There is one problem I do see that is caused by this vast move of conservative Christians to the GOP -- a problem not related to any of the proposed questions.

It's that once moved to the GOP, these people will accept the GOP message hook-line- and sinker, forgetting that some portions of the GOP message do not line up with the Biblical message.

Of course the Bible teaches that Abortion is murder and that homosexuality is wrong.
Of Course the Bible teaches that immorality in the public sector is wrong, and that Parents, not the Government are responsible for the education of their children.

At the same time however, the biblical message also teaches that we are responsible to help the poor and sick, that we are responsible to be stewards of all God has given us, including the environment, and that the Bible teaches that earning money is not our main purpose in life. I love Rush, but he preaches none of those sermons.

Religion and the Democrat party

Although I don't see the Democrat party as full of followers of Satan (with the exception of a few), I don't believe that they will ever have the upper hand when it come to reaching out to religious voters. Everyone in the Democrat party may not see religion as the main issue America needs to address, but that does not automatically throw them in the "heathen category." Yet the majority of Christians today seem to automatically condemn them as a depraved party, and that is a a perception that will never fully be erased from the Democrat party.


Can the Democrat party be successful if this perception persists?

Of course the Democrat party can be successful if this perception exists, but they can be successful with out the majority of religious Americans. Our country is no longer built solely upon Christian beliefs, and the majority of young people today are choosing to support the Democrat party.

What can the Democrat party do to improve its image with people of faith?

There really can be nothing done with the perception the religious have towards the Democrat party. Because of the "ideals" of the Democratic party, they have little chance of "converting" conservatives to share in their views. The Republican party will always have the upper hand when it comes to religious voters, and unless the Democratic party wants to change their overall views on major issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, they will never be considered by Protestant Christians.

Will this have a negative impact on Democrats in 2006?

In my opinion, so many Republicans have been reconsidering their views in the past few years with the whole "War on Terror" mess that Democrats, in general, may have the upper hand this year.

That may have been the case in the past, when the Republicans were making a clear effort to cater to the Christian right, but that is not as much the case any more.

Poll after poll is showing that the religious right is deserting the Republican party, some for the Democrats, but more for third party candidates or simply not voting. After running on morality and values, the uninterrupted stream of scandals; both financial and sexual, which has beset the Republican party over the last two years is coming home to roost.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24946

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1025/p15s02-uspo.html


"A Gallup poll earlier this month found white religious voters "equally as likely to say they will vote Democratic as Republican." And a Pew Research poll last week found just 57 percent of white Evangelicals planning to vote Republican, a drop from 68 percent in 2002 and 74 percent in 2004. Among white Catholics, the decline was even greater."

This is the problem with preaching for votes, you have to practice what you preach. If you do not, then the votes vanish. The Republican party has had so many high profile scandals that they are losing the ability to claim any sort of strong moral superiority over the Democrats. Thus the 'moral votes' are deserting them.

Even evangelicals who look at the last six years are asking what they got for their efforts: two supeme court justices who both state openly they believe Roe vs. wade is the law of the land and must be respected? The problem with people of belief, ANY strongly held belief, is that you can court them only so long with lip-service. Bush Jr claiming Jesus was his favourite philosopher appealed to many religious voters, but scandals speak louder than words.




Its easy. Bill Clinton gave a speech in which he unveiled his 'New Covenant', and in the 1992 election he captured a majority of the Catholic Vote and a large minority of the Protestant vote (34% vs 47% for Bush Sr.) The Republicans don't 'hold' the religious ground, they have simply claimed the religious high ground, and for the most part the Democrats have allowed them to by allowing the republicans to define the issues. Given the rate of implosion of the Republicans at the moment, this would be an opportune time for a Democratic luminary to do just that.

Sadly, as they have been so about 6 years, the Democratic party is short on luminaries at the moment...

As Governor/Emperor of New York I will:

Abolish Connecticut and use their corpses to fill the Long Island Sound
Attack Africa (yes the continent) to rid the world of "weird" diseases like Ebola
Remove the jury system from California (clearly they can't handle it)
Deny all uses of the color purple for clothing

Who is with me?

Please note: I am a bona fide member of the Michigan Democratic Party, not the Michigan Democrat Party. It's like fingernails scraping a blackboard to me to read "the Democrat Party this" and "the Democrat Party that..." Please try to get it right, or prepare to have me refer to Republicans with only part of their name: Publicans Let me show you some examples in the body of this post:

To answer the questions:

The Democratic Party can and will be successful whether or not this perception exists as the constituencies of the states recognize that the current "Publican" controlled Congress has been spending money right and left like a drunken sailor (the most since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society), and as former insiders such as David Kuo in his book Tempting Faith expose the cynicism and the difference between perception and reality of this administration's faith-based initiative programs. This is my hope, anyway.

And just what do we see that is pro-life in the stop loss policies toward our military in Iraq and Afghanistan? Let's make sure those babies are born, and lotsa luck after that, babies, especially when you're old enough to serve Uncle Sam, unless you happen to be born to a family of privilege. Yeah, you have a right to life even if your mother was raped by your grandfather, or you arrive in a family where you will be beaten and starved to within an inch of your life...You get the picture.

And before you take the previous paragraph to conclude that I am pro-choice, I am most decidedly not. I do not defend the stance of "abortion on demand and without apology." I just recognize that there are instances where a mother-to-be might not want to bring a child into the world, especially if the world has been none too kind to her. Add to that those instances where the pregnancy can endanger the life of the mother, and you lose that hard and fast rule that all pregnant women, regardless of their circumstances, must carry that baby to term.

To improve the image of the Democratic Party to self-avowed people of faith, Democrats need to be true to the populist values that are at the core of their platform. Especially important is the concept that no one in the United States should be jobless if s/he wants to/needs to work, no one should have to go without a proper education in the public school system, and no one should be denied health care regardless of how much money they have or don't have in their wallet or bank account or whether their employer has health care coverage for them. The followers of Christ were admonished in the Bible:


Paraphrased, it means that actions speak louder than words.

Is it not possible to be a person of faith without trumpeting it before thousands? Millions?


And to reinforce that, I remember hearing the Rev. Jerry Falwell saying that some of his constituents would likely rather vote for Lucifer than for Hillary Clinton. You know, statements like that tend to divulge volumes if you look past the hyperbole and examine the spirit behind it.

The problem is that the current Christian "emperor" and leader of the Free World really isn't wearing much clothing to some of us, and it is becoming more evident every day. I would encourage anyone to read David Kuo's book if you're wondering where I'm coming from. Here is an excerpt:



Publicans will continue to rely heavily on the evangelical/fundamentalist churchgoers for votes. Whether some of these folks who were hoodwinked before by the current administration will be disappointed if Democratic candidates are not quite so blatant about their religiosity/spirituality, or whether they will find refreshing the approach of candidates who don't mention God or Jesus in every paragraph of their speeches and focus instead on the plight of everyday Americans, is anybody's guess.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Can the Democrat party be successful if this perception persists?
Unfortunately no. So long as this perception persists, the Democrats will continue to have problems with the holier-than-thou vote.
The Democrats actually believe in the separation of Church and State, and behave that way. It's not an 'anti-religion' as opposed to 'pro-freedom of religion' stand. The Democrats actually understand that we live in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society. ALL are free to believe as they choose. This is something the holier-than-thou vote could use a lesson in. The Republicans on the other hand use the Christian based "people of faith (holier-than-thou vote)" to propagate the lie that Democrats are against religion.

What can the Democrat party do to improve its image with people of faith?
Simple. Point out clearly how the Republicans have subverted Christianity into a religion where selfishness and greed are virtues. =

Will this have a negative impact on Democrats in 2006?
Not in 2006. But in 2008 it could raise it's ugly head again.

The Republican party has been especially friendly to Christian evangelicals. As a consequence, evangelicals have flocked to the GOP's tent. However, that leaves a number of denominations and even other religions that are not embraced quite as wholeheartedly by the Republican party.

There are Quakers, Buddhists, Jews (conservative and reform, mostly), and Muslims who might find that the lower-keyed religious tone of the Democratic party is easier to live with, and that diversity is honored when one particular denomination or sect doesn't rule the day.

Catholics are another story. There will be those who embrace the GOP for its pro-life stance in the case of the unborn. Other Catholics are also against capital punishment and believe that making war on a country that didn't attack us is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. Many Catholics believe that it is the job of a just government to serve its people by seeing to it that even the poorest members of our society are fed, clothed, and receive the health care they need. This is certainly consistent with the teachings of the Pope and the Bible.

But one party has made it a point to distinguish itself as the party of faith, the party of family values. So the other party must, of necessity, be against these things to persons of either/or thinking. The problem is, that just isn't true. Neither humans nor political parties can be characterized so easily; we aren't homogenized like milk.

If the voters are looking for a religious experience when they go to the polls, they might vote Republican. But there are far more reasons aside from religious affiliation to take a good look at what the parties and the individual candidates have to offer, for we're all going to have to live with our choices for the next few years.