Page 1 of 1 pages
Simon Rosenberg, the founder of Joe Lieberman’s New Democratic Network - more eastern liberals…losers.
Harold Ickes, a leader of America Coming Together and the Media Fund, which created many of the opposition ads in this election (a longtime Clinton operative and chair of Hillary Clinton’s PAC, his candidacy raises the question of whether Hillary is positioning herself for a 2008 run)- Hillary’s candidacy?..loser..move on.
Wellington Webb - Wellington? loser…move on.
Al Gore’s campaign manager Donna Brazille - ever listen to HER on the talk shows…loser..next
Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, a moderate on gun laws and a Midwestern populist - right part of the country and knows MidWest values…hmmmm
Howard Dean - needs to do more commercials to keep him busy.
Just my two cents…fire away!
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 18, 2004 at 10:18 AM
I think this tactic of trying to co-opt the Reactionary Right’s pious facade is an excellent way to prove to most people that Democrats will say and do anything - convictions be damned - to get a vote. If that is their intention then, by all means, let the religious pandering commence. They will certainly lose my no-party-affiliation vote.
If the Democrats won’t proudly and righteously champion the most fundamental of our American Values (pssst, it’s called “secular government”), who will? When secularism becomes a dirty word in this country, when fundamental American Values become propangandistic and hypocritical myths, it’s time for me to rethink my faith in America.
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ~James Madison, 1788
Posted by Constitution Is My Bible on Nov 18, 2004 at 10:36 AM
CIMB-nice quote! OK maybe the problem is the democratic party had the Congress for 40 years and are used to being the party in power. The key word being power. Maybe some of this massive power which is a two edged sword needs to be at its core de-centralized. I alway think of one of my favorite part of the Constitution is about those powers and how those not given to the states are given to the people. That to me beautiful. I think that maybe there needs to be some thought about the genesis of these powers. i believe that FDR’s tenure was a turning point that led us today’s problem. We now have a government (federal) that controls seat belt laws,minimum wage( I am not saying it’s bad calm down) speed limits and drunk driving laws to the size of toilet bowls. I believe that the federal government has , in a lot of ways overstepped it’s bounds . This centralization of government leads us to a system as you saw in this last election where half the people are happy and half are miserable. I am not saying all regulations are bad. People and companies should not pour chemical waste into rivers. People should not have functioning bazookas and nobody but nobody should have their own personal nuclear reactor in their backyard. There needs to be some balance-some equilibrium if you will of powers .How go we achieve it????
Posted by redstate on Nov 18, 2004 at 12:42 PM
I’m not sure if your entire post was addressed to me or just the quote remark. At any rate, my reply is that the topic is “Losing Their Religion: Some Democrats believe the party should turn away from its secular history” and I’m not sure how your comments are applicable to the topic - or maybe you just wanted to share your opinion regardless of the topic?
The Republicans have occupied the Presidency or controlled the Congress for at least 28 of the last 42 years, leaving just 14 years (at best) in which the Democrats could *possibly* have had control of both the Presidency and Congress. I leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to provide the missing facts (Who held the balance of power in Congress during the years 1962-1968, 1976-1980 and 1988-1992?).
To say that Democrats have had control (the party in power, in your words) for the last 40 years contradicts the historical record. The number can be no more than 14 years and is quite possibly less than that. To say that “the problem” is that Democrats had control (which they clearly did not have) is to make a fallacious argument.
Posted by Constitution Is My Bible on Nov 18, 2004 at 2:05 PM
I was making rambling comments more or less on the topic and a reply/inquiry of Constitiution is my Bible. I was under the impression that when the repubs got the congress back in ‘94 it was considered a “revolution” of sorts because the dems had been a majority for forty yrs. I to look to someone more knowledgeable than me for facts. I was also under the impression that regarding the topic that the repubs were for blurring the line of church/state separation and the dems were for making that line clearer.
Posted by redstate on Nov 18, 2004 at 3:23 PM
If you have the the ‘impression’ that the republicans were for blurring the line of church/state separation, a direct quote from the Texas GOP plaform might explain why you have that impression:
“Our party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and dispel the myth of separation of church and state.”
Seems we’ve all been laboring under a misapprehension of what the First Amendment is all about. Seems it’s alllllll just a myth according to our betters down in Tejas.
Posted by Constitution Is My Bible on Nov 18, 2004 at 3:52 PM
Perhaps it was Thomas Jefferson who stated that a wall should be built between government and religion. This country after this last election of 04 is headed directly to the sewer. Perhaps it was Aristotile who stated that the masses are dumb, this so applicable for those who voted for bush. Dark times are ahead because there is no republic anymore only a plutocracy. The rich own it all, the government,the media, and the so called economy. What a dissapointment we’ve all become, need to straighten up America.
Posted by Larry Henry on Nov 18, 2004 at 5:05 PM
Thomas Jefferson was also a very devout man. he wrote the famous Jefferson Bible . Sorry you are so pessemistic about this country’s future. Just as not all secular people are bad , religious people are not all raging bible thumpers condemning all who do not heed to fire&brimstone;.The rich have always run everything in higher government for the last 150 years or so.When was the last time we had a “regular working stiff” as pres or congressman. Don’t fret life and politics is quite often like water and balances out and find it’s level after some sloshing around.
Posted by redstate on Nov 18, 2004 at 7:15 PM
Give up the secular perspective? Pander to sectarian gangs who want to dictate the conscience of every American? That’s really putting your head into the lion’s mouth! These people are empowered enough now that GWB has been re-elected, if the Dems also start sucking up to the lovers of theocracy you’ll see a culture war the likes of which makes the current tensions in America seem pallid. There’s already an anti-gay, anti-evolution, overly controlling ethic that is SO BLOODY EVIDENT among the religious politicos in the US, I shudder to imagine what will transpire if those people gain any more influence than they already have. If they want to worship, great, I do also according to my own spiritual understandings. But to give any more political credence to people with a coercive, potentially totalitarian agenda..? It’s madness; short-sighted, unAmerican, anti-freedom foolishness. On my knees I pray that the DNC doesn’t get any closer to the forces of aggressive religion than they already are, and I’m not even a Democrat! Gzus, you’d think the threat of having a guy like Pat Robertson in the Senate would be an obvious enough worry!
Posted by Kuya on Nov 18, 2004 at 10:45 PM
I think that the what you are seeing now is a backlash by the hard religious right. What happened is that secularism got pushed a little too far in the public forum. I mean for crying out loud they took Christmas out of the schools and that pissed people off. In their zeal to negate any form of religious influence the left went too far in the eyes of America. The ACLU went crazy suing local governments over ANY whiff if religion. I am not saying that the ACLU is all wrong but they were overzealous. I ask what harm really is done by haveing the ten commandments in a courthouse?? By having a nativity scene in the town square. No body is putting a gun to anybody’s head and making them kneel. This is where I think the left makes it’s fatal mistake everytime- they preach tolerance but to certain factions they display and overwhelming front of intolerance. The way I see it from where I sit is that the Constitutuion guarantees freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion
Posted by redstate on Nov 19, 2004 at 5:55 AM
Kuya with no disrespect inteneded Pat Robertson is not in the Senate (to he does weild some power there) he is head of the 700 Club ministry on tv.
Posted by redstate on Nov 19, 2004 at 6:01 AM
Reds, It is true that Jefferson was a devout man. He was devoutly committed to principles of secularism, pluralism, liberty and republicanism (the governmental structure, not the party).
He was not, however, a devout Christian (I think this is what you were trying to infer. If I’m wrong, disregard my reply). He was a deist and had some very unflattering, atagonistic things to say about the Christrian religion.
Posted by Constitution Is My Bible on Nov 19, 2004 at 9:34 AM
redstate - the problem with having the 10 commandments in a courthouse is it is government sanctioning of a specific religion, effectively saying, this government is Christian. That is WRONG and against what the founding fathers, *NONE* of whom was Christian, were trying to accomplish.
Posted by bluestateIwish on Nov 19, 2004 at 10:06 AM
I think the Democrats need to get back to what worked to make them powerful in the first place. When they championed for the every man and woman. When they championed civil rights and liberties for all. When they didn’t go out of their way to exclude anyone because of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religious/national origin. When they understood what it meant to be a Democrat.
Howard Dean awakened that core with his run for the White House. He probably was the only one who could have beat G. W. fair and square because he was a “Washington Outsider”. There was no dirt to pin on him, and no congressional voting record to throw in his face. They couldn’t define him, either, and I’m willing to bet the GOP orchestrated his downfall just to get Kerry in as the nominee. Kerry was someone they knew, they had his voting record (face it, his vote on Iraq killed him and gave him the “flip-flop” title)plus he had the DLC all over his campaign. What earthly good has the DLC done since Bill Clinton? Nothing, except proceed to lose Congress, the Senate, and now the White House. So much for being “centrist”. And I understand that there is a cadre of Senators trying the same ol thing, with a new name. Pathetic.
If you continue to do the same ol’ thing, expect the same ol’ results. If these democrats really want to be Republican, they should just get the hell out of the party. Once the Democrats (true Democrats) regain power, they will want to come back home, and we should tell them they made their bed, now lie in it. If they lay down with dogs, they get up with fleas. Just my two cents.
Posted by Leutisha Stills on Nov 19, 2004 at 3:18 PM
What secular history?
FDR was inspired by the social gospel.
JFK was a progressive Catholic.
LBJ - ??
Carter - born again
Clinton - Southern Baptist
The Democrats who’ve been able to get elected nationally have not been secular. It’s moving away from a progressive religious history that has soured many working class people on the Democrats.
Posted by Rick (Centrist Coalition) on Nov 19, 2004 at 3:58 PM
Personally, I think the only way to dissuade the HONEST but MISLED right-wing Christian voters from their blind support of the GOP agenda is to point out the progressive and humanist side of the Gospels, and to do this with the same level of missionary zeal as they are hearing from the theocrats and plutocrats who lead their churches.
Although we as progressives are committed to keeping government from INTERFERING in the choices that individuals make in their lives, choices that conservatives consider to be self-destructive in some cases, we need to clarify that MOST of us are NOT personally in favor of the behavior that offends conservatives; we are simply opposed to legislating its control except where there is a clear, objectively provable threat, of a secular nature, to the public.
Somehow, the right gets away with making this distinction with regard to much more dangerous behavior. The NRA pushes its pro-gun agenda, equivalent to abolishing all license and tag requirements for drivers and automobiles, without being tainted with connections to the mass murders and psycho snipers (one of whom just devastated our collective soul here in the Tampa Bay area). Laissez-faire economists get away with preaching that fiscal oppression of the poor by the rich should not be regulated, while still implying that the oppressors, at least the “Christian” ones, are sorry they are “forced” to oppress their victims. They also manage not to appear in FAVOR of dirty air while arguing AGAINST laws to STOP dirtying the air, at least to non-liberal voters.
As other posters have pointed out, most of our politicians of both parties have been more or less conventionally religious in public, and have kept any iconoclastic ideas to themselves in order to be elected. However, some of them have left posterity some wise observations on the connection between true religion and the rights of individuals to live their own lives. Our greatest presidents, for example, as agreed upon by the largest number, have been:
George Washington, public Episcopalian and private deist, who enphasized his secular duty to his country, determined to be remembered as a “good person” and “good leader” more than a partisan of a religious denomination;
Thomas Jefferson, public Unitarian and deist, whose epitaph lists him, at his own request, as President of the University of Virginia and author of that state’s religious liberty law, who coined the phrase “wall of separation” to describe his opinion of the purpose of the First Amendment, who achieved peace with the Barbary States by assuring them we were not a “Christian nation” in the sense that European powers were (and hence not anti-Muslim), who clipped out the ethical, rationalist and humanist quotes from the Bible and pasted them together to form the Jefferson Bible, and who prayed that every young man born in the country would grow up to be a Unitarian;
Abraham Lincoln, member of no specific church but devout believer in Christian ETHICS, for which he is best known and for which, in the cause of the abolition of slavery, he gave his life;
Franklin Roosevelt, Episcopalian who cited the social justice teachings of the Hebrew prophets and of Jesus to alleviate the sufferings of the Depression and lay the groundwork for a more humane economy;
Harry Truman, Baptist who carried on Roosevelt’s work and enlarged on his committment to racial equality, while conducting himself as a middle class citizen rather than as privileged VIP, and agonized over the decision to use the bomb;
John Kennedy, the first Catholic in the White House, who calmed the fears of Protestant voters that he would be an “agent” of the Vatican, and as long as he was able, stood for racial and economic justice, but never for any specifically Catholic policy;
and more recently Jimmy Carter, born-again Southern Baptist, whose stands on public policy are the exact opposite of what is commonly associated with “fundamentalist” Christian denominations such as his own, but who is still respected by them because they recognize his opinions come from his Biblical faith.
These men, and others less well known, have been able to work WITH people of different theologies because they focus on what religions do the SAME to benefit people, rather than where they differ on beliefs.
Therefore, what the Democrats need, and what America needs, is a Jimmy Carter / John Kennedy / Abraham Lincoln / Thomas Jefferson statesman or stateswoman. This person must be free of any history of hypocrisy or corrupt dealing, friendly to Christian and non-Christian voters alike, but (for the next election anyway) known AHEAD OF TIME as a devout Christian with progressive social views.
We also need, as progressive voters, to make a tacit agreement among ourselves NOT to squabble about, or raise in public, those issues considered by moderately conservative voters to be too “extreme.” Conservatives practice this self-restraint, which is one reason they have gotten enough moderate voters to win recent elections. The NRA extremists, for example, keep their most extreme ideas in their inner circle, not on the TV news; in public they talk about “sportsmen” and not about “armor piercing ammo,” as their constituency.
And as painful as it may be, some of us may have to leave our comfortable Unitarian, Congregationalist, Quaker and New Thought (Unity and Christian Science, for example) churches, or at least take a few Sundays off, and join the Sunday School classes at an Assembly of God, Southern Baptist, Missouri Synod Lutheran or Mormon church, to expose their parishioners to the hypocrisy of right wing “christianity” OUTSIDE the context of an election campaign. These people should be confident and persuasive, and should avoid mentioning partisan politics, focusing on moral and spiritual issues.
Posted by James Allan Richardson on Nov 20, 2004 at 6:12 PM
Best thing is to keep the government religiously neutral, majorities follow their own lights and minorities do the same. Shaping the law according to a particular sectarian bias is a recipe for oppression, as is the case now in a dismayingly large proportion of the states.
Yes, redstate, no role confusion in hand refs Pat Robertson, I’ve seen the guy on the tube since I was a kid, along with Oral Robers, Jim Bakker, Joel Crouch, Gene Scott. The thought of people like P.R. (even if not he himself) gaining high office via evangelically motivated voters sends a cold chill up my spine. There’s a hostility that faction has in hand, a readiness to use force, that so often emerges when a majority sect sways the law. It’s impossible for people to live by their own lights, impossible to pursue one’s own bliss without interference.
Posted by Kuya on Nov 21, 2004 at 6:55 AM
Why must we continually frame the debate as secular vs. religion. By doing so we are driving a wedge between religious progressives and secular progressives. If we do, the Democratic Party will remain in the hands of those who currently suggest the Party needs to move farther to the “center” in order to win elections.
I know much of the concern about the religious issue is due to the regressive and immoral influence the religious right is currently having on public policy. But we don’t need to overreact. As a secular progressives, I am suggesting a Democratic Party coalition that openly includes religious progressive, but am not advocating a party based on religion or a theocracy. Religious progressives have a lot to say about morality and social justice—and their views are not very different from secular views of morality and social justice. Moreover, religious progressives have done a great job of formulating and articulating what social justice means and what policies advance this morality. Yes there are religious people who are moral and some who are not—just as we find among secularists. We need to form a progressive coalition that includes the religious groups sharing our morality.
Yes, religion does often act as blinders on a person’s view of the world, but let’s be honest, so does science often restrict the vision of secularists. We continually have to remind scientists that there is something out there called morality, and it must be consulted before we do things simply because we have learned how to. Secular science gave us the knowledge to build the Bomb, but not the good sense to not make it and use it. Also, let’s not forget the important role of Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney in starting the unjust (i.e., immoral) invasion of Iraq using a secularist view of the world.
I am intentionally drawing attention to morality over religiosity, so let’s take a quick look at this morality we can rally around. This is important because our battle lines need to be drawn between moral and immoral action, not between secular vs. religious views of the world. Secular and religious progressives direct their actions toward achieving a just and viable balance between individual interests and the common good which is founded on morality.
Let’s briefly consider religious notions of morality. On numerous occasions, Abraham J. Heschel expressed his conviction that a key value in Judaism is justice. I have not yet met a secularist progressive who would disagree with such a view. Christians believe Jesus also confirmed that social justice is a central theme in God’s Law.
Because the religious issue was triggered by the role of the religious right in politics, let’s take a closer look at Christianity. According to the Bible, in conversation with a teacher of the Law, Jesus was asked which of God’s commandments he thought most important. Of course, Jesus said first of all to love God, then he reportedly added: “The second most important commandment is this: ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ There is no other commandment more important than these two.” (Mark 12:28-31.) Love your neighbor is the basis for the notion in our common morality directing us to treat others as we would have them treat us (“The Golden Rule”).
Secular philosophers and historians generally agree with theists on what morality is and its importance for a viable society. But they usually disagree on the source of our morality. Religious people believe our sense of morality was implanted by God. Secularists, or nontheists, would tend to view it as evolutionary ethics or morality which came from our need to live in communities—communities which are viable only because human behavior became increasingly moral. Nontheists generally hold that our evolving morality was ultimately written into biblical stories for practical reasons. The important point here is that secular and religious morality are very similar in content and lead to common social goals. Indeed, secular and religious progressives tend to support the same domestic governmental policies most of the time. We primarily differ on what we consider to be the source of morality. If we all act according to the “Golden Rule,” and become decent people, we should be able to set aside the question of why we are decent when formulating public policy positions.
I for one, find it encouraging to hear religious progressives clearly expressing tolerance for other religious views and even for secularists. However, I find it disheartening to hear some of my fellow secularists sounding much less tolerant.
Let’s not throw out our moral allies because they have a different notion about the source of our common morality. Some people (actually most people) need religion to understand why they should be moral, others do not. We need to learn to live with that reality. Attempts to build a purely secular party and government and superimpose it over a largely religious society is truly absurd.
Religion is like a lot of other ideas. If kept in perspective and not abused, it is a good thing for human society—much like individual freedom, which allows us to develop our human potential but has to be actively and continually restrained by laws. What will keep religious people from going too far and becoming self-righteous and exclusive? The same morality that is needed to keep secular people from becoming the same way.
A progressove Democratic coalition will have an advantage over the conservative coalition of secular and religious groups because we share and seek to implement a common morality—they do not. The Conservative coalition does not share the desire to set selfishness aside and pursue a balance between individual needs and the common good. We have the moral high ground which forms a solid foundation supporting all parts of our coalition. We need only to make our moral convictions clear and explicit, and not be afraid to use religious language when speaking to religious people, and secular language when speaking to nontheists. Aside from language, the moral bases of our message can be articulated in a strong and consistent manner, resulting in well-founded policies. We should drive our wedge between the moral and the selfish—not between religious and secular progressives.
Roger H. Harrell
Posted by Roger H. Harrell on Nov 22, 2004 at 9:30 AM
The confusion of the DLC in how to counter the Republicans holy aura is a sign that the in house elite needs to be tossed out. If they really knew the Democratic Party’s modern history they could of voiced that All were included in the Party as long as they believed that religion was an individuals choice of his or her own life map and the government is Supposed to be secular. As of yet there is no Church of America it was the imposition of officially sanctioned religions that the collection of bootleggers,slaveowners,idealists,and the great Thomas Paine railed against and sought to prevent.
Posted by Monroe Carter on Nov 22, 2004 at 12:38 PM
I’m reminded of a pastor of my former acquaintance, Victor by name, whose entire aspect embodied an attitude of Christian love for all people. Unfortunately, Victor was fired out of his pastor role by the neighborhood church’s board of directors. Why? Because he refused to denounce the “gay lifestyle” from the pulpit, would not preoccupy the congregation with puritanical lessons, and openly encouraged volunteer work among church members at a local hospice that had a large proportion of HIV-positive patients. The guy was an incredible teacher, one of the best I’ve ever known of and I’ve heard more sermons than I care to list, and they evicted him because his messages weren’t disdainful, weren’t hateful enough. “They will know we are Christian by our love,” a great hymn lyric, wonderful when it actually appears in life as with Victor. As for “religious values” informing politics, if it’s personal discipline in behavior, lovingkindness, mutual support, a humble impulse toward worship of the source of all things, and a determination to treat others as they wish to be treated, I’m there. Personal morality is admirable in the extreme, but none of it requires a legal basis, i.e. these are matters of individual decision about how to live one’s life. How to promote religiously oriented right behavior by way of a party platform while preventing culture-war rhetoric and policy decisions based on majority-sect precepts? That’s a tough one. Forgive the skepticism, but it seems that a truly progressive approach to religion is already “live and let live” in nature, regardless of sect. Being religiously neutral doesn’t mean kicking out all the churchgoers, it only means disallowing them from pushing Judeo-Christian-Islamic (or any other religion’s) cultural or behavioral values onto others by way of party platform or especially by law. Law tends to be coercive, it restricts action with the support of cops and courts, sometimes to beneficial effect but it’s restrictive even so. Progressive religious citizens active in the party, si! Law rooted in dogma, no!
Posted by Kuya on Nov 22, 2004 at 9:52 PM
The DNC doesn’t get it, Hillary Clinton doesn’t get it and as well as Air America. The ban on gay marriage passed in 11 states by a minimum of 70%!! That’s not just Republican, nor was it just Midwestern states, nor was it just “bible” thumping’ conservative fanatics. And, the presidential vote was closer to the 52/48 national average in those states which tells me (and maybe the DNC) that morals DO matter. I know statistically most who voted in those states; don’t go to church regularly if at all. But, people overwhelmingly want absolutes in their lives to feel safer or more secure. If the DNC/DLC interprets the election as a violation of church/state, they will lose again and lose even more in congress in future elections. This IS about morals; it is about people believing there are boundaries to life, as well as the society in which they live and they will continue to vote in that manner. In the mind of many; Liberalism/Progressivism would rather society be lead into destruction “for the sake of the cause” than work with others. Calling those who would vote in this manner “close minded”, “ignorant”, “bible/Christian fanatics”, etc., REALLY makes them want to vote for a DNC Candidate.
Posted by Eric on Nov 23, 2004 at 5:58 AM
Forget pursuing the Religious Right agenda and posturing. Get back to the roots the Democratic Party already has. Union organizing, women’s rights, child labor laws, etc were all promoted within mainline Protestant churches in the 1870’s - 1930’s. During that time as the Roman Catholic community grew numerous Roman Catholic churches became organizing centers for progressive values. This is part of the Democratic party history that seems to have been forgotten. Tragically, the Viet Nam War caused progressives to sever their relations with progressive religionists, unlike the parent’s and grandparent’s generation. The progressive values were such that they gladly joined hands with secular progressives as well. Then, as the Reagan era began the Institute for Religion and Democracy sought to alter and/or silence the progressive voice within the progressive churches. Progressive religious leaders have been left alone twisting slowly in the wind as the cultural right pressured their denominations and congregations into silence over their heritage of promoting those values. Progressive churches have prior to the last 40 years a prime source for growing and promoting progressive values in the society at large. Sadly, the Democratic party and other progressives no longer have such a source the help them build their base.
Forget the Religious Right. Get back to the progressive Religious Left which worked with the secular left for decades.
Organized religion is politics. Always was and is still so.
Posted by Tim on Nov 23, 2004 at 8:02 AM
Can’t you guys see that republicans are using religion as a subterfuge to get votes. Does anyone really think that “real” republicans give a damn about religion? (It’s a rhetorical question).
The bottom line is that real republicans have only one value - corporate profits. Republicans place the interest of corporate profits over all other interests. The corporate corruption of government (read: complete takover), assures that the interest of corporate profits will continue to be the main policy of the government and will priority of all other interests for the foreseeable future.
Conversely, democrats place the interest of public health, safety and welfare above the interest of corporate profits. However, also unlike the republicans, democrats understand that economic prosperity is an essential element of public health safety and welfare. Democrats also understand that these interests must be balanced because they are all important and interdependant on one another.
For the republcians, there is no balancing. Corporate profits take priority over all other interests every time, public health, safety and welfare (ie: medical affordability and safety, product safety, environmental conservation, etc.), be damned. Religion takes no place in republican policymaking, it is merely a vote getting tactic for the stupid.
Posted by Lefty on Nov 23, 2004 at 8:53 AM
Seventy percent of Mr. Kerry’s supporters said they were more worried about candidates who are too close to religion and religious leaders than about political leaders who don’t pay enough attention to religion, after a campaign in which Mr. Bush repeatedly spoke of God and his faith. Fifty-two percent of Mr. Bush’s supporters said they were more worried about public officials who don’t pay enough attention to religion and religious leaders.
Religion is not what this government needs!
Posted by gdpawel on Nov 23, 2004 at 4:37 PM
I think that secularists far outnumber religionists. Democrats have no political need, nor would it be honest, or good for America, for Democrats to now start courting religionists. Politically, Democrats do need to motivate and mobilize secularists to prevent an evangelical takover of our Government.
Make no mistake that republicans have no interest in religion or morality per se, they use religion as a subterfuge to promote corporate fascism.
Posted by Lefty on Nov 23, 2004 at 6:15 PM
I think that god deserves to be in our hearts and thoughts and on our money.
Posted by brain on Nov 24, 2004 at 7:32 AM
Why can’t the Democrats be both progressive and inclusive of those with liberal, yet Christian values and beliefs? From the last election, you would think that GOP stands for “God’s Own Party”.
As the Soujourner’s campaign ad correctly stated, “GOD IS NOT A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN” and the Republicans need to stop acting as if their God’s own. Likewise, the Democrats need to quit envying the Republicans, define their own message, include and increase dialogue between secular and religious, and in so doing, find common ground that cann be clearly communicated and clearly identifies them as a viable alternative.
We saw Kerry’s desperation when he failed to counter the attacks on his military record, his vote on the Iraq war, and his failure to fully define what he would do if he got the White House, instead of the tired cliches of “Help is on the Way.” An astute poster on this board summed up by saying, “If voters have a choice between Republican and Republican Lite, they will go with Republican.”
Additionally, I went for Dean precisely because he clearly defined what the Democrats needed to get back to: their core values and their base. Also, I knew that if any of the other Democratic candidates, save for Kucinich, Moseley-Braun and Sharpton, won the nomination, the first thing the Bush camp would attack them on is their vote for the Iraq war. If Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, Sharpton or Dean had won the Democratic nomination, Bush would have been toast, because any of those I mentioned would have handed him his lunch on the Iraq War and WMDs alone. I told everyone that if Dean didn’t win the nomination, any candidate who voted for the war and for WMDs would have a hard time explaining themselves in the election. And face it, John Kerry’s albatross was his Senate vote to authorize war “I voted for it before I voted against it?” Please.
I don’t buy any Congressperson’s excuse who voted for the war when they are now crying, “I was fooled; I didn’t know all the facts…” Hell, that’s why you are voted to Congress, isn’t it? To actually read that proposed legislation that comes across your desk before voting on it? That the title “Representative” means that you are actually the voices of the masses you represent on the floor of the House?”
I can’t wait until next year’s Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Conference, cause all of them will be hearing that question from me!
Sorry for the rant.
Posted by Leutisha Stills on Nov 24, 2004 at 9:44 AM
If the cause of progress in this country has to embrace those close minded ignorant and insecure in their personal and worldview in order to win an election then it has become a party of stagnation and should fade away. Morals or the more American group consensus generally impedes the equal progress of all. Every society has a general feeling on how their society will place brakes on behavior that will jeopardize the peace. For some its orally transmitted,for others its been written down,and for too many in this country its a combination of both delivered by Personalities who incorporate that societys’ core beliefs into stepping stones to wealth and power. That is what irks me- many will cut their own throats in order to be with the “Right” you know like hmmm the American Pharisees
Posted by Monroe Carter on Nov 24, 2004 at 8:21 PM
While technically I could not be considered a Christian, and explaining what I am would take entirely too long, so I won’t. The Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Dominionists, Reconstructionalists, Conservatives Christians, or whatever you want to call them, have hijacked the Christian Church and their intention is to hijack the nation and if you don’t believe this visit Patrick Henry College’s web site, among others. They are very upfront about their intentions. I am convinced that when true Christians take their church back, or take Christ’s church back, only then will the rest of us get our country back.
Posted by Judith Wolfe on Nov 26, 2004 at 12:37 AM
HELPING GOD
Christian Republicans are evidently dedicated to helping their god in any way possible. His mighty fight against Satan desperately needs the help of the Bush administration and all the Ashcroft fans. Thousands of evangelists plead with Christians to “help” their god. They can “help” defend against EVIL with money, for instance.
All the thousands of priests, reverends, parsons, ministers, etc. that make a living from talking about their god, claim that giving money to them will “help” their god. Baskets full of money are given to “help” Jesus.
Evidently the bible-thumpers that actually receive the money will hold it in a locked box for the moment that Jesus descends from someplace called Heaven and then they will give him all the accumulated cash for his next sojourn on earth. It must amount to a considerable quantity by now, even at 3% interest.
One wonders if the priestly money-holders will sell their houses, cars, airplanes, swimming pools and other properties they bought with Jesus’ money, converting all to cash, so Jesus can wear expensive suits and shoes like they do, and perhaps they will buy him a stretch limousine so he can ride in style. Having given Jesus all their cash, they will immediately convert to a life-style of poverty.
Evidently the Christian god, or 3-in-one entity, needs their help. Just listen to the evangelists begging for something they can convert to cash. They call it “seed.” and they plant it avidly until their bank accounts swell to bursting with the harvest. And, yet, they continue daily to beg, to plead, for more “help.”
Listen to their sermons, broadcasts, radio talks and you hear a constant demand for ‘seed”, for “help” from their fat mouths, from their pudgy frames, from their expensively clothed bodies, emanating from a thousand stations 24 hours a day. Can you say “venal?” I knew you could.
Yes, their god needs their help. According to their Sacred Book their God created everything by simply speaking it. He said, “Let there be light” and there was light. And he made a firmament, and divided waters, and made dry land. He made the sun and the moon and then, almost in an afterthought, casually, seemingly without effort, “He made the stars also.” That was quite an afterthought, to make all of the galaxies, planets, black-holes, stars, meteorites, moons, etc. There must be, as Carl Sagan eloquently said, “Billions and Billions,” of them.
Yet, this entity, or 3-in-one, needs the help of some fat-faced weasels who collect wads of money from gullible congregations and retired people, because this OMNIPOTENT MIGHTY GOD needs Benny Hinn, Ronny Parsley, Tom Brocolli, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other gesticulating. prancing. ranting. Hallelujah-shouting, bible-thumpers to “help” him. God wants his helpers to have limousines, airplanes, swimming pools, expensive clothing, the finest food, huge bank accounts, Ferraris, air-conditioned dog-houses, gold-plated bathroom faucets, and other amenities.
The 3-in-One God was originally a phallus and its appendages. It was an ancient and venerable symbol of maleness, befitting a Neolithic pastoral people just emerging from barbarism. Male domination was the standard, and women were thought of as leading males to perdition.
Christianity and Republicans still retain the old flavor of subduing women into second-class status. To help god is to help subdue women, with the slogan “Stop luring men into Hell.” Anything favoring women must be looked upon as “Devil’s Work.” It is to be resisted with might and main, lest Satan conquer their God when enough people catch a glimpse of tit. “Choice” is a synononym for bad judgement, as all a person has to do to be saved is to listen to Jerry, or Benny or Ronnie, or Pat and no other choice is left.
Yes, you can see how the preachers fight Satan, to help their God. Look at the wonderful way they helped God by telling the F.C.C. that Janet Jackson exposed about 3 square inches of mammary tissue, leading to Satan harvesting all the souls of everyone gazing on that horrible and shocking sight, from which they still haven’t recovered.
Poor fundamentalist victims were blind-sided by a tit, (even shielded by a metal medallion,) wounding all their moral sensitivity to the point of agony and placing their immortal souls in deadly peril of imminent destruction by fire. If this nation recovers from such a deep lapse of moral degradation, it will be a genuine MIRACLE. So poor John Ashcroft, George Bush, and all the True Believers in the White House will now have to get on their knees and beg their god to forgive this tremendous lapse of morality. In return, they must promise to use some of the Iraq Oil money to build a shrine to Jesus right in the Oval Office, and hang stone copies of the Ten Commandments in every public restroom and courthouse.
Then they can forget all the lies, deceit, deceptions, exaggerations, killing, maiming, destruction, impositions, bullying and other lapses committed in their enthusiasm to “help God.” And all will again be right in the world that is just as safe as being in Jesus’ arms.
You see what trouble, what distress, what panic, Janet’s nipple caused? Imagine if BOTH nipples had been exposed!
OH, MY GOD! The Apocalypse is upon us. Sell all your property now, and give the money to the evangelists. That’s the only way we can all be saved from an onslaught of mammary tissue!
Posted by peterfredson on Nov 28, 2004 at 11:34 AM
Fact: Although many voted for Bush believing him to be a religious man, the truth is he doesn’t actually go to church
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/152/story_15208_1.html
Neither did Reagan for that matter.
Kerry, Carter, and Clinton all did and do.
So who has true “religious” values?
Posted by Jose on Nov 28, 2004 at 3:46 PM
Basically, its far more than secular, or not. Democrats need to be “reborn again” without pandering or hypocrisy. Party needs new,fresh,ideas,and leadership combined with really savvy marketing pros to execute strategies. BUT…[here’s the BUT….], we have to create and understand what we stand for, where we want to go, and HOW to get there, and WHO will lead us. Hilary is a recipe for disaster, and we crave and require leadership devoid of cronyism and K Street hacks (who continue to operate), in spite of their failures. Until we clean house, and reinvent ourselves (with truth and vision), we will not be relevant.
Posted by mitzi morris on Nov 28, 2004 at 5:45 PM
Actually, I’m surprised that anyone (especially Howard Dean and his supporters) still thinks the Democratic Party is worth the trouble. Most of the pols who run as democrats actually vote as republicans. The senate democrats just tapped anti-choice, Scalia fan, Harry Reid to take over from Tom Daschle.
Better all around to invite ACTUAL democrats to help form a new party and stop diluting the constituency for change that has been getting duped for years by the DNC just as surely as the social conservatives have been getting duped by the RNC. Sue them over the rights to the name, the same way John Fogerty sued his former bandmates.
The blue dog democrats can call themselves….Quislings? Fifth Columnists? Invertabrates? Oh well, I’m sure they’ll come up with something catchy.
Kenneth Brown
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Dec 6, 2004 at 8:55 PM
The current leadership in the Democratic Party is dazzled by the Republican BS that gained them power. If they would only quit anal-lyzing it and Start the comeback. They are the ones who ran from being called Liberal, they keep trying to be F__-_king centrists not thinking that if your in the middle of the road your impeding traffic and could cause an accident. Well the accident was the kleptocrats got in again. But despite what the bastards want us to believe and “get over” it’s no mandate,no crushing landslide that would’ve pointed to all the cookies are theirs. Mr.Reid would not of been my choice I would’ve preferred somebody who can actually start a thunderstorm in the Senate. He’s a centrist,a member of a patriarchal conservative cult,and likes the word bipartisan too much. Alright so far he’s at least implied that he will not be the doormat for ” Herr Doktor Frist”. I’m hoping to see a Party that sees it has the elements in place to beat back those mutants at every level from local, state,and regional. To stop whining about the loss of the South hell those swine were an impediment to progress! But it can be recolonized by toughminded brawlers who won’t let the oily HolyRollOvers and New Dixicans continue their unfettered leeching ways.
Posted by Monroe Carter on Dec 8, 2004 at 9:59 AM
Exactly right Monroe,
I read something by John MacArtur last night called “Kerry stopped counting too soon” in which he says Kerry got what he deserved. Unfortunately those of us who voted for him got what we didn’t deserve, and I can’t help but wonder if democrats like Kerry, Gore, Leiberman, Reid and the DLC aren’t in on the deal, throwing the fight for money and a share of the spoils, and the ones being conned are those of us who waste our votes and our money on these guys. As brilliant as Clinton may have been, he passed more republican inspired legislation than his two republican predecessors did. What would we have gotten had Kerry come out on top. If his governance was as limp and cautious as his campaign was, he would have been worse than the junta we have now.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Dec 8, 2004 at 4:45 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Simon Rosenberg, the founder of Joe Lieberman’s New Democratic Network - more eastern liberals…losers.
Harold Ickes, a leader of America Coming Together and the Media Fund, which created many of the opposition ads in this election (a longtime Clinton operative and chair of Hillary Clinton’s PAC, his candidacy raises the question of whether Hillary is positioning herself for a 2008 run)- Hillary’s candidacy?..loser..move on.
Wellington Webb - Wellington? loser…move on.
Al Gore’s campaign manager Donna Brazille - ever listen to HER on the talk shows…loser..next
Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, a moderate on gun laws and a Midwestern populist - right part of the country and knows MidWest values…hmmmm
Howard Dean - needs to do more commercials to keep him busy.
Just my two cents…fire away!
I think this tactic of trying to co-opt the Reactionary Right’s pious facade is an excellent way to prove to most people that Democrats will say and do anything - convictions be damned - to get a vote. If that is their intention then, by all means, let the religious pandering commence. They will certainly lose my no-party-affiliation vote.
If the Democrats won’t proudly and righteously champion the most fundamental of our American Values (pssst, it’s called “secular government”), who will? When secularism becomes a dirty word in this country, when fundamental American Values become propangandistic and hypocritical myths, it’s time for me to rethink my faith in America.
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ~James Madison, 1788
CIMB-nice quote! OK maybe the problem is the democratic party had the Congress for 40 years and are used to being the party in power. The key word being power. Maybe some of this massive power which is a two edged sword needs to be at its core de-centralized. I alway think of one of my favorite part of the Constitution is about those powers and how those not given to the states are given to the people. That to me beautiful. I think that maybe there needs to be some thought about the genesis of these powers. i believe that FDR’s tenure was a turning point that led us today’s problem. We now have a government (federal) that controls seat belt laws,minimum wage( I am not saying it’s bad calm down) speed limits and drunk driving laws to the size of toilet bowls. I believe that the federal government has , in a lot of ways overstepped it’s bounds . This centralization of government leads us to a system as you saw in this last election where half the people are happy and half are miserable. I am not saying all regulations are bad. People and companies should not pour chemical waste into rivers. People should not have functioning bazookas and nobody but nobody should have their own personal nuclear reactor in their backyard. There needs to be some balance-some equilibrium if you will of powers .How go we achieve it????
I’m not sure if your entire post was addressed to me or just the quote remark. At any rate, my reply is that the topic is “Losing Their Religion: Some Democrats believe the party should turn away from its secular history” and I’m not sure how your comments are applicable to the topic - or maybe you just wanted to share your opinion regardless of the topic?
The Republicans have occupied the Presidency or controlled the Congress for at least 28 of the last 42 years, leaving just 14 years (at best) in which the Democrats could *possibly* have had control of both the Presidency and Congress. I leave it to someone more knowledgeable than I to provide the missing facts (Who held the balance of power in Congress during the years 1962-1968, 1976-1980 and 1988-1992?).
To say that Democrats have had control (the party in power, in your words) for the last 40 years contradicts the historical record. The number can be no more than 14 years and is quite possibly less than that. To say that “the problem” is that Democrats had control (which they clearly did not have) is to make a fallacious argument.
I was making rambling comments more or less on the topic and a reply/inquiry of Constitiution is my Bible. I was under the impression that when the repubs got the congress back in ‘94 it was considered a “revolution” of sorts because the dems had been a majority for forty yrs. I to look to someone more knowledgeable than me for facts. I was also under the impression that regarding the topic that the repubs were for blurring the line of church/state separation and the dems were for making that line clearer.
If you have the the ‘impression’ that the republicans were for blurring the line of church/state separation, a direct quote from the Texas GOP plaform might explain why you have that impression:
“Our party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and dispel the myth of separation of church and state.”
Seems we’ve all been laboring under a misapprehension of what the First Amendment is all about. Seems it’s alllllll just a myth according to our betters down in Tejas.
Perhaps it was Thomas Jefferson who stated that a wall should be built between government and religion. This country after this last election of 04 is headed directly to the sewer. Perhaps it was Aristotile who stated that the masses are dumb, this so applicable for those who voted for bush. Dark times are ahead because there is no republic anymore only a plutocracy. The rich own it all, the government,the media, and the so called economy. What a dissapointment we’ve all become, need to straighten up America.
Thomas Jefferson was also a very devout man. he wrote the famous Jefferson Bible . Sorry you are so pessemistic about this country’s future. Just as not all secular people are bad , religious people are not all raging bible thumpers condemning all who do not heed to fire&brimstone;.The rich have always run everything in higher government for the last 150 years or so.When was the last time we had a “regular working stiff” as pres or congressman. Don’t fret life and politics is quite often like water and balances out and find it’s level after some sloshing around.
Give up the secular perspective? Pander to sectarian gangs who want to dictate the conscience of every American? That’s really putting your head into the lion’s mouth! These people are empowered enough now that GWB has been re-elected, if the Dems also start sucking up to the lovers of theocracy you’ll see a culture war the likes of which makes the current tensions in America seem pallid. There’s already an anti-gay, anti-evolution, overly controlling ethic that is SO BLOODY EVIDENT among the religious politicos in the US, I shudder to imagine what will transpire if those people gain any more influence than they already have. If they want to worship, great, I do also according to my own spiritual understandings. But to give any more political credence to people with a coercive, potentially totalitarian agenda..? It’s madness; short-sighted, unAmerican, anti-freedom foolishness. On my knees I pray that the DNC doesn’t get any closer to the forces of aggressive religion than they already are, and I’m not even a Democrat! Gzus, you’d think the threat of having a guy like Pat Robertson in the Senate would be an obvious enough worry!
I think that the what you are seeing now is a backlash by the hard religious right. What happened is that secularism got pushed a little too far in the public forum. I mean for crying out loud they took Christmas out of the schools and that pissed people off. In their zeal to negate any form of religious influence the left went too far in the eyes of America. The ACLU went crazy suing local governments over ANY whiff if religion. I am not saying that the ACLU is all wrong but they were overzealous. I ask what harm really is done by haveing the ten commandments in a courthouse?? By having a nativity scene in the town square. No body is putting a gun to anybody’s head and making them kneel. This is where I think the left makes it’s fatal mistake everytime- they preach tolerance but to certain factions they display and overwhelming front of intolerance. The way I see it from where I sit is that the Constitutuion guarantees freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion
Kuya with no disrespect inteneded Pat Robertson is not in the Senate (to he does weild some power there) he is head of the 700 Club ministry on tv.
Reds, It is true that Jefferson was a devout man. He was devoutly committed to principles of secularism, pluralism, liberty and republicanism (the governmental structure, not the party).
He was not, however, a devout Christian (I think this is what you were trying to infer. If I’m wrong, disregard my reply). He was a deist and had some very unflattering, atagonistic things to say about the Christrian religion.
redstate - the problem with having the 10 commandments in a courthouse is it is government sanctioning of a specific religion, effectively saying, this government is Christian. That is WRONG and against what the founding fathers, *NONE* of whom was Christian, were trying to accomplish.
I think the Democrats need to get back to what worked to make them powerful in the first place. When they championed for the every man and woman. When they championed civil rights and liberties for all. When they didn’t go out of their way to exclude anyone because of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religious/national origin. When they understood what it meant to be a Democrat.
Howard Dean awakened that core with his run for the White House. He probably was the only one who could have beat G. W. fair and square because he was a “Washington Outsider”. There was no dirt to pin on him, and no congressional voting record to throw in his face. They couldn’t define him, either, and I’m willing to bet the GOP orchestrated his downfall just to get Kerry in as the nominee. Kerry was someone they knew, they had his voting record (face it, his vote on Iraq killed him and gave him the “flip-flop” title)plus he had the DLC all over his campaign. What earthly good has the DLC done since Bill Clinton? Nothing, except proceed to lose Congress, the Senate, and now the White House. So much for being “centrist”. And I understand that there is a cadre of Senators trying the same ol thing, with a new name. Pathetic.
If you continue to do the same ol’ thing, expect the same ol’ results. If these democrats really want to be Republican, they should just get the hell out of the party. Once the Democrats (true Democrats) regain power, they will want to come back home, and we should tell them they made their bed, now lie in it. If they lay down with dogs, they get up with fleas. Just my two cents.
What secular history?
FDR was inspired by the social gospel.
JFK was a progressive Catholic.
LBJ - ??
Carter - born again
Clinton - Southern Baptist
The Democrats who’ve been able to get elected nationally have not been secular. It’s moving away from a progressive religious history that has soured many working class people on the Democrats.
Personally, I think the only way to dissuade the HONEST but MISLED right-wing Christian voters from their blind support of the GOP agenda is to point out the progressive and humanist side of the Gospels, and to do this with the same level of missionary zeal as they are hearing from the theocrats and plutocrats who lead their churches.
Although we as progressives are committed to keeping government from INTERFERING in the choices that individuals make in their lives, choices that conservatives consider to be self-destructive in some cases, we need to clarify that MOST of us are NOT personally in favor of the behavior that offends conservatives; we are simply opposed to legislating its control except where there is a clear, objectively provable threat, of a secular nature, to the public.
Somehow, the right gets away with making this distinction with regard to much more dangerous behavior. The NRA pushes its pro-gun agenda, equivalent to abolishing all license and tag requirements for drivers and automobiles, without being tainted with connections to the mass murders and psycho snipers (one of whom just devastated our collective soul here in the Tampa Bay area). Laissez-faire economists get away with preaching that fiscal oppression of the poor by the rich should not be regulated, while still implying that the oppressors, at least the “Christian” ones, are sorry they are “forced” to oppress their victims. They also manage not to appear in FAVOR of dirty air while arguing AGAINST laws to STOP dirtying the air, at least to non-liberal voters.
As other posters have pointed out, most of our politicians of both parties have been more or less conventionally religious in public, and have kept any iconoclastic ideas to themselves in order to be elected. However, some of them have left posterity some wise observations on the connection between true religion and the rights of individuals to live their own lives. Our greatest presidents, for example, as agreed upon by the largest number, have been:
George Washington, public Episcopalian and private deist, who enphasized his secular duty to his country, determined to be remembered as a “good person” and “good leader” more than a partisan of a religious denomination;
Thomas Jefferson, public Unitarian and deist, whose epitaph lists him, at his own request, as President of the University of Virginia and author of that state’s religious liberty law, who coined the phrase “wall of separation” to describe his opinion of the purpose of the First Amendment, who achieved peace with the Barbary States by assuring them we were not a “Christian nation” in the sense that European powers were (and hence not anti-Muslim), who clipped out the ethical, rationalist and humanist quotes from the Bible and pasted them together to form the Jefferson Bible, and who prayed that every young man born in the country would grow up to be a Unitarian;
Abraham Lincoln, member of no specific church but devout believer in Christian ETHICS, for which he is best known and for which, in the cause of the abolition of slavery, he gave his life;
Franklin Roosevelt, Episcopalian who cited the social justice teachings of the Hebrew prophets and of Jesus to alleviate the sufferings of the Depression and lay the groundwork for a more humane economy;
Harry Truman, Baptist who carried on Roosevelt’s work and enlarged on his committment to racial equality, while conducting himself as a middle class citizen rather than as privileged VIP, and agonized over the decision to use the bomb;
John Kennedy, the first Catholic in the White House, who calmed the fears of Protestant voters that he would be an “agent” of the Vatican, and as long as he was able, stood for racial and economic justice, but never for any specifically Catholic policy;
and more recently Jimmy Carter, born-again Southern Baptist, whose stands on public policy are the exact opposite of what is commonly associated with “fundamentalist” Christian denominations such as his own, but who is still respected by them because they recognize his opinions come from his Biblical faith.
These men, and others less well known, have been able to work WITH people of different theologies because they focus on what religions do the SAME to benefit people, rather than where they differ on beliefs.
Therefore, what the Democrats need, and what America needs, is a Jimmy Carter / John Kennedy / Abraham Lincoln / Thomas Jefferson statesman or stateswoman. This person must be free of any history of hypocrisy or corrupt dealing, friendly to Christian and non-Christian voters alike, but (for the next election anyway) known AHEAD OF TIME as a devout Christian with progressive social views.
We also need, as progressive voters, to make a tacit agreement among ourselves NOT to squabble about, or raise in public, those issues considered by moderately conservative voters to be too “extreme.” Conservatives practice this self-restraint, which is one reason they have gotten enough moderate voters to win recent elections. The NRA extremists, for example, keep their most extreme ideas in their inner circle, not on the TV news; in public they talk about “sportsmen” and not about “armor piercing ammo,” as their constituency.
And as painful as it may be, some of us may have to leave our comfortable Unitarian, Congregationalist, Quaker and New Thought (Unity and Christian Science, for example) churches, or at least take a few Sundays off, and join the Sunday School classes at an Assembly of God, Southern Baptist, Missouri Synod Lutheran or Mormon church, to expose their parishioners to the hypocrisy of right wing “christianity” OUTSIDE the context of an election campaign. These people should be confident and persuasive, and should avoid mentioning partisan politics, focusing on moral and spiritual issues.
Best thing is to keep the government religiously neutral, majorities follow their own lights and minorities do the same. Shaping the law according to a particular sectarian bias is a recipe for oppression, as is the case now in a dismayingly large proportion of the states.
Yes, redstate, no role confusion in hand refs Pat Robertson, I’ve seen the guy on the tube since I was a kid, along with Oral Robers, Jim Bakker, Joel Crouch, Gene Scott. The thought of people like P.R. (even if not he himself) gaining high office via evangelically motivated voters sends a cold chill up my spine. There’s a hostility that faction has in hand, a readiness to use force, that so often emerges when a majority sect sways the law. It’s impossible for people to live by their own lights, impossible to pursue one’s own bliss without interference.
Why must we continually frame the debate as secular vs. religion. By doing so we are driving a wedge between religious progressives and secular progressives. If we do, the Democratic Party will remain in the hands of those who currently suggest the Party needs to move farther to the “center” in order to win elections.
I know much of the concern about the religious issue is due to the regressive and immoral influence the religious right is currently having on public policy. But we don’t need to overreact. As a secular progressives, I am suggesting a Democratic Party coalition that openly includes religious progressive, but am not advocating a party based on religion or a theocracy. Religious progressives have a lot to say about morality and social justice—and their views are not very different from secular views of morality and social justice. Moreover, religious progressives have done a great job of formulating and articulating what social justice means and what policies advance this morality. Yes there are religious people who are moral and some who are not—just as we find among secularists. We need to form a progressive coalition that includes the religious groups sharing our morality.
Yes, religion does often act as blinders on a person’s view of the world, but let’s be honest, so does science often restrict the vision of secularists. We continually have to remind scientists that there is something out there called morality, and it must be consulted before we do things simply because we have learned how to. Secular science gave us the knowledge to build the Bomb, but not the good sense to not make it and use it. Also, let’s not forget the important role of Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney in starting the unjust (i.e., immoral) invasion of Iraq using a secularist view of the world.
I am intentionally drawing attention to morality over religiosity, so let’s take a quick look at this morality we can rally around. This is important because our battle lines need to be drawn between moral and immoral action, not between secular vs. religious views of the world. Secular and religious progressives direct their actions toward achieving a just and viable balance between individual interests and the common good which is founded on morality.
Let’s briefly consider religious notions of morality. On numerous occasions, Abraham J. Heschel expressed his conviction that a key value in Judaism is justice. I have not yet met a secularist progressive who would disagree with such a view. Christians believe Jesus also confirmed that social justice is a central theme in God’s Law.
Because the religious issue was triggered by the role of the religious right in politics, let’s take a closer look at Christianity. According to the Bible, in conversation with a teacher of the Law, Jesus was asked which of God’s commandments he thought most important. Of course, Jesus said first of all to love God, then he reportedly added: “The second most important commandment is this: ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ There is no other commandment more important than these two.” (Mark 12:28-31.) Love your neighbor is the basis for the notion in our common morality directing us to treat others as we would have them treat us (“The Golden Rule”).
Secular philosophers and historians generally agree with theists on what morality is and its importance for a viable society. But they usually disagree on the source of our morality. Religious people believe our sense of morality was implanted by God. Secularists, or nontheists, would tend to view it as evolutionary ethics or morality which came from our need to live in communities—communities which are viable only because human behavior became increasingly moral. Nontheists generally hold that our evolving morality was ultimately written into biblical stories for practical reasons. The important point here is that secular and religious morality are very similar in content and lead to common social goals. Indeed, secular and religious progressives tend to support the same domestic governmental policies most of the time. We primarily differ on what we consider to be the source of morality. If we all act according to the “Golden Rule,” and become decent people, we should be able to set aside the question of why we are decent when formulating public policy positions.
I for one, find it encouraging to hear religious progressives clearly expressing tolerance for other religious views and even for secularists. However, I find it disheartening to hear some of my fellow secularists sounding much less tolerant.
Let’s not throw out our moral allies because they have a different notion about the source of our common morality. Some people (actually most people) need religion to understand why they should be moral, others do not. We need to learn to live with that reality. Attempts to build a purely secular party and government and superimpose it over a largely religious society is truly absurd.
Religion is like a lot of other ideas. If kept in perspective and not abused, it is a good thing for human society—much like individual freedom, which allows us to develop our human potential but has to be actively and continually restrained by laws. What will keep religious people from going too far and becoming self-righteous and exclusive? The same morality that is needed to keep secular people from becoming the same way.
A progressove Democratic coalition will have an advantage over the conservative coalition of secular and religious groups because we share and seek to implement a common morality—they do not. The Conservative coalition does not share the desire to set selfishness aside and pursue a balance between individual needs and the common good. We have the moral high ground which forms a solid foundation supporting all parts of our coalition. We need only to make our moral convictions clear and explicit, and not be afraid to use religious language when speaking to religious people, and secular language when speaking to nontheists. Aside from language, the moral bases of our message can be articulated in a strong and consistent manner, resulting in well-founded policies. We should drive our wedge between the moral and the selfish—not between religious and secular progressives.
Roger H. Harrell
The confusion of the DLC in how to counter the Republicans holy aura is a sign that the in house elite needs to be tossed out. If they really knew the Democratic Party’s modern history they could of voiced that All were included in the Party as long as they believed that religion was an individuals choice of his or her own life map and the government is Supposed to be secular. As of yet there is no Church of America it was the imposition of officially sanctioned religions that the collection of bootleggers,slaveowners,idealists,and the great Thomas Paine railed against and sought to prevent.
I’m reminded of a pastor of my former acquaintance, Victor by name, whose entire aspect embodied an attitude of Christian love for all people. Unfortunately, Victor was fired out of his pastor role by the neighborhood church’s board of directors. Why? Because he refused to denounce the “gay lifestyle” from the pulpit, would not preoccupy the congregation with puritanical lessons, and openly encouraged volunteer work among church members at a local hospice that had a large proportion of HIV-positive patients. The guy was an incredible teacher, one of the best I’ve ever known of and I’ve heard more sermons than I care to list, and they evicted him because his messages weren’t disdainful, weren’t hateful enough. “They will know we are Christian by our love,” a great hymn lyric, wonderful when it actually appears in life as with Victor. As for “religious values” informing politics, if it’s personal discipline in behavior, lovingkindness, mutual support, a humble impulse toward worship of the source of all things, and a determination to treat others as they wish to be treated, I’m there. Personal morality is admirable in the extreme, but none of it requires a legal basis, i.e. these are matters of individual decision about how to live one’s life. How to promote religiously oriented right behavior by way of a party platform while preventing culture-war rhetoric and policy decisions based on majority-sect precepts? That’s a tough one. Forgive the skepticism, but it seems that a truly progressive approach to religion is already “live and let live” in nature, regardless of sect. Being religiously neutral doesn’t mean kicking out all the churchgoers, it only means disallowing them from pushing Judeo-Christian-Islamic (or any other religion’s) cultural or behavioral values onto others by way of party platform or especially by law. Law tends to be coercive, it restricts action with the support of cops and courts, sometimes to beneficial effect but it’s restrictive even so. Progressive religious citizens active in the party, si! Law rooted in dogma, no!
The DNC doesn’t get it, Hillary Clinton doesn’t get it and as well as Air America. The ban on gay marriage passed in 11 states by a minimum of 70%!! That’s not just Republican, nor was it just Midwestern states, nor was it just “bible” thumping’ conservative fanatics. And, the presidential vote was closer to the 52/48 national average in those states which tells me (and maybe the DNC) that morals DO matter. I know statistically most who voted in those states; don’t go to church regularly if at all. But, people overwhelmingly want absolutes in their lives to feel safer or more secure. If the DNC/DLC interprets the election as a violation of church/state, they will lose again and lose even more in congress in future elections. This IS about morals; it is about people believing there are boundaries to life, as well as the society in which they live and they will continue to vote in that manner. In the mind of many; Liberalism/Progressivism would rather society be lead into destruction “for the sake of the cause” than work with others. Calling those who would vote in this manner “close minded”, “ignorant”, “bible/Christian fanatics”, etc., REALLY makes them want to vote for a DNC Candidate.
Forget pursuing the Religious Right agenda and posturing. Get back to the roots the Democratic Party already has. Union organizing, women’s rights, child labor laws, etc were all promoted within mainline Protestant churches in the 1870’s - 1930’s. During that time as the Roman Catholic community grew numerous Roman Catholic churches became organizing centers for progressive values. This is part of the Democratic party history that seems to have been forgotten. Tragically, the Viet Nam War caused progressives to sever their relations with progressive religionists, unlike the parent’s and grandparent’s generation. The progressive values were such that they gladly joined hands with secular progressives as well. Then, as the Reagan era began the Institute for Religion and Democracy sought to alter and/or silence the progressive voice within the progressive churches. Progressive religious leaders have been left alone twisting slowly in the wind as the cultural right pressured their denominations and congregations into silence over their heritage of promoting those values. Progressive churches have prior to the last 40 years a prime source for growing and promoting progressive values in the society at large. Sadly, the Democratic party and other progressives no longer have such a source the help them build their base.
Forget the Religious Right. Get back to the progressive Religious Left which worked with the secular left for decades.
Organized religion is politics. Always was and is still so.
Can’t you guys see that republicans are using religion as a subterfuge to get votes. Does anyone really think that “real” republicans give a damn about religion? (It’s a rhetorical question).
The bottom line is that real republicans have only one value - corporate profits. Republicans place the interest of corporate profits over all other interests. The corporate corruption of government (read: complete takover), assures that the interest of corporate profits will continue to be the main policy of the government and will priority of all other interests for the foreseeable future.
Conversely, democrats place the interest of public health, safety and welfare above the interest of corporate profits. However, also unlike the republicans, democrats understand that economic prosperity is an essential element of public health safety and welfare. Democrats also understand that these interests must be balanced because they are all important and interdependant on one another.
For the republcians, there is no balancing. Corporate profits take priority over all other interests every time, public health, safety and welfare (ie: medical affordability and safety, product safety, environmental conservation, etc.), be damned. Religion takes no place in republican policymaking, it is merely a vote getting tactic for the stupid.
Seventy percent of Mr. Kerry’s supporters said they were more worried about candidates who are too close to religion and religious leaders than about political leaders who don’t pay enough attention to religion, after a campaign in which Mr. Bush repeatedly spoke of God and his faith. Fifty-two percent of Mr. Bush’s supporters said they were more worried about public officials who don’t pay enough attention to religion and religious leaders.
Religion is not what this government needs!
I think that secularists far outnumber religionists. Democrats have no political need, nor would it be honest, or good for America, for Democrats to now start courting religionists. Politically, Democrats do need to motivate and mobilize secularists to prevent an evangelical takover of our Government.
Make no mistake that republicans have no interest in religion or morality per se, they use religion as a subterfuge to promote corporate fascism.
I think that god deserves to be in our hearts and thoughts and on our money.
Why can’t the Democrats be both progressive and inclusive of those with liberal, yet Christian values and beliefs? From the last election, you would think that GOP stands for “God’s Own Party”.
As the Soujourner’s campaign ad correctly stated, “GOD IS NOT A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN” and the Republicans need to stop acting as if their God’s own. Likewise, the Democrats need to quit envying the Republicans, define their own message, include and increase dialogue between secular and religious, and in so doing, find common ground that cann be clearly communicated and clearly identifies them as a viable alternative.
We saw Kerry’s desperation when he failed to counter the attacks on his military record, his vote on the Iraq war, and his failure to fully define what he would do if he got the White House, instead of the tired cliches of “Help is on the Way.” An astute poster on this board summed up by saying, “If voters have a choice between Republican and Republican Lite, they will go with Republican.”
Additionally, I went for Dean precisely because he clearly defined what the Democrats needed to get back to: their core values and their base. Also, I knew that if any of the other Democratic candidates, save for Kucinich, Moseley-Braun and Sharpton, won the nomination, the first thing the Bush camp would attack them on is their vote for the Iraq war. If Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, Sharpton or Dean had won the Democratic nomination, Bush would have been toast, because any of those I mentioned would have handed him his lunch on the Iraq War and WMDs alone. I told everyone that if Dean didn’t win the nomination, any candidate who voted for the war and for WMDs would have a hard time explaining themselves in the election. And face it, John Kerry’s albatross was his Senate vote to authorize war “I voted for it before I voted against it?” Please.
I don’t buy any Congressperson’s excuse who voted for the war when they are now crying, “I was fooled; I didn’t know all the facts…” Hell, that’s why you are voted to Congress, isn’t it? To actually read that proposed legislation that comes across your desk before voting on it? That the title “Representative” means that you are actually the voices of the masses you represent on the floor of the House?”
I can’t wait until next year’s Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Conference, cause all of them will be hearing that question from me!
Sorry for the rant.
If the cause of progress in this country has to embrace those close minded ignorant and insecure in their personal and worldview in order to win an election then it has become a party of stagnation and should fade away. Morals or the more American group consensus generally impedes the equal progress of all. Every society has a general feeling on how their society will place brakes on behavior that will jeopardize the peace. For some its orally transmitted,for others its been written down,and for too many in this country its a combination of both delivered by Personalities who incorporate that societys’ core beliefs into stepping stones to wealth and power. That is what irks me- many will cut their own throats in order to be with the “Right” you know like hmmm the American Pharisees
While technically I could not be considered a Christian, and explaining what I am would take entirely too long, so I won’t. The Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Dominionists, Reconstructionalists, Conservatives Christians, or whatever you want to call them, have hijacked the Christian Church and their intention is to hijack the nation and if you don’t believe this visit Patrick Henry College’s web site, among others. They are very upfront about their intentions. I am convinced that when true Christians take their church back, or take Christ’s church back, only then will the rest of us get our country back.
HELPING GOD
Christian Republicans are evidently dedicated to helping their god in any way possible. His mighty fight against Satan desperately needs the help of the Bush administration and all the Ashcroft fans. Thousands of evangelists plead with Christians to “help” their god. They can “help” defend against EVIL with money, for instance.
All the thousands of priests, reverends, parsons, ministers, etc. that make a living from talking about their god, claim that giving money to them will “help” their god. Baskets full of money are given to “help” Jesus.
Evidently the bible-thumpers that actually receive the money will hold it in a locked box for the moment that Jesus descends from someplace called Heaven and then they will give him all the accumulated cash for his next sojourn on earth. It must amount to a considerable quantity by now, even at 3% interest.
One wonders if the priestly money-holders will sell their houses, cars, airplanes, swimming pools and other properties they bought with Jesus’ money, converting all to cash, so Jesus can wear expensive suits and shoes like they do, and perhaps they will buy him a stretch limousine so he can ride in style. Having given Jesus all their cash, they will immediately convert to a life-style of poverty.
Evidently the Christian god, or 3-in-one entity, needs their help. Just listen to the evangelists begging for something they can convert to cash. They call it “seed.” and they plant it avidly until their bank accounts swell to bursting with the harvest. And, yet, they continue daily to beg, to plead, for more “help.”
Listen to their sermons, broadcasts, radio talks and you hear a constant demand for ‘seed”, for “help” from their fat mouths, from their pudgy frames, from their expensively clothed bodies, emanating from a thousand stations 24 hours a day. Can you say “venal?” I knew you could.
Yes, their god needs their help. According to their Sacred Book their God created everything by simply speaking it. He said, “Let there be light” and there was light. And he made a firmament, and divided waters, and made dry land. He made the sun and the moon and then, almost in an afterthought, casually, seemingly without effort, “He made the stars also.” That was quite an afterthought, to make all of the galaxies, planets, black-holes, stars, meteorites, moons, etc. There must be, as Carl Sagan eloquently said, “Billions and Billions,” of them.
Yet, this entity, or 3-in-one, needs the help of some fat-faced weasels who collect wads of money from gullible congregations and retired people, because this OMNIPOTENT MIGHTY GOD needs Benny Hinn, Ronny Parsley, Tom Brocolli, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other gesticulating. prancing. ranting. Hallelujah-shouting, bible-thumpers to “help” him. God wants his helpers to have limousines, airplanes, swimming pools, expensive clothing, the finest food, huge bank accounts, Ferraris, air-conditioned dog-houses, gold-plated bathroom faucets, and other amenities.
The 3-in-One God was originally a phallus and its appendages. It was an ancient and venerable symbol of maleness, befitting a Neolithic pastoral people just emerging from barbarism. Male domination was the standard, and women were thought of as leading males to perdition.
Christianity and Republicans still retain the old flavor of subduing women into second-class status. To help god is to help subdue women, with the slogan “Stop luring men into Hell.” Anything favoring women must be looked upon as “Devil’s Work.” It is to be resisted with might and main, lest Satan conquer their God when enough people catch a glimpse of tit. “Choice” is a synononym for bad judgement, as all a person has to do to be saved is to listen to Jerry, or Benny or Ronnie, or Pat and no other choice is left.
Yes, you can see how the preachers fight Satan, to help their God. Look at the wonderful way they helped God by telling the F.C.C. that Janet Jackson exposed about 3 square inches of mammary tissue, leading to Satan harvesting all the souls of everyone gazing on that horrible and shocking sight, from which they still haven’t recovered.
Poor fundamentalist victims were blind-sided by a tit, (even shielded by a metal medallion,) wounding all their moral sensitivity to the point of agony and placing their immortal souls in deadly peril of imminent destruction by fire. If this nation recovers from such a deep lapse of moral degradation, it will be a genuine MIRACLE. So poor John Ashcroft, George Bush, and all the True Believers in the White House will now have to get on their knees and beg their god to forgive this tremendous lapse of morality. In return, they must promise to use some of the Iraq Oil money to build a shrine to Jesus right in the Oval Office, and hang stone copies of the Ten Commandments in every public restroom and courthouse.
Then they can forget all the lies, deceit, deceptions, exaggerations, killing, maiming, destruction, impositions, bullying and other lapses committed in their enthusiasm to “help God.” And all will again be right in the world that is just as safe as being in Jesus’ arms.
You see what trouble, what distress, what panic, Janet’s nipple caused? Imagine if BOTH nipples had been exposed!
OH, MY GOD! The Apocalypse is upon us. Sell all your property now, and give the money to the evangelists. That’s the only way we can all be saved from an onslaught of mammary tissue!
Fact: Although many voted for Bush believing him to be a religious man, the truth is he doesn’t actually go to church
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/152/story_15208_1.html
Neither did Reagan for that matter.
Kerry, Carter, and Clinton all did and do.
So who has true “religious” values?
Basically, its far more than secular, or not. Democrats need to be “reborn again” without pandering or hypocrisy. Party needs new,fresh,ideas,and leadership combined with really savvy marketing pros to execute strategies. BUT…[here’s the BUT….], we have to create and understand what we stand for, where we want to go, and HOW to get there, and WHO will lead us. Hilary is a recipe for disaster, and we crave and require leadership devoid of cronyism and K Street hacks (who continue to operate), in spite of their failures. Until we clean house, and reinvent ourselves (with truth and vision), we will not be relevant.
Actually, I’m surprised that anyone (especially Howard Dean and his supporters) still thinks the Democratic Party is worth the trouble. Most of the pols who run as democrats actually vote as republicans. The senate democrats just tapped anti-choice, Scalia fan, Harry Reid to take over from Tom Daschle.
Better all around to invite ACTUAL democrats to help form a new party and stop diluting the constituency for change that has been getting duped for years by the DNC just as surely as the social conservatives have been getting duped by the RNC. Sue them over the rights to the name, the same way John Fogerty sued his former bandmates.
The blue dog democrats can call themselves….Quislings? Fifth Columnists? Invertabrates? Oh well, I’m sure they’ll come up with something catchy.
Kenneth Brown
The current leadership in the Democratic Party is dazzled by the Republican BS that gained them power. If they would only quit anal-lyzing it and Start the comeback. They are the ones who ran from being called Liberal, they keep trying to be F__-_king centrists not thinking that if your in the middle of the road your impeding traffic and could cause an accident. Well the accident was the kleptocrats got in again. But despite what the bastards want us to believe and “get over” it’s no mandate,no crushing landslide that would’ve pointed to all the cookies are theirs. Mr.Reid would not of been my choice I would’ve preferred somebody who can actually start a thunderstorm in the Senate. He’s a centrist,a member of a patriarchal conservative cult,and likes the word bipartisan too much. Alright so far he’s at least implied that he will not be the doormat for ” Herr Doktor Frist”. I’m hoping to see a Party that sees it has the elements in place to beat back those mutants at every level from local, state,and regional. To stop whining about the loss of the South hell those swine were an impediment to progress! But it can be recolonized by toughminded brawlers who won’t let the oily HolyRollOvers and New Dixicans continue their unfettered leeching ways.
Exactly right Monroe,
I read something by John MacArtur last night called “Kerry stopped counting too soon” in which he says Kerry got what he deserved. Unfortunately those of us who voted for him got what we didn’t deserve, and I can’t help but wonder if democrats like Kerry, Gore, Leiberman, Reid and the DLC aren’t in on the deal, throwing the fight for money and a share of the spoils, and the ones being conned are those of us who waste our votes and our money on these guys. As brilliant as Clinton may have been, he passed more republican inspired legislation than his two republican predecessors did. What would we have gotten had Kerry come out on top. If his governance was as limp and cautious as his campaign was, he would have been worse than the junta we have now.
register a new account »Posting Security