets into the enforcement-of-religion business. Just once I would like to hear Ms. Sullivan and her supporters stop being contemptuous and dismissive of liberal values long enough to acknowledge that minor little picky point.

Cranky

lampwick wrote: "Go click around the liberal blogosophere ... What you find is either studied indifference to religious issues, or sharp hostility to them"

What specific "religious issues" are you referring to?

The fact is that some of the key "religious issues" that are of great importance to the white southern conservative evangelical Christians that Amy Sullivan thinks Democrats should be more "friendly" to -- eg. criminalizing abortion, banning gay marriage, teaching the Biblical creation myth in public schools as a "scientific" theory, breaking down the separation between church and state, idolatrous militaristic patriotism that views American foreign policy as a Christian crusade and/or a fast track to the "end times" and Armaggedon -- are antithetical to the traditional, liberal, core values and beliefs of the overwhelming majority of both secular and liberal Christian Democrats.

The proper attitude for secularists regarding "religious issues" that have no particular political import is "indifference" -- live and let live.

The proper attitude for secularists, and liberal religious people alike, towards "religious issues" that are antithetical to their own strongly held core values is "hostility".

The myths made by dominate population religious leaders reinforces the justification for their dominance.

The myths made by oppressed population religious leaders reinforces the feelings of injustice for their oppression.

Hagee claims HIV is his god's punishment against wicked homosexuals. Wright claims HIV is a conspiracy by the dominate population against the oppressed population.

It appears Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain have chosen the dominate population's religion for political gain, belonging to establishment power prayer groups and seeking the endorsement of popular religious leaders.

It appears Sen. Obama has chosen the oppressed population's religion to find a community he can marry and raise a family in.

It should not be surprising establishment media sides with the dominate religious population. Their economic well being relies on the dominate population. God talk is established by the dominate population and becomes the platitudes a majority use to justify their behavior. It is very difficult to oppose it, which is why it might be better for Sen. Obama to avoid race and religion as issues. The prevailing dominate population does not want to have their dominance questioned.

Agree with SecularAnimist:

Good point. Instead of repeating demonstrably false accusations that the Democratic Party is "hostile to religion", why doesn't Amy examine the very real, bitter, seething, irrational hatred of "Democrats" and "liberals" that is so prevalent in the evangelical community?

And this was the point of my comment on the Matchup thread, where I linked the Frankie Schaeffer and Sharlet-citing Ehrenreich pieces on HuffPo.

Legitimate concerns about Clinton's Fellowship affiliation center on its deeply subversive and un-American theological and political beliefs.

It behooves seculars like Kevin (and self-consciously Christian bloggers and authors like Sullivan) to know the difference between a mainstream believing Methodist (which Hillary claims to be) and a member of the radical right-wing Fellowship . I would like to hear more about the depth of her involvement with the group. For that, I suppose, I'll have to read the Sharlet book.

FWIW, I knew some Fellowship people back when I was a senior in high school. They recruited through youth groups in Bethesda, Maryland, especially the powerhouse Fourth Presbyterian Church, across from the Kenwood Country Club on River Road. They seemed pretty benign back then. I take it the whole organization has taken a more sinister turn since then.

pj in jesusland wrote: "Hillary's association with The Fellowship is not 'fundamentally in opposition to the spirit and letter of our Constitution' but rather an exercise of her Constitutional rights."

I understood the comment you quote to be saying that the political philosophy espoused by "The Family", of which "The Fellowship" is a part, is "fundamentally in opposition to the spirit and letter of our Constitution" -- not that Hillary Clinton is in opposition to the Constitution by choosing to associate with them.

OT: Obama wasn't the only one whose passport info was glanced at by curious State staffers...

Separately, Clinton issued a statement saying Rice told her that her passport file was breached in 2007..

Fun stuff...and interesting how this is being brought out now, instead of when it happened...just in time to defuse any outroar over the same thing happening to Obama.

Unless, of course, Rice is just finding out about it; then I'll happily admit to being wrong.

Steve on March 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM:

How many other democrats take part in the thing?

Well I quoted Al Gore referring to Doug Coe as a 'mutual friend' in an earlier comment...There's others listed at the Harper's article...

Hillary's association with the Fellowship is no scandal, he says, but it is fair to question her about whether she accepts Doug Coe's particular brand of elite-centered, post-millennial theology.

I'll say. As long as we're wailing on our political candidates to see how well-aligned they are with the teachings of the pastors at the church's they attend, would it not be too much to ask that we put St. John "Bombs Away" McCain to the inquisition along with the Democratic Party front-runners?

Just asking.

Amen to that, Kevin. Let the Republicans have the God-talk all to themselves.

Mary writes:What evidence is there in any of Clinton's actions or published campaign statements that she is influenced by whatever nefarious goals are attributed to The Fellowship?

She, apparently, co-sponsored Rick Santorum's "Workplace Religious Freedom Act" which seemed to OK the right of say pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.

She co-sponsored a clearly unconstitutional anti-flag burning bill with Sen. Bob Bennett.

And she very clearly supported the "Defense of Marriage Act":

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2000_Feb_15/ai_59410444

The Mother Jones piece Kevin linked in his post is really good. Here's an excerpt from the concluding grafs:

But the senator's project isn't the conversion of her adversaries; it's tempering their opposition so she can court a new generation of Clinton Republicans, values voters who have grown estranged from the Christian right. And while such crossover conservatives may never agree with her on the old litmus-test issues, there is an important, and broader, common ground--the kind of faith-based politics that, under the right circumstances, will permit majority morality to trump individual rights. The libertarian Cato Institute recently observed that Clinton is "adding the paternalistic agenda of the religious right to her old-fashioned liberal paternalism." Clinton suggests as much herself in her 1996 book, It Takes a Village, where she writes approvingly of religious groups' access to schools, lessons in Scripture, and "virtue" making a return to the classroom.

Then, as now, Clinton confounded secularists who recognize public faith only when it comes wrapped in a cornpone accent. Clinton speaks instead the language of nondenominationalism--a sober, eloquent appreciation of "values," the importance of prayer, and "heart" convictions--which liberals, unfamiliar with the history of evangelical coalition building, mistake for a tidy, apolitical accommodation, a personal separation of church and state. Nor do skeptical voters looking for political opportunism recognize that, when Clinton seeks guidance among prayer partners such as Coe and Brownback, she is not so much triangulating�much as that may have become second nature--as honoring her convictions. In her own way, she is a true believer.

This coalition building by Hillary could be construed as smart politics. But at what price to our discourse, especially when we have far more important conversations about far more important coalitions with black churches and progressive Christians.

Go click around the liberal blogosophere ... What you find is either studied indifference to religious issues, or sharp hostility to them

Religious issues such as charity for the poor and mercy for the weak? On the contrary, I find considerable interest in, and indeed advocacy of, these religious issues throughout the liberal blogosphere.

I read one of the articles about Clinton's connections to the VastRightWingConspiracy. It mentioned that she became involved with them in 1993, but was moved up into their "inner circle" when she became a Senator. The "inner circle" is a weekly prayer breakfast. Very scary.

From Motherjones: The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

i read this and thought "no wonder she's so flabbergasted that the 'she's the inevitable nominee' failed. If power is ordained by god, what does it say about you if you lose?

makes me glad i'm an atheist.

I support Obama and I really like Barbara Ehrenreich's writing, but having read the Huff Post article she wrote, I have to say, "there is no there there".

Now maybe (likely) Sharlet's book will provide a lot more insight into The Family, and Hillary's connection to it, but I certainly found nothing scandalous in Ehrenreich's piece.

I've never heard of the Fellowship before. This organization merely sounds like a Methodist version of Opus Dei, a powerful, shadowy, elitist organization with close ties to Antonin Scalia and many other powerful GOP Catholics.

The cartoon version of Opus Dei in The DaVinci Code is nonsense. The reality of Opus Dei is less 007 glamorous, but plenty sinister enough.

Only Kevin and Amy Sullivan would think Ehrenreich does a hatchet job.

One simple question to see if Kevin's analysis is at all fair (i.e., is he comparing apples to apples): how much air time has the "Family" story had versus the Wright story?

I think that the discrepancy you will find there will undermine Kevin's argument. It will likely show that while it's okay to be associated with an objectively more dangerous group like the "Family" than with Trinity UCC. Democrats shouldn't take away the lesson that we shouldn't talk about religion, the lesson we should take away is that black churches will be castigated in the media while ultraconservative white groups will be only covered on Huffington Post and not on CNN.

Wow ... the vitriol aimed at Ms. Sullivan here really is ... well, not sure what to think of it.

Most folks have legit beefs -- Ms. Sullivan does tend to use right-wing frames a bit much, and pandering to the religious just for votes is an abhorrent strategy, IMHO.

But as someone surrounded by wingnuts -- both at work (where 10 of the 14 members of my department are Limbaugh-loving tools) and the community (Kansas City has its fair share of Christian radicals) -- I can assure everyone that there is a perception out there that liberals are all godless heathens. It's not based in any fact, mind you, but it's there, it's real, and it does affect how they vote.

For one totally unrepresentative example, my wife's best friend refuses to vote Democratic simply because she doesn't think liberals understand her strong faith. She agrees with much of their policy, but just can't get herself to vote for a party that, in her mind, is hostile to her beliefs.

The problem comes with how to handle this perception.

Again, pandering to the pious or wearing one's religion on one's sleeve isn't the answer. Those are insincere ways to solve the problem, and will turn more people away from the party than it will bring people into it. And, as Kevin's post shows, Democrats can't win by trying either of those anyway -- the media will twist and distort it against them.

The way to solve this, in my totally-uneducated-on-political-tactics opinion, is the re-frame the debate thusly:

Who is really more religious: The person who talks about their beliefs all the time and uses it against his/her opponents, or the person whose actions and policies actually reflect those beliefs?

Who is more understanding of religion: The person who want to turn their personal beliefs into public policy, or those who want to protect the rights of every stripe of believer and ensure one is not more dominant than the others?

And who really got the message of their religion: The person who supports never-ending war and the death penalty, or the person who wants to end both?

There are many other ways to frame it, but I think you get the point. All of those manage to address the issue without pandering, without making religion the central focus of a campaign or party while still addressing the concerns of those who are receptive to voting Democratic.

Yes, I know, there will be a large section of evangelicals that will never, ever, in any way, support Democrats.

But there are some out there who could be persuaded and brought into voting for Democrats. And I think we truly can get them to buy into the progressive vision without selling out or becoming a variation of the rightwing.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to grab my asbestos suit in anticipation of the replies ...

:-)

For one totally unrepresentative example, my wife's best friend refuses to vote Democratic simply because she doesn't think liberals understand her strong faith. She agrees with much of their policy, but just can't get herself to vote for a party that, in her mind, is hostile to her beliefs.

What, it's our problem that your wife's best friend is a fucking moron who's functionally unable to comprehend basic reality? C'mon, someone this stupid is essentially unreachable -- no matter what we did, she'd find some other made up reason not to vote Democratic.

And you forgot Haggee.

So the lesson here is that religion generally leads people to positions of hatred, anger and vile. We need a good, uplifting atheist to show us the way out of the path of darkness spurned on by the religious.

What, it's our problem that your wife's best friend is a fucking moron who's functionally unable to comprehend basic reality? C'mon, someone this stupid is essentially unreachable -- no matter what we did, she'd find some other made up reason not to vote Democratic.

You know, I still can't understand how anyone would ever get the idea that some liberals are hostile to those who are religious. It's such a mystery ...

/snark

Actually, she told The Mrs last night that, for her, it's Obama or nothing for two reasons:

1. She's Catholic, and the Hagee endorsement pretty much ended any chance of her vote.

2. Obama gladly and openly discusses his religion.

Again, I'm not -- nor ever did -- suggest that everyone could be sold, nor that the Dems should even try.

But there's at least one other person now who will vote "D" in November. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

Someone wrote: "I can assure everyone that there is a perception out there that liberals are all godless heathens. It's not based in any fact, mind you, but it's there, it's real, and it does affect how they vote ..."

Of course that perception exists and of course it affects how people vote. That's why the Republican Party has worked so hard for so many years putting out carefully crafted, focus-group-tested, manipulative and dishonest propaganda that falsely portrays Democrats and "liberals" as being hostile to religion.

That "perception" exists not because of anything that Democrats and "liberals" do or don't do, but because it has been deliberately manufactured by the right-wing extremist corporate-fascist Republican Party as part of their cynical manipulation of the worst instincts and basest fears of conservative Christians.

Someone wrote: "The problem comes with how to handle this perception."

Amy Sullivan clearly believes that the way to "handle" it is to agree with it and repeat it and reinforce it, which is exactly what she always does with every single article she writes accusing Democrats and liberals of being "hostile to religion."

I would suggest that the best way to "handle this perception" is to denounce it as the lie that it is.

If you think that calling out Amy Sullivan for reciting baseless, slanderous, scripted Republican lies about the Democratic Party is "vitriol", I'm sorry.

:-) on March 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM:

For one totally unrepresentative example, my wife's best friend refuses to vote Democratic simply because she doesn't think liberals understand her strong faith. She agrees with much of their policy, but just can't get herself to vote for a party that, in her mind, is hostile to her beliefs.

And how, exactly, did that thought get into your wife's-best-friend's mind? I've never seen a banner at a Democratic function reading, "Christ-Worshippers Suck And Aren't Welcome", for example.

Instead, what I've seen in my lifetime are a number of Dem polititians that proudly express their faith, have actually been seen going to church, and promote policies - take action - that would make Him a happy God. So what gives? Where's all this un-Christian hatin' on the Dems coming from?

I just think it's really preposterous to attribute to every adherent of every religion every nut-bar thing the religion has added to its dogma along the line or that some nut-bar leader of the religion has advocated in the way-back when. Or to only some of the adherents, like Democrats running for public office...

People who subscribe to religions really don't know about or advocate for all the little doctrines the modern church leaders like to keep swept under the carpet. A lot better test of whether Hillary Clinton advocates some kind of non-egalitarian society or not is iff she's a Democrat or not- Democrat = egalitarian, Republican = non-egalitarian.

The exception, of course, is Evangelical, Fundamentalist Baptists and the like, who put their intolerance and kooky ideas front-and-center as selling points of their religion.

Mark D wrote: "Actually, she told The Mrs last night that, for her, it's Obama or nothing ... Obama gladly and openly discusses his religion."

Which refutes Amy Sullivan's central claim that Democratic candidates are hostile to religion.

And Obama is not doing anything new by speaking about the role of religion in his life. As a previous commenter noted, Jimmy Carter helped introduce America to the phrase "born-again Christian." Every Democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime, going back to John F. Kennedy, has spoken positively of the role of religion in American public life and in their own lives.

The perception that Democrats and "liberals" are "hostile to religion" has everything to do with cynically dishonest, manipulative, right-wing Republican propaganda, and nothing to do with the actual policies, positions or behaviors of Democrats, Democratic candidates, or the Democratic Party as an institution.

Amy Sullivan's central premise is bunk. And she is doing nothing but help to reinforce the Republican propaganda.

I am increasingly inclined to agree with an earlier commenter who opined that Ms. Sullivan's own perceptions are what's driving her analysis -- in particular, her accurate perception that the corporate media offers lucrative career opportunities for "liberal" pundits who consistently bash Democrats over the head with right-wing talking points.

> Wow ... the vitriol aimed at Ms. Sullivan here
> really is ... well, not sure what to think of it.

Ms. Sullivan has spent the last two years using her platform at Washington DC thinkmags and leading liberal blogs to level vituperative criticism at what amounts to 80% or better of the liberal population and most Democrats as well. She has repeatedly refused to answer a single question, comment, or criticism of her thesis no matter how trenchant or politely worded, including questions about the relationship of the one minority branch of the currently overall dominant US religion to the Constitution. She speaks in the language and frames of Karl Rove's staff evangelical specialist.

But for some odd, unfathomable reason reaction to to her contemptuous lectures is now a bit hostile. One wonders why.

If anti-war, anti-poverty and anti-racism advocacy of leftists, some liberals or some Democrats cannot convice anonymous's wife's religious friend to vote with them, what kind of a faith does that person have? What kind of faith allows a person to align themselves politicallly with war, greed and hate? Those who repudiate war, greed and hate have tried to reason with people like this. Reason does not change the minds of believers. In order to change believers minds the rhetoric of their religion needs to be used as arguments against their political advocacy. The person in the example will not respond to reason, but may respond to righteous shaming, if done by people they can identify with.

This is where I part with Ms. Sullivan, who advocates appealing to these peoples' beliefs rather than shaming them.

The civil rights era was originally opposed by many European American Christians. It was not until their views were condemned as racist by civil rights leaders who shared their same European ethnicity and faith and examples of that racism exposed, that mainstream European, Christian Americans began to change their views about how minorities were treated in America.

A young pastor was appointed to the church my family attended. He told his stories about marching with Dr. King in the South during his seminary days to our congregation. He told us about White, Southern preachers who were in the streets opposing the marchers with prayerful appeals to their god to save them from the Black race. Perhaps our new pastor did not damn us for our racism or indiffernce to American racism, but he did use his religous authority to foster empathy and sympathy for minorities among his White congregation, which is what I think is the challenge leftist and liberal politicians have to overcome with today's conservative religious believers. Reason will not work and condemnation, my personal choice, appears to only reinforce the beliefs of these type of people, but shame and guilt are powerful motivators. I think the natural inclination of liberals to respect other people's godly beliefs, even godly beliefs in war, greed and hate, prevents them from using guilt and shame to rebut these irrational beliefs of their political opposition.

First of all, that "Someone" at 1:36 was me. Not sure how the comment got posted without my name on it. My fault.

As to the comments:

I would suggest that the best way to "handle this perception" is to denounce it as the lie that it is.

--SecularAlarmist

Which is what Democrats have done time and time and time and time again. How's that worked out for us?

If you think that calling out Amy Sullivan for reciting baseless, slanderous, scripted Republican lies about the Democratic Party is "vitriol", I'm sorry.

--SecularAlarmist

Perhaps vitriol wasn't the best word choice. But calling her out is one thing. Calling her out with the stunningly intense, deep-seated and blinding hatred I've seen on her threads seems a bit unwarranted, IMHO. Of course, I'm clearly in the minority on that one.

:-)

And don't get me wrong -- I'm certainly no Civility Warrior. I just think some folks joined the mob, or will never, ever want to discuss religion in terms of political tactics. (Not saying you, just in general.)

I guess I'm just a bit more sympathetic to what Sullivan is getting at, even if I disagree -- wholeheartedly -- with some of the frames and solutions she puts forth and proposes.

And how, exactly, did that thought get into your wife's-best-friend's mind? I've never seen a banner at a Democratic function reading, "Christ-Worshippers Suck And Aren't Welcome", for example.

--grape crush

LOL!

It got there by what others, such as SecularAlarmist, have noted: the corporate media allowing Republicans to brand religion as their own, combined with several decades of hate radio and speeches that continued the lie.

My whole point here is that ignoring the problem -- or even screaming from the rooftops that it's a load of shit -- isn't going to make it go away. Pandering (as Sullivan suggests) sure as hell ain't going to work, and trotting out religion at every chance is a bad idea as well. (And as an aetheist who leans agnostic depending on the day, I'd seriously consider just not voting at all if that happened to the Dem party; I couldn't support it if it went that way.)

Again, please note that I'm really, really not trying to stir up shit, nor do I think we'll ever get everyone -- religious or not -- on "our side."

I guess ... well ... I guess I just want to find a way to correct those voters who are religious and have a wrong-minded view about Democrats, but without the pandering and condescension seen so often from the right, and with the realization some will be a lost cause.

I guess I'm just tired of hearing every damn GOPer I meet (in person or online) asking me why Democrats hate religion so much. I tell them the truth, send them links, etc., showing them that we don't think it should be forced down everyone's throat. Some get it, some don't, but it gets old after a while and I'm just one guy.

I guess I'm just sick and damn tired of knowing there are literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of votes out there just waiting to be had by Democrats, only to be left on the table or placed in the other column because some Dems think we shouldn't correct the lies about our party. Or those who, worse yet, think that all those religious folks can just go fuck themselves and their magical sky fairies can piss off.

I guess I think we could do a service both to the Democratic party and the country by dispelling, once and for all, the myth that GOP = GOD.

And, to wrap up my War and Peace comment, I guess I'd like to see this whole discussion about religion and the Democratic party be treated as a legit and important issue, rather than slammed at every turn as idiotic or unworthy of thought. It is neither.

**shrugs shoulders with the realization he's going to be flamed ... but is enjoying the discussion**

You know, I still can't understand how anyone would ever get the idea that some liberals are hostile to those who are religious. It's such a mystery ...

I'm not hostile to her for being religious, I'm hostile to her for being deliberately ignorant of what the Democratic party stands for. Then again, I can perfectly understand how anyone could get the idea that some liberals are hostile to those who are religious when comments such as mine attacking her stupidity are deliberately and consciously misinterpreted to be a comment attacking her religiosity.

She has repeatedly refused to answer a single question, comment, or criticism of her thesis no matter how trenchant or politely worded

--Cranky Observer

Hmmm ... I was under the impression she was, in fact, participating in the discussion on some level, not just fly-by blogging. Not sure why, exactly, but that's how I understood it.

Knowing she is not having a good faith argument (pun acknowledged), I stand corrected and can understand how infuriating that can be for most folks (myself included).

My apologies ...

Reading the Mother Jones article itself, makes Barbara Ehrenreich's diatribe completely irrational The article is relatively benign, but like so many Obama supporters, she goes completely off the rails, seeing Nazis were only religion and politicians exist.

Obama has given a beautiful speech on race and his affiliation with the Trinity Unity Church of Christ. Now it's up to Clinton to explain -- or, better yet, renounce -- her longstanding connection with the fascist-leaning Family….. [Readers are to understand that all things Obama are beautiful. Anything Clinton is fascist.]

From the Mother Jones story:
…The Fellowship isn't out to turn liberals into conservatives; rather, it convinces politicians they can transcend left and right with an ecumenical faith that rises above politics…..

Ehrenreich must think it her political responsibility to draw the fire from Obama's church.

I'm not hostile to her for being religious, I'm hostile to her for being deliberately ignorant of what the Democratic party stands for. Then again, I can perfectly understand how anyone could get the idea that some liberals are hostile to those who are religious when comments such as mine attacking her stupidity are deliberately and consciously misinterpreted to be a comment attacking her religiosity.

--Stefan

I don't recall your comment stating anything about why the friend is "a fucking moron who's functionally unable to comprehend basic reality." Just that she was such.

You do realize that someone can misconstrue a post without deliberately or consciously trying doing so, right? And that not everyone has an ulterior motive?

Maybe because they're sincerely committed Christians because they do it for more than political gain.

Just throwing it out there.

grape crush wrote: "I've never seen a banner at a Democratic function reading, 'Christ-Worshippers Suck And Aren't Welcome', for example."

On the other hand I have seen self-described fundamentalist Christian counter-protesters at a big peace march in Washington DC, holding placards reading "GOD HATES YOU".

shame and guilt are powerful motivators

I am reminded of the way Joseph Welch was able to not only end the demagoguery of Sen. McCarthy, but change public perception:

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

> Hmmm ... I was under the impression she
> was, in fact, participating in the
> discussion on some level, not just fly-by
> blogging. Not sure why, exactly, but
> that's how I understood it.

See woody up at 5:25 AM for a better job than I can do of summarizing Ms. Sullivan's response style. She did participate a bit over at TPMCafe when there was a ratings system to hide the true trolls, but even there she never actually _answered_ a single criticism. One set of commenters there pushed and pushed on the issue of the origins of the Constitution and she finally admitted very grudgingly that there might be a tiny little something to that document.

As far as I can tell Ms. Sullivan starts from the premise that "my thesis is 100% correct and cannot be disproved or even questioned". This makes it a bit difficult to have any sort of discussion since any dissent from Ms. Sullivan's thesis or views is automatically added to the evidence that she is both correct and persecuted.

Cranky

"The way to solve this, in my totally-uneducated-on-political-tactics opinion, is the re-frame the debate thusly:"

Mark D., thank you - this is exactly the kind of thing I was asking for in my 11:09 comment.

----
(At the same time, I found Stephan's comment pretty easy to understand: a person who agrees with most Democratic policies but (up until now - and we'll see how that goes) utterly refuses to vote for them (and, it sounds like, votes for Republicans, whose policies she presumably opposes), because "she doesn't think liberals understand her strong faith." - I mean, what can you call that?

I don't think "fucking moron" is actually right, though - tribalism, a limited understanding of the principles and value of secular gov't, and (as you and others have pointed out) constant exposure to well-framed narratives across a wide range of media suggest themselves as important factors . . .

"I guess I'm just sick and damn tired of knowing there are literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of votes out there just waiting to be had by Democrats, only to be left on the table or placed in the other column because some Dems think we shouldn't correct the lies about our party."

I do have to wonder about this. Would be nice, but . . .

"Or those who, worse yet, think that all those religious folks can just go fuck themselves and their magical sky fairies can piss off."

So there really are people who want to help the poor, stop the lavishing of special favors on the super-rich, be good stewards of the environment, , etc., etc. - and won't vote Democratic because some anonymous folks on the internet spouted some rhetoric about santa claus and sky fairies?
I'd prefer to think this is more of an excuse.

I think there are things the party & politicians should and could be doing, but perhaps the most important role need to be played by believers themselves.
-----

Also: there's some research to suggest that not just repetition but even repetition of a claim in order to debunk it drives it deeper into people's heads. Going on about how no, no, the Democrats don't really hate religion - well, it sounds like in a part of the their brain all that's being heard (esp. if they're so predisposed) is 'Democrats . . .hate religion . . hate religion . . . hate religion . . .'. We need to stress what we stand for, not reinforce GOP spin while trying to refute/fix it.

I've met Doug Coe. In the late 70's. His message, his approach then, which I feel sure is not much changed now, is "what does your faith mean to you in your life?" He never, ever mentioned any particular policy choice, not even abortion, which was definitely a hot-button topic then.

He was more about, "bring your faith into this world, make it mean something." Doing exactly that has made me a Democrat, a liberal.

What Coe wanted us to do is practice discipleship. To lead one another. To grow, to have a positive impact. Why is this evil, Nazism? That makes no sense at all.

I can accept that many of you don't have religious beliefs or affiliations. That's fine. Can you accord me the same respect?

Respect needs to be mutual. I would expect that any ongoing relationship with someone would require that they not call me a murderer, because I am pro-choice. I think people will get this.

But someone has to lead, make the first move.

Mark D wrote: "I guess I'm just sick and damn tired of knowing there are literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of votes out there just waiting to be had by Democrats, only to be left on the table or placed in the other column because some Dems think we shouldn't correct the lies about our party."

The estimates that I've seen of conservative evangelical Christian votes is around four million nationwide, concentrated in a relatively small number of southern and midwestern states.

One of my frustrations with Amy Sullivan is that she asserts that Democrats "need" to win over those voters to "win elections". But she has never laid out specifically what Democrats are supposed to do to win over those votes, she has never laid out how many of those voters Democrats might be able to win over, or how many of those voters Democrats "need" to peel off from the Republicans to win which elections, in which states, that they don't already win, or don't already lose by such large margins that a few evangelical votes won't make any difference.

In short, she has never remotely substantiated her claims that there are any real electoral benefits for Democrats if they do whatever it is she wants them to do.

And your comment that the response to Amy Sullivan suggests that "some Dems think we shouldn't correct the lies about our party" is very strange, given that the principal complaint about Amy Sullivan is that she is perpetuating the lie that Democrats are "hostile to religion". The main reason that many commenters are upset with her is that they do want to "correct the lies" that Amy Sullivan seems determined to repeat and reinforce.

Hang on, does Amy want us to go after generally moderate/liberal-leaning-leaning-but-low-info white evangelicals, or conservative white evangelicals? I've always just assumed it was the former, because as irritating as her style of argument is, I didn't think she was an absolute idiot. Is this incorrect?

lampwick wrote:
"Want to see even more evidence for yourself? Go click around the liberal blogosophere, starting with, say, the sites on DKos' blogroll. What you find is either studied indifference to religious issues, or sharp hostility to them. "

Goes over to dKos, starts reading blogroll, sees:
"Blogroll
Other Kos Sites
Mother Talkers
Sports Blogs
Street Prophets"

clicks "Street Prophets"; clicks "About"

"About Street Prophets
Street Prophets is the online forum that mobilizes progressive people of faith to name, discuss and take action on critical political and religious issues. An offspring of Daily Kos, the largest political blog on the Internet, Street Prophets seeks to change the "moral values" conversation by fostering community; promoting informed opinion and moving its members to action.

Because make no mistake: we are people who live and vote our values. We are believers in "justice, freedom, compassion and love," in the words of Rita Nakashima Brock. We are progressive, Democratic-leaning and vitally concerned with those whom Jesus called "the least of these." We are the faithful for whom the religious right emphatically does not speak."

As for atrios - well, he had an interesting reply to this sort of thing a couple of years back.

"I'm tired of liberalish Christians telling me it's my job to reach out to Christian moderates who feel that "the Left" is hostile to them. Screw that. It's time for liberalish Christians to tell their slightly more right-leaning brethren that those of us who fight to maintain the separation between Church and State do it to protect freedom of religion - not destroy it. "

Doctor Jay wrote: "I can accept that many of you don't have religious beliefs or affiliations. That's fine. Can you accord me the same respect?"

Open comment pages on a blog may not be the best place to look for respect for any beliefs, religious or otherwise. Indeed, if you want any given belief to be subjected to ridicule and derision, your best bet is probably to post about it on a blog.

As for the Democratic Party, however, there is certainly no lack of respect for religious beliefs and affiliations within the Democratic Party of (for example) the born-again Christian Jimmy Carter or the Catholic John Kerry. Both of the current Democratic presidential contenders have spoken and/or written frequently and eloquently of the important role their Christian faith has played in their lives and in shaping the social values that they seek to realize through public policy.

Doctor Jay wrote: "Respect needs to be mutual. I would expect that any ongoing relationship with someone would require that they not call me a murderer, because I am pro-choice."

Unfortunately, that right there is a deal-breaker for many conservative evangelical Christians, who do indeed regard legal abortion as the mass murder of "innocent babies".

The fact is, that a lot of conservative evangelical Christians don't vote for Democrats, not because they think that Democrats are "hostile to" or "disrespectful of" religion, but because they are strongly and sincerely opposed to many of the traditional, liberal core values and public policy positions supported not only by Democratic politicians but by the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters, including liberal Christians and Jews as well as secular liberals.

In a sense it is a sign of disrespect towards conservative evangelical Christians to suggest that their votes can be easily won with some superficial rhetoric about "respecting" their views. It suggests that their positions on the issues are superficial and/or lightly held and their votes are cheaply bought.

In some sense the greatest and most genuine respect I can offer to someone who, for example, believes that abortion is murder and should be banned and subjected to criminal prosecution, is to say "I recognize that you hold that view out of deep personal conviction, and I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. But I will do my utmost to ensure that your efforts to make it the law of the land are defeated."

SecularAnimist: One of my frustrations with Amy Sullivan is that she asserts that Democrats "need" to win over those voters to "win elections". But she has never laid out specifically what Democrats are supposed to do to win over those votes...

My frustration is that the argument presumes that religion is inseperable from politics. Is that truly the case? If so, why? I can't help but think we be better off focusing our efforts on decoupling--as much as possible--religion from politics.

has407 wrote: "My frustration is that the argument presumes that religion is inseperable from politics. Is that truly the case?"

I don't know. For some people, their most deeply held values are inseparable from religion, and thus their politics -- politics being the process by which we seek to realize our values through the power structures of our society -- will be inseparable from their religion.

My own religion is Secular Animism, which holds that mind, the capacity for subjective experience, is a fundamental aspect of reality, a pervasive potential in nature that is instantiated or embodied in the form of sentient beings (Animism); and that the most fundamental value is the well-being of sentient beings living in the world (Secularism).

In short, Secular Animism is like Secular Humanism but extended to all sentient beings, not only human beings.

And that religion is the basis of the values that I seek to realize through politics.

So, I can hardly be critical of others who seek to realize values that arise from their own religious beliefs through politics for doing so. Although I may certainly oppose their efforts when their values are inimical to mine.

The Fellowship IS CREEPY. Harpers did a big piece on them a couple of years ago.

I didn't read the Huffpo piece, but the Fellowship is not some harmless little church group.

Between the ultra-right-wing Moonie nutjobs, these ultra-right-wing Fellowship freaks and the crazed ultra-right-wing Islamic extremists, all of whom believe they're doing the will of God/Allah, boy, is our world screwed.

All of these three groups operate in the shadows, in the darkness, while claiming they are bringers of light. Such arrogance. Such dangerous, dangerous arrogance. All they are are egos with a God Complex, which can only mean that millions, if not billions, of people across the world, including many children, will suffer the harsh, brutal consequences of these ultra-right-wing nutjobs and their "chosen people" delusion.

...these ultra-right-wing nutjobs...

No need to get partisan; just nutjobs will do.

"For one totally unrepresentative example, my wife's best friend refuses to vote Democratic simply because she doesn't think liberals understand her strong faith. She agrees with much of their policy, but just can't get herself to vote for a party that, in her mind, is hostile to her beliefs.

Mark, I find this fascinating. Do you know what sources or reasons or evidence (if any) she gives for imagining this? What, does she say, makes her think this? Does she give any, or is it just like, oh, of course they don't understand, of course they're hostile . . .

chapter 14 page 293 he talks about setting in church and listing to write preach about "Hiroshima' hm sounds familiar and also talks about how he agreed with the church creed page 284, I think he is still not being honest. I have the book and read it myself. Dreams from my father

Obama lied read and compare to todays news..Speech on Race

There’s a lot of folks in America right now who have heard that. And I want to ask you why you have been listening to this pastor and close to him for nearly 20 years?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, first of all, Anderson, you know, I strongly condemn the statements that have been shown on the tape.

I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church. This is a church that I have been a member of for 20 years. This is a well-established, typical, historically African-American church in the South Side of Chicago, with a wonderful set of ministries.

OBAMA: And, as I said, Anderson, if I had heard any of those statements, I probably would have walked up, and I probably would have told Reverend Wright that they were wrong.

But they were not statements that I heard when I was in church.

COOPER: So, no one in the church ever said to you, man, last week, you missed this sermon; Reverend Wright said this; or...

OBAMA: No.

COOPER: I mean, I think I read in your books that you listened to tapes of Reverend Wright when you were at Harvard Law School.

OBAMA: I did.

COOPER: So, you had no idea?

OBAMA: I understand.

I did not. Well, I want to be clear that, when I ran for president, some of these statements started surfacing.

COOPER: I mean, you may not have been there, but have you -- you must have heard that he had said these things.

OBAMA: You know, I confess that I did not hear about this until -- until I started running for president.

And then there was a story that was issued in which I strongly objected to these statements and condemned them. But what I also understood that was -- was Reverend Wright was on the verge of retirement and that a new pastor was coming in. The church family was one that was very important to me. It's where my wife and I got married. It's where our children were baptized. And, so, my belief was that this was something out of the ordinary. Obviously, some of these statements indicate that this was happening more frequently.

But I also want to say this, Anderson. This is somebody who was a former U.S. Marine, who is a biblical scholar, who's preached and taught at theological seminaries all across the country, and has had a reputation as a preeminent preacher in the country.

And, so, I have to strongly condemn the statements that were made. They do not reflect my views or Michelle's views, or probably the views of many people in the church.