tl;dr

it means she won't be able to dismiss questions about her own religious choices.

Good point Kevin. Recently, Barbara Ehrenreich published a piece exposing Hillary's right wing church which includes "powerful rightwing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum." This is utterly indefensible. She should NOT be going to church with right wingers. More at the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html

Again a lot of hokum from Ms. Sullivan. If the Republicans are not sincere in their appeal to the religious types, and I doubt that George Bush and Tom Delay and Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are all that sincere, why do you keep on insinuating that the sincerity (actually the lack thereof) of the Democratic leaders' appeal to the said group is the main issue? Perhaps its appealing in a good faith way (as if they already don't) will not reap as many votes as you think, because the religious voters who vote for the republicans do so mainly for other reasons which are only peripherally related to religion.

Move to Canada. You will never hear religion and politics discussed again.

No more "More after the jump..."! No more "Continue reading..."!

God did not give me these two hands to indulge in a lot of unnecessary clicking.

And if He existed He would smite you.

Move to Canada. You will never hear religion and politics discussed again. Posted by: pinkie

* * * * *

There. Fix it for you.

@gregor: Because Democrats usually come off as transparently pandering. In that much I agree with Kevin in that if you aren't actually sincere about it, just STFU. As far as what you said at the end you are right, but I think you're making that vote into a more monolithic block than it actually is.

I may not think we need to spend as much effort as Amy S. does, but I do think there has to be more genuine efforts as there have been the last 2 years or so.

Finally, Clinton has performed in a vile manner these last two months and if she wants to live by that sword, then I am happy to skewer her with it.

I'm still waiting for a political candidate to elucidate how his or her policy proposals are founded in the Four Noble Truths and guided by the Eightfold Path and a deep understanding of the Three Dharma Seals.

I would give Amy more of benefit of doubt if I didn't get the unpleasant feeling that she would happily toss my concerns - abortion rights, freedom FROM religion, 1st Amendment rights (she'd be likely to support censorship), etc - overboard in her hurry to accommodate the religious ideas of conservatives. I would like for there to be more discussion of why the separation of church and state are very good ideas and should be more rigid than they have been for the past 7 years. And, yes, I'm a religious person.

I would give Amy more of benefit of doubt if I didn't get the unpleasant feeling that she would happily toss my concerns - abortion rights, freedom FROM religion, 1st Amendment rights (she'd be likely to support censorship), etc - overboard in her hurry to accommodate the religious ideas of conservatives. I would like for there to be more discussion of why the separation of church and state are very good ideas and should be more rigid than they have been for the past 7 years. And, yes, I'm a religious person.

I'm still waiting for a political candidate to elucidate how his or her policy proposals are founded in the Four Noble Truths and guided by the Eightfold Path and a deep understanding of the Three Dharma Seals.

Most pragmatic aspirants for higher office in the US convert to Christianity if they are not born that way. Shouldn't be so, but it is.

As soon as a Buddhist becomes the President, we will have no wars.

pinkie>Move to Canada. You will never hear religion and politics discussed again.

Yes, but as a result politics is so boring up here. Even when the issues are important and the politicos are up to no good (the Harper government is a master at this), you try to pay attention and your eyes start to blur.

The last few weeks of democrat politics down south, man, I just can't look away. Obama's "a more perfect union" speech had me nearly choking up with patriotism, despite being a lefty foreigner often critical of the USA. It's powerful stuff, and it all plays out in the open.

The stronger case is that people choose their religious communities based upon social condiderations. That is why the sabbath is the most segregated day of the week. Social and economic status is by far the greatest factor in choosing a religious community. In my experience, spiritual considerations are usually a minor factor in choosing a religious community.

I am wondering why Amy won't discuss how George Bush and his cronies only give lip service to the Evangelicals and the other religious groups.

Well said, Bruce. But when I win the lottery, I'm moving to BC for cultural reasons. I only sit in the front row when there is no other choice.

BtC: Yes, but as a result politics is so boring up here.

Oh, would I love for politics to be boring.

Some religions are, apparently, more equal than others. Hmm. This is like a failed thesis project that we are all subjected to periodically.

Lets consider some of the Democratic presidential candidates over the last 48 years.
JFK-Had to give speech in order for his religion to be accepted by mainstream America
McGovern-Son of a minister, holder of a Divinity degree and worked for a time as a minister.
Carter-Lifelong Sunday school teacher and regularly attended church while president.
Mondale-Son of a minister
Clinton-Regularly attended church while president.
Gore-Initially pursued Divinity degree at Vanderbilt

Has any GOP president in the last 50 years attended church regularly while in office? Has any GOP presidential nominee in the last 50 years has been the holder of a divinity degree or had significant formal religious training?

The problem is not that Democratic politicians are insufficiently religious, or that they seem insincere when they discuss religion. The problem is that "religion" has become shorthand for anti-choice and race-baiting rhetoric. Democrats will always lose at that game.

You sliced & diced that baby, rk. Very nice work. I sure wish people knew that.

oops, now thugs will say I am for chopping up b***

Well, that's just great- according to Hillary, we can choose our churches, as long as we choose one she likes. If she doesn't like our minister, by golly, we'd better just find another one.

And according to Amy, that's a perfectly "reasonable" opinion for Hillary to hold.

That kind of muddled thinking, usually found in company with less than stellar morals, pretty much sums up what I don't like about religion in politics. And what I particularly dislike about 'prayer groups' that pray for the health of dictators.

Has any GOP president in the last 50 years attended church regularly while in office?

Nixon. And we all know how that turned out.

*

Has any GOP president in the last 50 years attended church regularly while in office?

Nixon. And we all know how that turned out.

I don't think that he did.

Did Amy Sullivan just say that liberal churches cannot be religiously orthodox?

she is a type I know well--a political liberal who is theologically orthodox. Those of us who fit that description have a hard time finding religious homes. We can choose a place where we feel comfortable politically, but where the theology is a little too flexible for our tastes, or we can choose a spot where we're theologically comfortable, but where we feel out of place politically.

She did. She really did. I mean, I know she has before, but ... wow. It's just not true, but since this is a discussion about politics rather than religious doctrine, all I can do is point out that Amy Sullivan wants to throw mainline Christian Democrats off the bus. Methodists and Baptist aren't religious enough to her.

Fair enough, but I wonder how many religious Democrats this strategy is going to anger enough to stay home. Plenty of people who don't think their "theology is a little too flexible" are angry at George Bush hiding behind a cross. Let's not run Republican plays that annoy most of America, shall we?

Now let's take a white preacher, Reverend Wrong, who is a white nationalist whose main preoccupation is the welfare of whites exclusively.

This Rev Wrong of whom you speak so highly interests me greatly. And how may I vote for him?

Nixon held services from a variety of denominations in the white house, mostly to keep Billy Graham on his side and to obscure the fact that he was always a man with a Quaker background who held rather ambivalent feelings about religion.

... but it means she won't be able to dismiss questions about her own religious choices...

Q: How would you have responded if your pastor had said some of the things that Rev. Wright said?
A: He would not have been my pastor. You know you don't choose your family but you choose what church you want to attend.

Reasonable question, the only possible answer. If you think that is an attack or unfair, you are living in Obama's World of Victimhood.

.... Clinton has performed in a vile manner these last two months.....MNPundit at 6:20PM

However, in reality: The memo the Obama campaign released today is full of blatantly inaccurate information and false innuendo, intended to denigrate Hillary's critical role in the passage of SCHIP and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Clearly, they believe that the media will overlook the facts and follow another false, trivial story line of their creation

Curious, that, how one's partisan attacks are acceptable but responses downright vile.

So, Amy thinks Democrats should "reach out" and "engage evangelical and Catholic voters in a good-faith way". How exactly would they do that better than they do now? Couldn't I make the same vague argument that Republicans need to reach out, and engage union members in a good faith way? Other than voting and making laws in a way that would benefit those interest groups, what could they do? And what laws or regulatory changes would evangelical and Catholic voters want? (that would not alienate the non-Christians)? I guess I will have to find the book at a library.

Good grief. Pandering to "people of faith" I can understand. It takes all sorts to make a winning electoral coalition, and in a nation where most people believe in a Big Daddy in the Sky it is necessary for politicians to indulge the faithful.

But I pray to whatever gods may be that they spare us from sincere "believers" in political office. Between a devout believer and a hypocrite, I'll take the hypocrite every time. You can negotiate with hypocrites.

There will come a day, of course, when even the American electorate will cease to be weighed down by "theology". We outgrew our fear of witches, after all. Amy Sullivan will probably say that she would not want to live to see that day. Luckily for her, to whom I wish a long, long tenure on THIS side of the Pearly Gates, that day is still very far off.

-- TP

Of course, to engage evangelical and Catholic voters in a good-faith way ...you have to be willing to accept that a religious identity is not a political identity.

To imply that this is somehow my problem--as someone who believes in the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion, and who has never confused religious and political identity--is insulting.

A more appropriate approach would be to determine how to depoliticize religion. That requires work on both sides; implying that "you" have not done so in "good faith" is not a way to achieve that.

you have to be willing to accept that a religious identity is not a political identity.

I suppose this could be true if you never let your religious beliefs inform your political ones.

I'm a liberal Democrat, always have been. Since I became a Christian about twenty years ago I've never had any trouble finding a church, although I can't guarantee it would meet whatever Amy's exacting standards are. But this is nonsense. Amy refuses to acknowledge the games that repubs play with religion or even that religion can be a political game. Her assumption seems to be that conservative repub religious motives are always pure and dem motives are always confused, mixed and impure at best, needing her guidance and tough love to teach us how to believe and behave. Typically, she finds a role model in Hillary, who is using religion as a political bludgeon. Both Hillary and the modern repubs are frankly blasphemous and if Amy thinks these people are any sort of role models, I don't know where she's learning her theology. "Concern troll" doesn't begin to cover her problems. I don't know why Kevin lets her post here.

Dear Amy,

This discussion of yours is based on an incorrect premise that originally came from Kevin Drum. Your opening paragraph

A few days ago, Kevin posed the question of whether Democrats should bother talking about their faith if they're going to get hammered over it, using as examples the problems some of Jeremiah Wright's sermons have caused Obama as well as criticism of Hillary Clinton for her association with the conservative religious group The Fellowship.

Mr. Obama was "hammered" not because he bothered talk about his faith, but because his minister made some politically unorthodox remarks. He would have been hammered just the same if he had not talked about his faith. (Subsequently, he delivered a brilliant speech that has gone a long way to "unhammer" himself.)

Mrs. Clinton was "hammered" not because she bothered talk about her faith, but because of her association with the conservative religious group The Fellowship.

Your discussion starts from a false premise. From false premises, no valid conclusions can be drawn.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel Rubinstein

Jesus was an outcast, conceived by an unwed mother. In his adult life he hung out with prostitutes, day laborers, fishermen, even unclean tax collectors who processed the Gentiles' money.

Jesus was born into a Jewish family but remained unaffiliated with any one temple throughout his life. When he wanted to pray he often went off alone, to a nearby grove, to the desert, to the mountains.

Jesus was antagonistic to the priests, Pharisees & political leaders of his day. Among the many things Jesus objected to were the exclusionary practices of the temple priests, conducting common business inside the temple, religious hypocrisy. To put it bluntly, Jesus was a pain in the butt to Jerusalem's most powerful families. He openly undermined the status quo by his message and actions. Although in the end he could not be found guilty of breaking any laws he was nonetheless severely punished.

Jesus doubted the authority of those in power; obviously he wasn't worried about what the rich and powerful thought about who he hung out with.

In our discussions about Clinton's and Obama's religious affiliations we sound a lot more like Saducees and Pharisees than we do like Jesus.

> Mr. Obama was "hammered" not because he bothered
> talk about his faith, but because his minister
> made some politically unorthodox remarks.
>
> Mrs. Clinton was "hammered" not because she
> bothered talk about her faith, but because of her
> association with the conservative religious group
> The Fellowship.

Always something, isn't it? For Democrats at least. McCain _wasn't_ hammered over his support by over-the-top fundamentalist preachers because, well, because, well... Bush wasn't hammered over the conservative Republican preachers who claimed that the death and destruction cased by Katrina were God's vengeance because, well, because...IOKIAYR?

Your response just proves Kevin's point.

Cranky

MNPundit: Democrats transparently pandering as opposed to GOPers nontransparently pandering?

Shortstop's wrong. Graham came to the WH so Nixon didn't have to go to church. First Prez to use the executive security excuse to not go to church, further developed by Reagan.

So, think about that, Amy. How often to Repug leaders go to church vs Dem ones?

Will you just STFU? Maybe mine isn't fron Princeton, but I have a graduate divinity degree to boot.

"There is a strong case to be made that people choose their religious communities based on spiritual factors, not political ones. Most individuals have plenty of outlets for their political interests. They don't need their church or temple or small group to be yet another place where they discuss policy and politics."

In some ways this is perhaps a quintessential Amy Sullivan-ism (alongside 'Democrats seem to come across as hostile to religion!' It's wildly irrelevant - even downright wrong - in terms of much of the wider voting public (although it might be informative re: a relatively narrow sociopolitical slice).

"We could discuss the fact that a candidate's religious background is one--but by no means the only--way that voters can get a sense of his or her moral foundation. Voters say they make judgments about these things, regardless of whether a candidate gives them information with which to form an opinion. So you could argue that it makes sense to be open about who you are."

Or everyone who values the virtues of secular society and government can work towards strengthening the public attitude that such a thing, while possible, just has no need to be necessary and expected.

"Wright's comments would have become an issue if Obama never once mentioned his Christianity and if Wright was someone Obama worked with closely as a community organizer instead of his pastor."

Probably not...certainly not with the deeper implications of his being Obama's pastor and path to Christianity. This kind of evades the fact that religion is intertwined with deep identity in a way that few other associations are.

My deepest wish is that religion would stop being seen as central to political life. The idea that religious identity can be viewed as a shortcut to understanding a person's underlying values is way past its sell-by date. I am sure that there are trends and tendencies, but these are almost certainly too general to be particularly useful or accurate.

I think the rational here is somewhat backwards as the first humans weren't republicans or democrats and you shouldnt allow anyone to hammer you over your belief system.

Because Democrats usually come off as transparently pandering

If it is just a question of perception, Amy's prescriptions are totally wrongheaded.

I just don't get why someone would try to build a career on an edifice that is meager at best.

Wright's comments would have become an issue if Obama never once mentioned his Christianity and if Wright was someone Obama worked with closely as a community organizer instead of his pastor.

I think you're dodging the issue here. Would ABC News have bothered to go through all the videotapes of Wright's sermons if he were just some guy who worked with Obama? Would we be listening to all the screeching about how could Obama expose his innocent children to Wright? Everybody understands that you can have major differences of opinion with coworkers, but the relationship with your spiritual advisor is much closer.

I still think you're just playing into the hands of people (Republicans) who are looking for another way that they can launch gotcha attacks against Democrats. And if you're really as religious as you say, I do not understand how you can want to be part of turning elections into national discussions about who has the "correct" religion and who doesn't. There's enough of that going on already, we don't need to make it even more prominent.

Shortstop's wrong. Graham came to the WH so Nixon didn't have to go to church. First Prez to use the executive security excuse to not go to church, further developed by Reagan.

Yeah, shortstop's "wrong" if you define "attending church" only as "leaving the White House, getting in a car and heading to an outside church." I assumed all the politicos here knew about Nixon's White House services, or I would have included that specific info to avoid just your type of response, Gadfly.

But as long as we're down in the details, Nixon had services in the East Room--presided over not just by Graham, but by a variety of other religious figures--every week for a good part of his administration. And he didn't use executive security as an excuse, except perhaps peripherally. As the tapes reveal, he wanted to control the outlines of the service and who attended and have it on his home turf, which is pretty reflective of his M.O. throughout all aspects of his presidency.

I normally wouldn't think much of this answer-- but coming from Amy Sullivan, it represents a significant breakthrough. I've been very harsh on her, but consider the following:

1. Her comment about Wright is correct-- it's his connection to Obama that has people upset. She skips a point-- if he hadn't said what he did, the media and the right would have found SOMETHING else in his sermons to object to (even an obscure theological point)-- but Kevin didn't phrase the question tightly enough to preclude her doing so.

2. Her speculation on how Hillary chose her religious affiliations is informative and probably correct. The notion of picking the religious association that gives you better political cover strikes me as crass-- but that probably is the way Democrats do it. (Especially Hillary)

3. She follows with a very mild and qualified statement of her usual mantra. I don't care for it, even in the abridged version, but I'll agree with the notion that Democrats do a bad job of engaging religious voters, because I think Democrats do a bad job of engaging all voters.

In the even years, I deal with many of the party's constituencies (labor, gays, minorities, seniors), and most of them feel like candidates are just there to punch their ticket and collect vote cards. For every candidate who acts and sounds like their issues really matter to them, scads seem to be mouthing talking points.

I'm not young, but young activists who feel like they get lip services from the party. Liberals definitely feel like we get stiff-armed and triangulated. As do academics.

Agreeing on this ground is kind of like saying "Can we agree that wars have terrible impacts, even if the cause is just?", but I'll be squishy for once, because she didn't toss out her usual red-meat tropes about how religious voters were more important than everyone else and our stubborn insistence on putting an atheism plank in the party platform is what costs us the presidency.

4. She noted that putting biblical quotations in speeches sounds really stupid, unless you sound like you mean it. Which it is. Some people sound like they actually read the Bible and pay attention to it. Others sound awful.

5. While she concluded by advising us all to read her book-- which is really an evasion, because she was supposed to be here to talk about it-- I'm willing to let that go.

I can recognize a polite request for a non-aggression treaty and respond appropriately. I don't know why Washington Monthly keeps asking her back, given what happens, but I'm going to hope that maybe this is the last time they do. Or that Sullivan takes some of the criticism to heart.

Or that King George I and the Sheriff of Cheney pull out of Iraq. Or that I get a pony.

Senator Clinton's Bible study group or prayer group is not a church. It's a study/prayer group - there is no pastor of a study/prayer group. There are no sermons at a study/prayer group. There may be a facilitator, prayer leader, study leader; but they are not pastors in the sense being discussed with Senator Obama. I have been a liberal Democrat all my life; and, I have been a Roman Catholic also. I am so sick and tired of these unending discussions. For many of us, the principles that inform our faith are part of the principles we use to determine our political positions. As in any situation, we all prioritize among the issues. Democrats do not win the votes of white, conservative evangelical Christians because the priorities of their religious beliefs are more important to them, then the priorities of public policy. I don't believe you will see democratic voting among the newly discovered "green" evangelicals. We may find coalition-building on specific issues, but not voting.

McGovern-Son of a minister, holder of a Divinity degree and worked for a time as a minister.
IIRC from the time I saw McGovern preach at the Methodist church I attended while in college, he's also an ordained minister. And a fine preacher, I will add.

I find Amy's threads endlessly amusing in their ability to show examples of just exactly the sort of misunderstandings she's writing about. Irony, thy name is comment thread.

to Amy Sullivan:
Maybe I'm just a little old-fashioned, but I don't call "God Damn America" a sermon, a rant maybe, part of a truthful comment maybe, but a sermon ? I don't think so.

"but I don't call 'God Damn America' a sermon, a rant maybe, part of a truthful comment maybe, but a sermon ? I don't think so."

Then you didn't actually read or watch the whole thing, because a sermon it most definitely was. Nor was its theme: "God Damn America", despite what some idiots would like you to believe.

"if Wright was someone Obama worked with closely as a community organizer instead of his pastor."
This is absurd. I wish people who comment in any way on religion would actually read the bible once in awhile. Like it or not,Wright's comments were made as a pastor, preaching in the "prophetic strain" of Jeremiah and Amos and other prophets. I am not religious but I at least know that Wright's comments were actually fairly mild in comparison with biblical prophets' denunciations of Israel.

All right, Amy, we get it. Some staff person (preferably not named Josh Liman or Toby Zeigler) ought to go out and schmooze an as-yet undefined group of reachable religious voters. I assume Amy knows who these people are even if she won't tell us. Someone give her the damn job, please.

anonymous reader -- I was wondering when someone else might actually pick up on this too. Patrick Henry would have known this right away, as his speeches were not only full of biblical references, but references specifically to the Jeremiah/Amos/Isaiah line of prophets.

John Brown was hanged for his futile and foolish efforts, but he also would have understood the style, and his speeches live on:

Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, . . . had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so called great, or in behalf of any of their friends . . ., or any of that class - and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

. . . I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me, further, to 'remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them.' I endeavored to act up to that instruction. . . . I believe that to have interfered as I have done - as I have always freely admitted I have done - in behalf of His despised poor was not wrong, but right.

I honestly think that Wright's style, more than anything, makes people who are not used to it exceedingly uncomfortable no matter what would have said.

The last thing Democrats need is more discussion of religion. It's not that I have a brief against religion; I just don't need to hear all about various people's various religious beliefs in a context better suited to solving the healthcare crisis or finding a way to get us out of Iraq than to parsing the fine points of competing doctrine. I care about the religion of politicians only to the extent that they try to use politics to force their denominational convictions on rest of us. Otherwise, it's no concern of mine what people believe about the divine or whether they're sincere. Jefferson, Adams and the rest of that crowd were right when they suggested there should be NO religious test for public office in the United States. We need to revive that thought and sing it from the mountaintops. Separation of church and state was a really great idea.

Usually, political systems in which people obsess over the religious beliefs of political candidates are called "theocracies," aren't they?

Proof of Amy Sullivan's assertion is right before us in the Obama candidacy: the fact that he speaks openly of faith, and quotes the Bible with authority, is exactly the thing that has many traditional Republicans voting for him. Because if you vote by your faith, Obama's the only one who speaks of it without making it seem like it's just a hardhat he put on while hanging out with the construction workers. On faith, Hillary has little fundy credibility and McCain is totally tone-deaf. I guarantee this will make a difference in the general election.

Amy gets a lot of grief every time she posts here, and I just wanted to point out that we are seeing the value of her suggestion every day of this primary season. A closer look might also allow us (Amy included) to further finesse the contours, and to see how much faith is actually necessary to win an election.

Amy Sullivan wrote: "... a candidate's religious background is one--but by no means the only--way that voters can get a sense of his or her moral foundation."

And a candidate's cynical affectation of a particular "religious background" is one -- but by no means the only -- way that a candidate can deliberately mislead voters into believing that he will work to institute public policies that reflect their values and concerns, when in fact he will do nothing of the sort.

George W. Bush is the best recent example of a politician bamboozling voters with ostentatious and fraudulent claims of strong religiously-based ethical positions.

An increased role for religious discourse from politicians is an invitation to fraud, phoniness and hucksterism.

Proof of Amy Sullivan's assertion is right before us in the Obama candidacy

Amy gets a lot of grief every time she posts here, and I just wanted to point out that we are seeing the value of her suggestion

One reason Amy "gets a lot of grief" is that, despite many of us practically begging her, she won't make an "assertion" with sufficient content to be evaluated as true or false, or a "suggestion" sufficiently specific to consider.

David Dickerson wrote: "Proof of Amy Sullivan's assertion is right before us in the Obama candidacy: the fact that he speaks openly of faith, and quotes the Bible with authority, is exactly the thing that has many traditional Republicans voting for him."

One of the things that Amy Sullivan "gets a lot of grief" about every time she posts here is her habit of making sweeping, general claims without any evidence to substantiate them.

What evidence supports your assertion that Obama's religious discourse "is exactly the thing that has many traditional Republicans voting for him" ? What is your evidence that any significant numbers of "traditional Republicans" are in fact "voting for" Obama -- presumably in Democratic primaries? And what is your evidence that such votes are motivated "exactly" by Obama's religious discourse?

Exit poll results? Anything?

CJColucci wrote: "One reason Amy 'gets a lot of grief' is that, despite many of us practically begging her, she won't make an 'assertion' with sufficient content to be evaluated as true or false, or a 'suggestion' sufficiently specific to consider."

Which suggests that Amy Sullivan is quite intelligently cultivating the writing skills needed for success as a "pundit" in the corporate-owned mainstream media, e.g. Time magazine.