Full Version: Moderate dems say "embrace your faith"
As many of you know, within the Dem party, Howard Dean has been making some big changes- he wants to challenge every race, in every district, instead of just fighting races they think they can win. I was reading the top headlines from Yahoo today and came across this:
Moderates: Dems should talk about religion
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060723/ap_on_...ocrats_religion
Excerpt:
Moderates also encouraged Democrats to link morality with bread-and-butter issues, like income and health care, rather than only talking about faith as it relates to hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage.
"Democrats haven't stated the obvious," said Richard Devlin, a state senator from Oregon who argued that Democrats should point out that failing to provide education for children is immoral.
Democrats typically tread carefully on matters of faith and values, perhaps to avoid alienating secular voters and irritating party activists who champion the separation of church and state. The party hasn't always been so reluctant. Clergy led the civil rights movement and Jimmy Carter's evangelical Christian faith figured prominently in his 1976 presidential campaign.
Please read the whole article before commmenting!
1) Do you think this is a workable strategy for the Dems in 06 and 08?
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between seperation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
Moderates: Dems should talk about religion
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060723/ap_on_...ocrats_religion
Excerpt:
Moderates also encouraged Democrats to link morality with bread-and-butter issues, like income and health care, rather than only talking about faith as it relates to hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage.
"Democrats haven't stated the obvious," said Richard Devlin, a state senator from Oregon who argued that Democrats should point out that failing to provide education for children is immoral.
Democrats typically tread carefully on matters of faith and values, perhaps to avoid alienating secular voters and irritating party activists who champion the separation of church and state. The party hasn't always been so reluctant. Clergy led the civil rights movement and Jimmy Carter's evangelical Christian faith figured prominently in his 1976 presidential campaign.
Please read the whole article before commmenting!
1) Do you think this is a workable strategy for the Dems in 06 and 08?
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between seperation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
1) Do you think this is a workable strategy for the Dems in 06 and 08?
The Democrats need to do something different to win elections. That much is apparent.
In '06, the Congressional elections are all local: candidate vs. candidate. Each race is dependent upon the individual candidate's charisma, ability to communicate ideas, and (a distant third) his ideas.
This strategy could certainly help in certain portions of the country where Democrats are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as anti-God.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between separation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
There is no tight rope. Having faith does not disqualify one from running for public office. If the Democrats understood this, they'd be in a much better position politically.
Americans may not be as overtly religious as they once were, but I'd say a large majority would be put off by a candidate that says that God doesn't exist. In some areas, not being evangelical (hard to do if you won't even acknowledge the divine) is a nail in the coffin, so to speak.
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
Of course it is possible. Isn't that how Jimmy Carter framed his Presidency and post-Presidency? However, there is a tightrope to walk.
If the Democrats are seen as insincere or hypocritical, then this could backfire big time.
Many of the ultra-religious see certain issues as faith issues, such as abortion and gay marriage. It will be difficult to be seen as "religious" if you do not adhere to the expected position on these issues. It isn't impossible, however.
Democrats need to be who they are and not who they think the electorate wants them to be. Sincerity does count. If I think someone is being fake on their position, that is a big turn off to me.
The Democrats need to do something different to win elections. That much is apparent.
In '06, the Congressional elections are all local: candidate vs. candidate. Each race is dependent upon the individual candidate's charisma, ability to communicate ideas, and (a distant third) his ideas.
This strategy could certainly help in certain portions of the country where Democrats are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as anti-God.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between separation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
There is no tight rope. Having faith does not disqualify one from running for public office. If the Democrats understood this, they'd be in a much better position politically.
Americans may not be as overtly religious as they once were, but I'd say a large majority would be put off by a candidate that says that God doesn't exist. In some areas, not being evangelical (hard to do if you won't even acknowledge the divine) is a nail in the coffin, so to speak.
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
Of course it is possible. Isn't that how Jimmy Carter framed his Presidency and post-Presidency? However, there is a tightrope to walk.
QUOTE
"If we continue to have this perception in the Democratic Party that faith can't be discussed, we'll continue to lose elections based on wedge issues," said Terrance Carroll, a Colorado state representative.
QUOTE
"There is a downside if it's not authentic," Karen Hale, a state senator from Utah, said.
If the Democrats are seen as insincere or hypocritical, then this could backfire big time.
Many of the ultra-religious see certain issues as faith issues, such as abortion and gay marriage. It will be difficult to be seen as "religious" if you do not adhere to the expected position on these issues. It isn't impossible, however.
Democrats need to be who they are and not who they think the electorate wants them to be. Sincerity does count. If I think someone is being fake on their position, that is a big turn off to me.
1) Do you think this is a workable strategy for the Dems in 06 and 08?
I can't think of anything better for third parties then the Democrats and Republicans engaging in a "who loves Jesus more" contest. "Embracing your faith" is a cute sounding code-word for attempt to legislate morality, which is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do [Dennis Hastert's American Values Agenda anyone?]. We do not need another party taking a more authoritarian stance on social issues...Democrats can embrace their faith all they want, just not in form of laws like the religious right. I'm sooo sick of "values voters", "the war against immorality" and "it isn't right so criminalize it" crap so much it defies description and the Democrats "embracing their faith" would exacerbate it.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between separation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
What is "running away from matters of faith"? If it means not wanting to deal with "moral legislation" then they should run away from matters of faith, and so should the rest of our government...but I'm not sure what exactly is meant by that, can you elaborate CR?
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
It's as possible as it is illegitimate. I'm sure some people will go for it, but how can you take a stance against social issues based on religion and then support higher taxation based on religion/morality? It seems hypocritical, but if anyone can pass hypocrisy off as righteousness, it's a group of politicians.
CP
I can't think of anything better for third parties then the Democrats and Republicans engaging in a "who loves Jesus more" contest. "Embracing your faith" is a cute sounding code-word for attempt to legislate morality, which is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do [Dennis Hastert's American Values Agenda anyone?]. We do not need another party taking a more authoritarian stance on social issues...Democrats can embrace their faith all they want, just not in form of laws like the religious right. I'm sooo sick of "values voters", "the war against immorality" and "it isn't right so criminalize it" crap so much it defies description and the Democrats "embracing their faith" would exacerbate it.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between separation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
What is "running away from matters of faith"? If it means not wanting to deal with "moral legislation" then they should run away from matters of faith, and so should the rest of our government...but I'm not sure what exactly is meant by that, can you elaborate CR?
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
It's as possible as it is illegitimate. I'm sure some people will go for it, but how can you take a stance against social issues based on religion and then support higher taxation based on religion/morality? It seems hypocritical, but if anyone can pass hypocrisy off as righteousness, it's a group of politicians.
CP
CP- you and I are "fringers" however- religious folk don't really see "freedom" as much as they see "freedom for me, but what you are doing, well, there should be a law again' it!"- You and I find it very easy to seperate what we teach our kids and the morality we live our life as seperate from what we want codified into law- from a libertarian's POV- no, I don't visit prostitutes- but I don't want a law against prostitution either- whereas, even a moderate believer in Judeo-Christian beliefs has a very difficult time seperating church and state, in reality.
so in response to question #2- or rather, your question to me- see above- your average joe that believes in God can not seem to make the jump between personal beliefs and behavior and the need to legislate others from doing that behavior, simply because of the "eww" factor.
And, you and I are in a very tiny minority of poeple that can make that leap- but, every so often, when folks have been battered by morality wars, folks may very well "flock to third party candidates"- but those with faith in God still have a very tough time understanding freedom. Religion, by it's very nature- is anti-freedom. It DEMANDS you subvert yourself to some other force, that you give up part of your free will to this "higher power"-
and, the "faithful" can use this power for good or bad- it was used for good during the civil rights movement- it is used for evil for the current neo-con movement- the morality of all men being equal struck a rare resonance in a big chunk of the faithful in America- and religion had gone through a bit of a renaciance at the time- 'God is Love" kinda movement- now, in America- religion is pretty much the same as the taliban in Afghanistan- the religious right in America is not one whit different than the taliban or the wahibists or the Shia law- and the repubican party for the last 20 years has been trying to do what the islamic extremist have been succesful in large parts of the world- make thier religion the law of the land-
so- how do you blunt this human nature of wanting to restrict others that don't have the same set of values as you, but are not hurting you?
You enlist the moderates, and invoke the "morality" of that religion that IS good.
So all in all, I think the democrats, if the message is keeping corporate America from running over individuals rights as they do now, and addresses injustice vs "wedge" issues such as gay marriage- which, essentially, effects no one but gays negatively- then they might very well strike a cord in voters.
so in response to question #2- or rather, your question to me- see above- your average joe that believes in God can not seem to make the jump between personal beliefs and behavior and the need to legislate others from doing that behavior, simply because of the "eww" factor.
And, you and I are in a very tiny minority of poeple that can make that leap- but, every so often, when folks have been battered by morality wars, folks may very well "flock to third party candidates"- but those with faith in God still have a very tough time understanding freedom. Religion, by it's very nature- is anti-freedom. It DEMANDS you subvert yourself to some other force, that you give up part of your free will to this "higher power"-
and, the "faithful" can use this power for good or bad- it was used for good during the civil rights movement- it is used for evil for the current neo-con movement- the morality of all men being equal struck a rare resonance in a big chunk of the faithful in America- and religion had gone through a bit of a renaciance at the time- 'God is Love" kinda movement- now, in America- religion is pretty much the same as the taliban in Afghanistan- the religious right in America is not one whit different than the taliban or the wahibists or the Shia law- and the repubican party for the last 20 years has been trying to do what the islamic extremist have been succesful in large parts of the world- make thier religion the law of the land-
so- how do you blunt this human nature of wanting to restrict others that don't have the same set of values as you, but are not hurting you?
You enlist the moderates, and invoke the "morality" of that religion that IS good.
So all in all, I think the democrats, if the message is keeping corporate America from running over individuals rights as they do now, and addresses injustice vs "wedge" issues such as gay marriage- which, essentially, effects no one but gays negatively- then they might very well strike a cord in voters.
CR, I will answer your questions in one lump:
If it is genuine, yes. A resounding 'yes' to issues 'like helping your fellow man'.
Carter did this very well. I still wouldn't vote for Carter as president today...or Ghandi for that matter. I think they were both lacking in practicality, but I do respect them and look up to them more than most fellow human beings.
Otherwise don’t bother. Don’t bother with this ruse of “We really know how stupid and un-intellectual ‘those ignorant Christians are’ but we need those votes!”
Let me give you an analogy that you might understand: Racial issues. Should Republicans worry about racial issues? ABSOLUTELY, but only if this is genuine. Otherwise the insincerity shows through. Any politician who honestly cares about racial issues should take his/her stand. Otherwise no, forget it.
Christians aren't the daft idiots many take us for.
If it is genuine, yes. A resounding 'yes' to issues 'like helping your fellow man'.
Carter did this very well. I still wouldn't vote for Carter as president today...or Ghandi for that matter. I think they were both lacking in practicality, but I do respect them and look up to them more than most fellow human beings.
Otherwise don’t bother. Don’t bother with this ruse of “We really know how stupid and un-intellectual ‘those ignorant Christians are’ but we need those votes!”
Let me give you an analogy that you might understand: Racial issues. Should Republicans worry about racial issues? ABSOLUTELY, but only if this is genuine. Otherwise the insincerity shows through. Any politician who honestly cares about racial issues should take his/her stand. Otherwise no, forget it.
Christians aren't the daft idiots many take us for.
1) Do you think this is a workable strategy for the Dems in 06 and 08?Depends on who you are.
Evan Bayh types can do so. If it is fake they're gonna get torn to peices.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between seperation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?Why cannot faith be kept in the church or the home? seems it should be easy enough unless its one of the We Will legislate your morality offensives that require it to succeed.
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible? It should be fairly easy. I would think the Dems could round up enough charismatic preachers to come up with the right sounding messages. Just think MLK and follow his lead in HOW he spoke. Should be easy for to take down the Rights fire and hell approach.
but again it needs to come from people who walk it-- fakers will be called out and the whole Dem party would suffer.
Evan Bayh types can do so. If it is fake they're gonna get torn to peices.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between seperation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?Why cannot faith be kept in the church or the home? seems it should be easy enough unless its one of the We Will legislate your morality offensives that require it to succeed.
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible? It should be fairly easy. I would think the Dems could round up enough charismatic preachers to come up with the right sounding messages. Just think MLK and follow his lead in HOW he spoke. Should be easy for to take down the Rights fire and hell approach.
but again it needs to come from people who walk it-- fakers will be called out and the whole Dem party would suffer.
Hmm, yes, that is the tone that post took- let me try it again- the religious, those that sincerely believe in thier particular religion, and follow it's edicts- as a group, can not seem to keep from meddling in others business, as a group. I am sure the faith is sincere.
I am quite sure Osama bin Laden believes in his religion quite deeply. I am quite sure he hates Hollywood decadence as equally as Pat robertson, GW or Jerry Falwell. I am quite sure he would be pretty much against the teletubbies, gays, gambling and drinking, and in fact, they all want to make laws against that kind of thing. They believe it is thier duty to make laws against that sort of thing.
But to be truly free, adults have to be able to make thier own choices, even when it goes against your faith- teach what you want in your house, just don't force me to behave the way you wish me to, unless I directly harm another.
The devout simply can not seem to make this leap in practicality. If there were a large scale christian movement to legalize gambling, prostitution and get rid of the "war on drugs"- I would retract that statement. But the entire religious Islamic-Christian-Judeo population is profoundly anti-freedom outside the confines of thier belief structures. It is not enough that he preaches against these things- he has to make it into law as well.
It is not that they are stupid, or even ignorant- but I think that freedom for all society and religion are incompatable- they can't seem to co-exist for any length of time.
I am quite sure Osama bin Laden believes in his religion quite deeply. I am quite sure he hates Hollywood decadence as equally as Pat robertson, GW or Jerry Falwell. I am quite sure he would be pretty much against the teletubbies, gays, gambling and drinking, and in fact, they all want to make laws against that kind of thing. They believe it is thier duty to make laws against that sort of thing.
But to be truly free, adults have to be able to make thier own choices, even when it goes against your faith- teach what you want in your house, just don't force me to behave the way you wish me to, unless I directly harm another.
The devout simply can not seem to make this leap in practicality. If there were a large scale christian movement to legalize gambling, prostitution and get rid of the "war on drugs"- I would retract that statement. But the entire religious Islamic-Christian-Judeo population is profoundly anti-freedom outside the confines of thier belief structures. It is not enough that he preaches against these things- he has to make it into law as well.
It is not that they are stupid, or even ignorant- but I think that freedom for all society and religion are incompatable- they can't seem to co-exist for any length of time.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jul 24 2006, 11:51 AM) 
Hmm, yes, that is the tone that post took- let me try it again- the religious, those that sincerely believe in thier particular religion, and follow it's edicts- as a group, can not seem to keep from meddling in others business, as a group. I am sure the faith is sincere.
I am quite sure Osama bin Laden believes in his religion quite deeply. I am quite sure he hates Hollywood decadence as equally as Pat robertson, GW or Jerry Falwell. I am quite sure he would be pretty much against the teletubbies, gays, gambling and drinking, and in fact, they all want to make laws against that kind of thing. They believe it is thier duty to make laws against that sort of thing.
But to be truly free, adults have to be able to make thier own choices, even when it goes against your faith- teach what you want in your house, just don't force me to behave the way you wish me to, unless I directly harm another.
The devout simply can not seem to make this leap in practicality. If there were a large scale christian movement to legalize gambling, prostitution and get rid of the "war on drugs"- I would retract that statement. But the entire religious Islamic-Christian-Judeo population is profoundly anti-freedom outside the confines of thier belief structures. It is not enough that he preaches against these things- he has to make it into law as well.
Why do you insist on insulting the religious? Why label them as some monolithic bloc when they are clearly not?
There are deeply religious people who are against capital punishment, for gay marriage, for contraception. Many religions run gambling establishments (it's called BINGO around here). The Irish-Americans used to be the most religious ethnic group in the United States--and were (and are) routinely ridiculed for being drunks.
Obviously your preconceived notions have a very limited basis in reality.
Do not make the moral equivalency with Osama bin Laden. It's a very very weak point and makes you lose whatever credibility you thought you had. I simply do not see Christians (evangelical or otherwise) advocating the murder of non-believers. Perhaps you could point out these groups and their nefarious activities?
The real fact of the matter is that politicians should have a belief system which lends some consistency on how they will act as public servants. One such belief system is religion--Christian or otherwise. A different one would be Communism--the good of the whole trumps the good of the one. Another would be capitalism--where individual self-interest leads to collective self-interest. Most people have an amalgamation of various philosophies and belief systems.
QUOTE(Cruising Ram)
It is not that they are stupid, or even ignorant- but I think that freedom for all society and religion are incompatable- they can't seem to co-exist for any length of time.
Incredible. So you are with Marx that religion is the opiate of the masses? Nothing good can come from it? No tolerance of others is allowed?
Welcome to the United States of America, where, amazingly there are over 75 different independent churches in the United States with membership of over 60,000 : source: wikipedia
I'm confused. With all these religions, how do we have any freedoms at all? Where is the sectarian violence? Where are the calls for a national religion?
We have more freedoms in the United States that pretty much anywhere on Earth, even secular Europe. How does that jibe with your contention?
In short: do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your position that religion and freedom are incompatible.
CR the real danger in regards of religion in America is not that those who are want to subjugate those who are not, but if the prevailing attitude on the Left mirrors yours--where are they going to go?
I have actually had to put some effort into stooping my knee jerk reactions to organized religion and start admitting their good points
*cough* *ack* *wheeeeeze *
All kidding aside
The fringe of the religious in this country are just that -- a fringe.
but they have had no options when it comes to a vote their only option has been Right because the Left has been as you and I have been CR
Not just critical but blatantly hostile.
Christians are not Jerry falwell or Pat robertson
but they get treated like it.
If you were them would you vote for you?
The Dems lost a good way to support their ideals when they drove out religion.
Safety nets, and many of the Liberal causes
They lost a good chunk of voters once theirs. Kennedy was open about his faith and people believed him. Carter was the last time the Dems had a shot in the south.
you probably lose a shot at voters like Amlord or Mrs P.
You definetely lose Republican moderates who are borderline enough to vote against the fringe i9n their party.
but again if it is not heartfelt it will be Dukakis in a tank with that damn helmet
I have actually had to put some effort into stooping my knee jerk reactions to organized religion and start admitting their good points
*cough* *ack* *wheeeeeze *
All kidding aside
The fringe of the religious in this country are just that -- a fringe.
but they have had no options when it comes to a vote their only option has been Right because the Left has been as you and I have been CR
Not just critical but blatantly hostile.
Christians are not Jerry falwell or Pat robertson
but they get treated like it.
If you were them would you vote for you?
The Dems lost a good way to support their ideals when they drove out religion.
Safety nets, and many of the Liberal causes
They lost a good chunk of voters once theirs. Kennedy was open about his faith and people believed him. Carter was the last time the Dems had a shot in the south.
you probably lose a shot at voters like Amlord or Mrs P.
You definetely lose Republican moderates who are borderline enough to vote against the fringe i9n their party.
but again if it is not heartfelt it will be Dukakis in a tank with that damn helmet
QUOTE(christopher @ Jul 24 2006, 02:50 PM)
you probably lose a shot at voters like Amlord or Mrs P.
You definetely lose Republican moderates who are borderline enough to vote against the fringe in their party.
but again if it is not heartfelt it will be Dukakis in a tank with that damn helmet
Cruising Ram wouldn't lose my vote over this issue...
Interestingly, Michael Medved wrote a piece in the USA Today (today) dealing with a facet of this issue: Faith and nationalism: Indivisible in America
QUOTE
These separationists, however, face a painful practical problem when it comes to expressing their purported patriotism: What songs can they sing on national holidays or at public celebrations? All the traditional hymns of praise to the United States inconveniently and conspicuously mention God and his special blessings for America.
<snip>
Many Americans might feel uncomfortable with our long history of entangling our sense of national identity with claims of divine mission, our consistent and nearly universal assumption that the Almighty had selected this nation for His purposes.
Defenders of secularism might argue that we will enjoy a brighter, better future by severing the associations between faith and nationalism, but they shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize the past — or to suggest that they're returning us to an era of absolute church-state separation that never existed.
If they do intend to shape a new, unprecedented sense of American identity stripped of its religious and specifically Christian trappings, they must also get to work in composing a fresh array of dramatically different patriotic songs.
<snip>
Many Americans might feel uncomfortable with our long history of entangling our sense of national identity with claims of divine mission, our consistent and nearly universal assumption that the Almighty had selected this nation for His purposes.
Defenders of secularism might argue that we will enjoy a brighter, better future by severing the associations between faith and nationalism, but they shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize the past — or to suggest that they're returning us to an era of absolute church-state separation that never existed.
If they do intend to shape a new, unprecedented sense of American identity stripped of its religious and specifically Christian trappings, they must also get to work in composing a fresh array of dramatically different patriotic songs.
Acknowledging God is a part of this country's history and is not a recent phenomenon. It might work to the advantage of certain politicians if they would come to realize this fact.
1) Do you think this is a workable strategy for the Dems in 06 and 08?
Personally, I would like to win on real issues (minimum wage, health care, alternative fuels, global warming, funding for embryonic stem cell research, finding a way out of the Iraqi quagmire, etc.) not the kinds of things Republicans have passed off as faith issues--usually highly emotional non-issues.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between separation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
I don’t fully understand your question, but I believe in total separation of church and state.
I agree totally with Christopher.
Constant babble for public displays of religion leads me to the conclusion that such "needs" are not being adequately met in the home and church. While I acknowledge the right of individual public displays of religious ritual - via the 1st Amdnement - I must say that activities like saying grace in a public restaurant or holding a Bible study in a coffee shop are complete turn-offs. It seems to me that such public displays of religion are more show than go.
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
I am a secularist who picks and chooses among religions elements as “philosophy.” Feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, visiting people in hospitals and jails, etc. is, in my opinion good philosophy. I have visited friends in both hospitals and jail, took a mother an daughter grocery shopping when they were destitute in the past few years. My landlord mows my yard as part of the rental agreement. I appreciate him doing this. I had to pay someone to do it at my previous place. Since moving, I have a great land lord. Early last week I came home to find him mowing in 100 degree + heat. I fixed him a glass of ice water.
These are the kinds of things, I believe in and practice, not because Jesus some told me they were correct, but because they meet the needs of people who are often distressed.
If were running for office, I could stress such elements from a secular point of view rather than a theological base. It would be authentic.
Further, I would not have discretionary funds to occasionally help someone in need, if I poked 10% (or more) of my income into an organized religious group, as some would have me do.
What Republicans have given us is “faith”, minus works. I agree with James, “Faith without works is dead," (James 2:26).
I prefer “works,” with or without “faith.”
Personally, I would like to win on real issues (minimum wage, health care, alternative fuels, global warming, funding for embryonic stem cell research, finding a way out of the Iraqi quagmire, etc.) not the kinds of things Republicans have passed off as faith issues--usually highly emotional non-issues.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between separation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
I don’t fully understand your question, but I believe in total separation of church and state.
QUOTE(christopher @ Jul 24 2006, 10:47 AM)
Why cannot faith be kept in the church or the home? seems it should be easy enough unless its one of the We Will legislate your morality offensives that require it to succeed.
I agree totally with Christopher.
Constant babble for public displays of religion leads me to the conclusion that such "needs" are not being adequately met in the home and church. While I acknowledge the right of individual public displays of religious ritual - via the 1st Amdnement - I must say that activities like saying grace in a public restaurant or holding a Bible study in a coffee shop are complete turn-offs. It seems to me that such public displays of religion are more show than go.
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
I am a secularist who picks and chooses among religions elements as “philosophy.” Feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, visiting people in hospitals and jails, etc. is, in my opinion good philosophy. I have visited friends in both hospitals and jail, took a mother an daughter grocery shopping when they were destitute in the past few years. My landlord mows my yard as part of the rental agreement. I appreciate him doing this. I had to pay someone to do it at my previous place. Since moving, I have a great land lord. Early last week I came home to find him mowing in 100 degree + heat. I fixed him a glass of ice water.
These are the kinds of things, I believe in and practice, not because Jesus some told me they were correct, but because they meet the needs of people who are often distressed.
If were running for office, I could stress such elements from a secular point of view rather than a theological base. It would be authentic.
Further, I would not have discretionary funds to occasionally help someone in need, if I poked 10% (or more) of my income into an organized religious group, as some would have me do.
What Republicans have given us is “faith”, minus works. I agree with James, “Faith without works is dead," (James 2:26).
I prefer “works,” with or without “faith.”
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jul 24 2006, 11:51 AM)
I am quite sure Osama bin Laden believes in his religion quite deeply. I am quite sure he hates Hollywood decadence as equally as Pat robertson, GW or Jerry Falwell. I am quite sure he would be pretty much against the teletubbies, gays, gambling and drinking, and in fact, they all want to make laws against that kind of thing. They believe it is thier duty to make laws against that sort of thing.
Yes, indeed. And Pol Pot hated Christians absolutely. So much he killed them en masse. As did Mao, Stalin, ect....they certainly made sure no religious types insulted anyone's sensibilities.
QUOTE
But to be truly free, adults have to be able to make thier own choices, even when it goes against your faith- teach what you want in your house, just don't force me to behave the way you wish me to, unless I directly harm another.
Interestingly enough, this country was founded on religious freedom, especially promoting the free exercise of. Strange how those dead old rich white guys can be so enlightened when it's an issue on which one agrees yet so out of touch otherwise...I understand. I truly do. You don't like religion. You are an atheist raised by religious people and this is your stand. I am a Christian who was raised by atheists. My family had a lot of issues, I promise you. I've never blamed their weird issues on their lack of faith....could you do me the same favor and stop painting Christians with one broad brush? Thanks.
QUOTE
The devout simply can not seem to make this leap in practicality. If there were a large scale christian movement to legalize gambling, prostitution and get rid of the "war on drugs"- I would retract that statement. But the entire religious Islamic-Christian-Judeo population is profoundly anti-freedom outside the confines of thier belief structures. It is not enough that he preaches against these things- he has to make it into law as well.
I can't call myself devout, but I am very much a realist and still consider myself a Christian. As such, I can tell you there are a couple of things the Democrats should do if they wish to compete so I don't have to vote for a third party next time. Number one, appeal to the blue collar workers that were once the party base. Number two, stop this anti-religious prejudice you have going on right now. Cater to the positives. If you wish to promote gay marriage, sell it as a positive issue. Here's a start: "Gosh, homosexuals actually CHOOSE to have children. They don't fall into it by accident. This makes them more likely to be better parents...
and many homosexuals are religious, BTW..."
But, as I said before, it has to be genuine. And they still might not agree with you, but you might just find some commonality, which isn't going to happen the way things are going now...Good luck.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 24 2006, 03:50 PM)
But, as I said before, it has to be genuine. Good luck.
I can't seem to bring myself to believe that some of the "faith" issues Republicans have run on are genuine. The flocks (voters) may believe them, but I doubt the authnticity of Tom Delay, George Bush and other "shepards."
Authenticity should cut both ways.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 24 2006, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 24 2006, 03:50 PM)
But, as I said before, it has to be genuine. Good luck.
I can't seem to bring myself to believe that some of the "faith" issues Republicans have run on are genuine. The flocks (voters) may believe them, but I doubt the authnticity of Tom Delay, George Bush and other "shepards."
Authenticity should cut both ways.
That's fine. This thread is ostensibly about whether or not faith is an embraceable strategy. No one is trying to convert you, I'm simply offering pointers. It doesn't matter to me whether you like Bush or Delay (I don't either BTW). If you wish to garner votes for your party, you might want to take what I've said under consideration. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I'm just addressing the topic.
I think Julian brought it up once on another thread some time ago...If I am trying to sell you something, you can wear whatever you like, if you are trying to sell me, put on a tie. I have nothing else to add to this thread, that is simply my advice. Keep cutting down religious idiots like myself if it makes you feel better, but it won't garner votes. Just sayin'.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 24 2006, 04:09 PM)
Keep cutting down religious idiots like myself if it makes you feel better, but it won't garner votes. Just sayin'.
I don't know who or how anyone is cutting you down and certinly nobody has called you a "religious idiot." Insisting on separation of church and state is doing neither of those things.
QUOTE
That's fine. This thread is ostensibly about whether or not faith is an embraceable strategy.
To answer the question, no, I don't favor a faith oriented campaign to win an election. I prefer a religon neutral approach.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 24 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 24 2006, 04:09 PM)
Keep cutting down religious idiots like myself if it makes you feel better, but it won't garner votes. Just sayin'.
I don't know who or how anyone is cutting you down and certinly nobody has called you a "religious idiot." Insisting on separation of church and state is doing neither of those things.
To answer the question, no, I don't favor a faith oriented campaign to win an election. I prefer a religon neutral approach.
It's a figure of speech, thanks though.
It isn't personal to you, BOF. Honestly, I am genuinely explaining the way I see things politically today. How often do I bring up my faith? Almost never. The Democratic party should remember Carter and much of its lost base. That's all. 
At the moment it isn't religious neutral. It is hostile, I wouldn't say it if it wasn't so.
1) Do you think this is a workable strategy for the Dems in 06 and 08?
Maybe. The party obviously needs a strategy to make it clear that words like faith and belief aren't four letter words in this party. The challenge is, how do you do that in the era of sound bytes? And how do you do it without coming off as insincere and just pandering to get votes?
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between seperation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
I don't see this as a tight rope. As long as the DNC isn't including planks for a marble ten commandments statue in their platform I believe both can be compatible. Mrs P accurately pointed out that no citizen should be restricted from freely practicing their faith (within some obvious constraints). I see nothing wrong if Mark Warner were to declare himself an atheist or a buddhist. What Democrats do need to do, in my opinion, is not treat religion like it is a third rail comparable to social security. Talk about it where appropriate, embrace it when so inspired, and challenge it when it steps across the barrier of separation. And above all, be genuine when doing so.
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
Absolutely. What the Democrats have allowed the GOP to do is frame the debate. They've been letting them do that ever since 1994 (arguably before then). Gay marriage and abortion aren't the only social issues that faith speaks to, but they've allowed the GOP to frame it in those terms. I think the momentum exists heading into the 2006 elections that allows for some steps in that direction, but the candidates have to avoid the appearance of pandering. Frame the debate to discuss topics that are important to them, discuss the faith influence in those positions but don't club people over the head on it.
Btw, there is an excellent book on this subject written by Jim Wallis, titled God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong, and the Left Doesn't Get It
Maybe. The party obviously needs a strategy to make it clear that words like faith and belief aren't four letter words in this party. The challenge is, how do you do that in the era of sound bytes? And how do you do it without coming off as insincere and just pandering to get votes?
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between seperation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
I don't see this as a tight rope. As long as the DNC isn't including planks for a marble ten commandments statue in their platform I believe both can be compatible. Mrs P accurately pointed out that no citizen should be restricted from freely practicing their faith (within some obvious constraints). I see nothing wrong if Mark Warner were to declare himself an atheist or a buddhist. What Democrats do need to do, in my opinion, is not treat religion like it is a third rail comparable to social security. Talk about it where appropriate, embrace it when so inspired, and challenge it when it steps across the barrier of separation. And above all, be genuine when doing so.
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
Absolutely. What the Democrats have allowed the GOP to do is frame the debate. They've been letting them do that ever since 1994 (arguably before then). Gay marriage and abortion aren't the only social issues that faith speaks to, but they've allowed the GOP to frame it in those terms. I think the momentum exists heading into the 2006 elections that allows for some steps in that direction, but the candidates have to avoid the appearance of pandering. Frame the debate to discuss topics that are important to them, discuss the faith influence in those positions but don't club people over the head on it.
Btw, there is an excellent book on this subject written by Jim Wallis, titled God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong, and the Left Doesn't Get It
QUOTE
These separationists, however, face a painful practical problem when it comes to expressing their purported patriotism: What songs can they sing on national holidays or at public celebrations? All the traditional hymns of praise to the United States inconveniently and conspicuously mention God and his special blessings for America.
<snip>
Many Americans might feel uncomfortable with our long history of entangling our sense of national identity with claims of divine mission, our consistent and nearly universal assumption that the Almighty had selected this nation for His purposes.
Defenders of secularism might argue that we will enjoy a brighter, better future by severing the associations between faith and nationalism, but they shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize the past — or to suggest that they're returning us to an era of absolute church-state separation that never existed.
If they do intend to shape a new, unprecedented sense of American identity stripped of its religious and specifically Christian trappings, they must also get to work in composing a fresh array of dramatically different patriotic songs.
<snip>
Many Americans might feel uncomfortable with our long history of entangling our sense of national identity with claims of divine mission, our consistent and nearly universal assumption that the Almighty had selected this nation for His purposes.
Defenders of secularism might argue that we will enjoy a brighter, better future by severing the associations between faith and nationalism, but they shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize the past — or to suggest that they're returning us to an era of absolute church-state separation that never existed.
If they do intend to shape a new, unprecedented sense of American identity stripped of its religious and specifically Christian trappings, they must also get to work in composing a fresh array of dramatically different patriotic songs.
Do i feel bad because i dont have any patriotic songs i can sing?
Ri-ight.
Is he serious?
Oh Woe is me.
Really kind of silly if you need to songs to sing to have pride in being American.
When the bell rings you will remember what you were taught to say boys and girls.
Kind of like swearing allegiance to a peice of cloth and forgetting the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are the true support of this country and have prevented the kind of control in this country religion has had in others.
do people really NEED songs to keep faith even when it gets bad?
Dont get me wrong Star Spangled Banner gets me every time but it doesn't reinforce that I am an American.
QUOTE
Many Americans might feel uncomfortable with our long history of entangling our sense of national identity with claims of divine mission, our consistent and nearly universal assumption that the Almighty had selected this nation for His purposes.
I thought Vanity/Pride was one of the BIG Sins? explains an awful lot
QUOTE(christopher @ Jul 25 2006, 10:05 PM)
QUOTE
These separationists, however, face a painful practical problem when it comes to expressing their purported patriotism: What songs can they sing on national holidays or at public celebrations? All the traditional hymns of praise to the United States inconveniently and conspicuously mention God and his special blessings for America.
<snip>
Many Americans might feel uncomfortable with our long history of entangling our sense of national identity with claims of divine mission, our consistent and nearly universal assumption that the Almighty had selected this nation for His purposes.
Defenders of secularism might argue that we will enjoy a brighter, better future by severing the associations between faith and nationalism, but they shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize the past — or to suggest that they're returning us to an era of absolute church-state separation that never existed.
If they do intend to shape a new, unprecedented sense of American identity stripped of its religious and specifically Christian trappings, they must also get to work in composing a fresh array of dramatically different patriotic songs.
<snip>
Many Americans might feel uncomfortable with our long history of entangling our sense of national identity with claims of divine mission, our consistent and nearly universal assumption that the Almighty had selected this nation for His purposes.
Defenders of secularism might argue that we will enjoy a brighter, better future by severing the associations between faith and nationalism, but they shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize the past — or to suggest that they're returning us to an era of absolute church-state separation that never existed.
If they do intend to shape a new, unprecedented sense of American identity stripped of its religious and specifically Christian trappings, they must also get to work in composing a fresh array of dramatically different patriotic songs.
Do i feel bad because i dont have any patriotic songs i can sing?
Ri-ight.
Is he serious?
Oh Woe is me.
Really kind of silly if you need to songs to sing to have pride in being American.
When the bell rings you will remember what you were taught to say boys and girls.
I think Michael Medved is factually wrong.
I consider Woodie Guthrie's This Land a patriotic song. It extolls the geographic beauty of the U. S. without one mention of god.
http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/this-land.shtml
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 24 2006, 05:37 PM)
The Democratic party . . . isn't religious neutral. It is hostile, I wouldn't say it if it wasn't so.
I have to question this. It is difficult for me to imagine that an organization in which the vast majority of its members are self-professed Christians can be "hostile" to religion.
Link
QUOTE
Adults identifying with a specific faith group are almost evenly split among Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
The obvious question to ask is why do so many people think that the GOP is more religion-friendly than the Democratic Party. One reason may be that the Democrats are a little more tolerant of the Godless than the Republicans.
QUOTE
But those who do not identify with a religion are 43% Independent, 39% Democrat, and 17% Republican.
Given these numbers, I fail to see how you can say that the Democratic Party is hostile to religion. It would be much more accurate to say that the GOP is hostile to the Godless. (Even this is an unfair stereotype, as there are certainly conservative atheists, such as the followers of Ayn Rand, who are members of the Republican Party.)
Look; I am as much of a materialist as it is possible to be, and even I am not hostile to religion. I am a passionate defender of the religious liberty of the individual, because I know that the Godless are the most hated religious minority group in the United States.
Link
QUOTE
Researchers concluded: "Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."
Disturbingly, Atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," despite being only 3% of the U.S. population.
Disturbingly, Atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," despite being only 3% of the U.S. population.
It just doesn't seem logical to me that one of the two major political parties in the United States can be accused of being hostile to 97% of the population.
What many Democrats and Republicans are quite rightly hostile to are the political opinions of that peculiar phenomenon known as the Religious Right, which is in no way representative of the mainstream of American Christianity. (It is difficult for me to even think of it as a religious movement at all, since it seems to be entirely concerned with political questions.)
1) Do you think this is a workable strategy for the Dems in 06 and 08?
Sure. It is only common sense.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between separation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
Sure. The grotesque error of the Religious Right is the abandonment of the separation of church and state. The absolute separation of church and state is good for the Faithful as well as for the Godless. This simple fact needs to be made clear by the Democratic Party. There is nothing new about this.
Link
QUOTE
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
John F. Kennedy, Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960.
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
Sure. What I would oppose (although it is only a hypothetical threat) would be the rise of some kind of imagined Religious Left that would impose its religious will on the secular political system in the same way that the very real Religious Right has attempted to do.
1) Do you think this is a workable strategy for the Dems in 06 and 08?
Not in '06, too soon. Perhaps in '08, but only if the leadership of the Democrats disassociate themselves from the hostile anti-religionists.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between seperation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
Not if the definition of the separation is the one currently utilized by much of the Left. That extremist definition disallows any religious motivation in politics.
Here's an example of it:
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
Of course its possible, but the problem for the Dems is that if they start claiming religious motivations, then what are the voters going to make of the next Dem who attacks the religious motivations of abortion opponents under the claim "separation of church and state" or "you can't legislate morality"? The other problem is that, unfortunately for them, the Dems and the Left will be advocating government responses to issues that they have framed in faith terms, and unlike most of the Right's positions, which are prohibitory, the Left will be seeking to compel someone to take action based on the Left's moral vision.
to whit...
"I believe that God has charged us with caring for our fellow man, give that nice tax collector more money so the government can do what God tells me it should do."
Not in '06, too soon. Perhaps in '08, but only if the leadership of the Democrats disassociate themselves from the hostile anti-religionists.
2) Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between seperation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
Not if the definition of the separation is the one currently utilized by much of the Left. That extremist definition disallows any religious motivation in politics.
Here's an example of it:
QUOTE(Bof)
I don’t fully understand your question, but I believe in total separation of church and state.
QUOTE(christopher @ Jul 24 2006, 10:47 AM)
Why cannot faith be kept in the church or the home? seems it should be easy enough unless its one of the We Will legislate your morality offensives that require it to succeed.
I agree totally with Christopher
QUOTE(christopher @ Jul 24 2006, 10:47 AM)
Why cannot faith be kept in the church or the home? seems it should be easy enough unless its one of the We Will legislate your morality offensives that require it to succeed.
I agree totally with Christopher
3) Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage, will be possible?
Of course its possible, but the problem for the Dems is that if they start claiming religious motivations, then what are the voters going to make of the next Dem who attacks the religious motivations of abortion opponents under the claim "separation of church and state" or "you can't legislate morality"? The other problem is that, unfortunately for them, the Dems and the Left will be advocating government responses to issues that they have framed in faith terms, and unlike most of the Right's positions, which are prohibitory, the Left will be seeking to compel someone to take action based on the Left's moral vision.
to whit...
"I believe that God has charged us with caring for our fellow man, give that nice tax collector more money so the government can do what God tells me it should do."
Do you think this is a workable strategy for the Dems in 06 and 08?
No.
Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between separation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
No. More on that later.*
Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage will be possible?
It’s not just possible. It has worked and Republicans are trying their hand at it. The question is should we use Christianity for another round of anti-poverty, pro-fellow man blitzes. Would Bush’s faith-based initiatives be any more acceptable to working class Democrats if the program’s name and purpose weren’t so forthright and spearheaded by a Democratic president? I hope not. Frankly if you need religion as a launching pad for ideas your ideas are probably dead on arrival. Government policies should be framed around real, practical contexts, not mystical appeals that ring familiar with a church-going demographic.
*I hate these grab-your-bible nudges. They’re as appealing and improvised as grabbing your cojones on national television for attention. I don’t feel apologetic about my support for the separation of church and state, and recognizing the corrosive power of politics in religion and the tyrannical outcome of religion in politics. I may be out of mainstream Christianity, though. If I were fifteen years younger I myself may be among the Christians posting on Christian message boards brimming with giddiness about current events while at the same time clucking my tongue about the millions of souls unprepared for the rapture. Nowadays, in spite of assurances to the contrary from Christian communities, I find the enthusiasm with which Christians embrace the subject of the destruction of Israel extremely vapid and nowhere near based on the universal concept of freedom and human rights in the Middle East. Too much smug ready to prove the rest of the world wrong and not enough reflection. Don’t count your chickens...
Back to the subject of campaign plots, Dems are grasping at straws. Like the “GWoT”, I don’t think they quite understand the underlying factors encouraging fundamentalism across the globe, not just the Middle East. Until we step back and get a handle on it our strategy is as imprecise as buckshot.
No.
Do you think the Dems can walk the tight rope between separation of church and state while not running away from matters of faith?
No. More on that later.*
Do you think linking very well known matters of faith like helping your follow man, instead of abortion and gay marriage will be possible?
It’s not just possible. It has worked and Republicans are trying their hand at it. The question is should we use Christianity for another round of anti-poverty, pro-fellow man blitzes. Would Bush’s faith-based initiatives be any more acceptable to working class Democrats if the program’s name and purpose weren’t so forthright and spearheaded by a Democratic president? I hope not. Frankly if you need religion as a launching pad for ideas your ideas are probably dead on arrival. Government policies should be framed around real, practical contexts, not mystical appeals that ring familiar with a church-going demographic.
*I hate these grab-your-bible nudges. They’re as appealing and improvised as grabbing your cojones on national television for attention. I don’t feel apologetic about my support for the separation of church and state, and recognizing the corrosive power of politics in religion and the tyrannical outcome of religion in politics. I may be out of mainstream Christianity, though. If I were fifteen years younger I myself may be among the Christians posting on Christian message boards brimming with giddiness about current events while at the same time clucking my tongue about the millions of souls unprepared for the rapture. Nowadays, in spite of assurances to the contrary from Christian communities, I find the enthusiasm with which Christians embrace the subject of the destruction of Israel extremely vapid and nowhere near based on the universal concept of freedom and human rights in the Middle East. Too much smug ready to prove the rest of the world wrong and not enough reflection. Don’t count your chickens...
Back to the subject of campaign plots, Dems are grasping at straws. Like the “GWoT”, I don’t think they quite understand the underlying factors encouraging fundamentalism across the globe, not just the Middle East. Until we step back and get a handle on it our strategy is as imprecise as buckshot.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.