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.