I'm just stumped as to why Democrats do not feel adequate as they are and must become religious in order to be voted for.

Any thoughts on this?

It might help if you step back and look at your question.

I think, maybe, your question is representative of a problem that the Democratic Party needs to solve.

Your question assumes that Democrats must "become" religious. Your question assumes Democrats are non-religious. You might want to talk with Jimmy Carter about that

Yet, many "religious" people do not think of themselves as "religious" - they just "believe" in life after death, and God, and a religious tradition (doctrine) that requires "faith".

So, the problem the Democrats have is this: The Party has allowed itself to become anti-religious, which is more than just a perception, as your "question" confirms.

It seems that the "thought police" on the left are inclined to censor or slander persons of faith. Which has had the effect of causing people who would otherwise be inclined to vote for the party of labor, to be concerned about the "anti-religious" left… and then, the Republican strategists found a way to exploit the people's concerns...

============

Here is a suggestion: Imagine that you hate sports, say football. And you are running for President, but you learn that the majority of voters like football. Would you feel "inadequate" if you went to a game and sat with the fans?

God has a lot of fans... learn to live with it

Well, I don't feel that people have to be religious in order to be a good candidate. And I think that what constitutes being "religious" for one person does not necessarily constitute the same thing for another person. So my question is this: Why do Democrats cave in to Pharisean type Christians and have to make religion a theme as if they are dirty or something? I don't believe that they should cave in to those with a message of hate and I don't believe that Democrats are dirty. Christ never stood for a message of hate, even for His enemies.

Well, if being electable is part of being a good candidate I think you're wrong. And I say that as an atheist. We live in a country where most people are "religious" and they would find views like mine too alien.

I simply try to vote for the least insane and most rational candidate... it's a kind of "lesser of two evils" choice for me.



True. Apparently, for many fundamentalists you have to talk their language, endorse the culture of life dogma, oppose all abortion, and be against activist liberal judges. I hope democrats don't get that religious.



Well, Democrats, each on their own, do have to respond to the accusation that they're not religious -- in my case I can only say it's true, I'm not religious and my chances of getting elected are gone. Others have to respond differently and I can only hope the religious community is diverse enough to support other points of view because only then can we see the fundamentalist program as narrow, sectarian and dogmatic... a real threat to separation of church and state.

If there are not diverse points of view -- then it really is atheists versus fundamentalists.

So what is needed is diverse responces and acceptance of that diversity.



Are you sure about that?
How can one believe in a God who sends people to hell and not believe in a God who hates?

To answer your question: Democrats have not made religion a theme. Could have, given the entrenched sin that runs the Greedy Old Party, but out of decency and respect did not. But religion has been made a theme, and the refusal of Democrats to engage on the issue has allowed the aforementioned dominant force in the GOP to come off as "Godly" when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm reminded of a quote from one of Robert Asprins myth books that seems to apply: "'What if they gave a war and only ONE SIDE showed up?' -- Satan" That's what's happening here.

The Republicans are WORSE than the Pharisees. They are on the side of the entrenched interests in Israel under the kings, who corrupted the priesthood and oppressed the powerless while calling themselves "the people of God." This was condemned over and over by the prophets until Gods patience was exhausted. That's when Nebuchadnezzar showed up and destroyed the Temple and carried them away captive. The comparisons are obvious, but they're not being made, so the Greedy Old Party and the Commander-In-Thief can come off as "Godly" because noone calls them on it. Meanwhile, the bulk of the SEVENTY PERCENT OF THE COUNTRY THAT CALLS ITSELF CHRISTIAN is voting Republican. More time spent in prayer and study of scripture, and less spent believing whatever any pastor tells them would solve this problem, but that's a problem that must be addressed within the Church.

Go back and look at Progressive history. I believe you'll find that the Church has been deeply involved in all of the greatest successes, from the Revolution to ending slavery to Civil Rights. The Republicans aren't stupid; it's amazing they didn't attempt this long ago. Progressive politics rests on morality, and a moral appeal made without and in opposition to the Church is difficult at best.

Well, since you asked.... God is perfect. Perfection and sin are incompatible. God cannot admit sin to his presence and fellowship and remain God. We see over and over in the Old and New Testaments that "God is not willing that any should die." He also gave us free will, else Love of God would not be possible, only blind obedience. God does not so much send us to hell as we send ourselves because we cannot tolerate Him. God respects this choice even though he does not agree with it, and grants it in the only way possible. He respects this choice BECAUSE He Loves us. How would it be Loving to force Himself on those who find Him intolerable? Yet separation from God means separation from all of the creation that testifies to His glory. The result (my belief, not doctrine) is the ultimate sensory deprivation tube, awareness without experience. Thus, hell as separation from God, not by His choice, but by ours.

You know the funny thing is, more of my friends who are Republican are derisive when it comes to being religious/religious acts than my Democrat friends are. But of course, that doesn't suit the Rebuplican platform.

The reason Democrats "must show" they are religious or not contemptuous of religion is because the Republicans have now turned all political debate into one of G-d and religion (all Republican sponsored ideas are G-d approved) vs. qhat the republican's call the democrat's war on religion.

I'd like to turn your question around, why should Democrats who are religious feel inadequate if they don't keep their religion under wraps when campaigning?

The issue is not about whether or not Dem candidates are religious. The issue is blatant political pandering to the religious views of one segment of the American faithful. Are the laws that govern a diverse American population to be narrowly determined by the religious views of a minority? For me, that's the question.

I don't think that is the only question. I would answer your question "no", especially since you included the key question "narrowly". I have argued in favor of people using religious inspiration to inform their political views, as they use it to inform other important questions of their lives, and I think that it can be helpful to be open about it sometimes. But I would hope that would be done in an inclusive way, with tolerance for people of other faiths and of no religous faith, emphasizing the universal aspects of their religious values rather than a combative attitude, and also with the realization that it is most unwise to try to translate all religious moral principles into legislation. And yes, church and state have two separate jobs and should be separate, not fused or even aligned, institutions.

But if religious beliefs guide one's moral compass then of course moral principles will be translated into legislation. The civil rights movement, economic assistance to the low income, etc. An overall sense of what is morally "right" for our society is largely based on a general sense of moral values that have been inculcated into our collective conscience from the moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Whether we are personally religious or not is not the issue, IMHO. Apparently,most Americans agree on most debated cultural issues."The devil is in the details"; in how to implement, legislatively, the beliefs that a majority of Americans agree on. Did we not face the same problems with integrating the public schools? Separate but equal or integrated?
Today it is civil unions or marriage for the G/L population. Most agree that they should have equal rights under the law. Today it is abortion with most agreeing that early term abortion is somewht acceptable while mid and late term is not.
The point I am making is that these "moral" issues, to a lesser or greater degree, are a concern for most Americans. So, they need to be addressed by the two major political parties. When addressing these cultural issues, candidates using direct religious references or candidates using more general references to the collective American moral conscience, can be equally effective in outlining the problems and policies for addressing those problems. Intellectual and spiritual (moral) honesty will win out in the long run. IMHO. Obviousy the essence of a candidates message is important, but how the message is delivered is of equal importance. "Right" without rhetorical "might" falls on deaf ears.

Nobody asks (or requires) them to do that. I think the majority of religious Democrats who run for office consider their religion a personal matter and don't think it appropriate or necessary to quote scripture or say things like "As a Christian, I believe. . ." They don't feel the need to issue a press release or have media present to watch them go to church (or synagogue) each week to prove they're religious. They may well think that doing these things profane what they consider sacred. A political rally is not AA, a candidate should not have to open up with "I am Pamela, I am running for Congress & I am a Conservative Jew"

When you are truly comfortable with your religion/faith and right in your relationship with G-d, it shows in who you are, how you act & what you say without so much as having to reference religion, G-d, Jesus or scripture. This is the same for dems and reps who are truly people of faith. My friends who are deeply religious and involved in church don't go around peppering conversations with religious references unless they are appropriate within the context of a conversation. hey are more than willing to discuss religion, their opinions in context with their religion, and may well say they think certain things are wrong or a sin based on their religion but they do not use it as a rallying cry in order to legislate based on it, they do not impose their religion on others and are fully cognizant that others lead their lives within a moral context that may not be consistent with their own - they do not stand in judgment of others for not practicing their religion.

[quote=amy,Apr 21 2005, 10:51 AM]
But if religious beliefs guide one's moral compass then of course moral principles will be translated into legislation. The civil rights movement, economic assistance to the low income, etc. An overall sense of what is morally "right" for our society is largely based on a general sense of moral values that have been inculcated into our collective conscience from the moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
[/quote]

I agree with you here. And people of other faiths will quite appropriately ask questions such as "What should I, as a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., support as good government policy?" But it is fanaticism to think that we can translate all religious and/or moral principles into legislation, it just won't work. I'm not attributing such fanatic views to you, but I think that it's legitimate to worry about people in this country holding such views. (And perhaps in other countries as well!) There is a relation between the religious and political realms (whether people like it or not) as you show, but there has to be some distance between the two. (BTW, religion is different from the church, and politics is different from the state.)

[QUOTE]."The devil is in the details"; in how to implement, legislatively, the beliefs that a majority of Americans agree on. Did we not face the same problems with integrating the public schools? Separate but equal or integrated?[/QUOTE]
Precisely. Except that we cannot even legislate all majority beliefs. I believe that most people would agree that it is wrong to lie, but what if we were to pass a broad law against lying? I don't mean the relatively limited laws that we have against lying, such as committing perjury, or libel, etc. But as in I lie to my wife that I took my one year old son on a walk as I promised when I didn't. Wrong thing to do, but should such things be subject to the law?

[/QUOTE]When addressing these cultural issues, candidates using direct religious references or candidates using more general references to the collective American moral conscience, can be equally effective in outlining the problems and policies for addressing those problems. Intellectual and spiritual (moral) honesty will win out in the long run. IMHO. Obviousy the essence of a candidates message is important, but how the message is delivered is of equal importance. "Right" without rhetorical "might" falls on deaf ears.[QUOTE]

I agree. I think that candidates have a tricky balance to maintain. As I say, they also have to observe some distance between religion and politics. Too many religious references can be inappropriate. Religious candidates have to make clear that they are appealing to and plan to serve people not of their faith.

You make many good points, I would just say that I see nothing wrong with a religious candidate making some connection between their religion and the political values that they espouse. I definitely think that they should not be too "showy", after all, Jesus spoke against the same sort of thing.



I pretty much agree with what you are saying here. As I said in my response to Amy, there has to be a balance. I don't think that candidates should be afraid to make it clear that their religion is important to them when they formulate their positions and political decisions, but they need to make inclusive appeals. They have to reject a narrow-minded approach. As I have said before, as a Christian, I would be annoyed by a Christian candidate constantly making religious references.

I try to be a relatively less insane and more rational type of Christian myself.



I hope they don't either, but I don't think that we have to worry too much about that, at least not yet!



I agree here too. The more there are Christians who speak out against the Right and say there is an alternative view which is grounded in Christian principles the more we can take the wind out of their "Christian vs. anti-Christian" argument. And as I have said any religious politician needs to make it clear that they support inclusion, that they do not favor those of their own faith.

Democrats who are committed to democracy which is based on individual freedom
and equality could not feel less than adequate because they know that each and every human being is of equal value--and thus of ultimate value--regardless of what position they take about religion.

I have not seen what you are describing.

I think John Kerry handled it very well during the debates. I liked hearing John Kerry talk about his faith.

Jimmy Carter is a perfect example of a "religious" democrat who is inclusive of everyone, and yet remains unashamed of his faith in Christ. Carter was elected following the Nixon scandals. Bush was elected following the Clinton scandals…

Liberals need to learn how to be comfortable with the idea of God, and still feel confident that it is OK to speak out when they see a politician go "over the top" expressing "religious" behavior.

John Kerry’s expression of faith during the campaign was not “over the top”; it was quite “normal” for an American. Democrats should not feel they have to “hide” their faith either.

Right now, the Republicans are very effective at making the "anti-religious" image of the Democratic Party a central theme. However, I think Tom Delay may be a blessing from God to the Democrats. That guy has spent all of the so-called "political capital" that Bush thinks he earned in the election.

The Delay scandal may be exactly what is needed to "wake-up" the voters... if the Democrats can stop the anti-Christ, anti-God perception/message that Middle America sees/hears coming from the "left".

(The ethics violation inquiry is only the beginning - Delay has really stepped in it with the Schiavo and Judiciary mess...)

Your logic is impeccable. Unfortunately, if politics were a purely rational science no Republican would have been elected to an office higher than dogcatcher after 1929.

The sad truth is that when a candidate makes a moral appeal totally devoid of religious language, many Christians hear "secular humanist" and dismiss them as either naive or diabolical. Ain't valid, ain't right; is so. And I'm not saying that an agnostic or atheist secular humanist would make a bad officeholder. Just a bad candidate.

I think you make a valid point, and accurately diagnose the reluctance of many Democratic candidates to speak in religious terms. It's rather like the conversation I had during the campaign with my pastor. I mentioned that "a certain Party" is tieing itself to the Church despite a platform in direct conflict with Church doctrine, and how I felt compelled to speak up about it, but at the same time did not want to attack the unity of the body of Christ. He pretty much agreed with the entirety of the statement and said that he dealt with it by telling people who made the Greedy Old Partys arguments that he's a Democrat. He suggested that I write LTE's and Op Eds on the subject and not have a political debate in front of the altar. Well....

At the time I accepted this advice; I did after all go to my pastor for counsel on what, for me, was a more urgent spiritual than political matter (not that the politics was insignificant. I had turned six toward the end of the '80 campaign, but I just KNEW Reagan was bad news even if my Mother didn't. The last time she voted Republican; and a little child shall lead them.) It is my great hope that Democratic leaders who are Christian will recognize the same thing I have. This Sunday the political debate officially begins in the Church, whether we like it or not. We have two choices: Fight or surrender. If the former, then the Church may well be divided, but if it is it will be by the side that insists we preserve the Church by destroying the Church, just as the insist we preserve freedom by destroying it. The Church has experienced such schisms before, and the Holy Spirit has always preserved the true Church and destroyed the apostates; He will do so again. If we surrender, then the Holy Spirit will still preserve a remnant of a remnant, but many will be deceived and lost, and if we are ourselves saved despite our silence it will be as if through fire.

My point is, very little, if any, of the Democratic base will be lost by a Democratic candidate who wears his religion and his politics both proudly. Some may object to the idea of an overtly religious candidate and my response is, "If he supports and achieves Progressive goals, WHO CARES?" Meanwhile, the Republican Party has begun a debate on religious issues, and issues perceived as religious, and our candidates have the same choices I have: Surrender or fight. If we fight, we may lose. If we surrender we must lose.

OK, maybe it's a question of language again. They shouldn't FEEL less than adequate, but, at least on a political level, they clearly ARE less than adequate. Far less really; adequate wouldve been enough to beat an incumbent with a 47% approval rating.

Actually that progressive (if you'll pardon the pun) line of attack may be SPECIFICALLY the one for '06, and possibly '08 as well. Too soon to tell, really, but it leads inevitably to one place, and I don't care what Frist and the rest of them think, there are a LOT of Christians royally p----d by this (In)justice Sunday thing. Don't believe me? Do a search and click on the links. Out of the first hundred, I found two positive ones: FRC's, and the Freepers. All of the rest were negative, and at least half of them were Churches.

De Lay is obscene (I live in TX; you don't have to tell me.) The capital of the second largest state in the country is now in three different Congressional districts and has no Representative thanks to him. One stretches from Austin, in the middle of the state, to the Mexican border, another to Dallas, close to the Arkansas and Oklahoma borders, and another to Houston (would go farther, but no constituents in the Gulf past Galveston.) But as for CHRISTIANS his behavior makes Clinton look like an altar boy. Even Republicans are embarrassed by him, but not the Commander-In-Thief (who owes him a bunch.) Congressional Republicans also know the Resident is their best asset. Turning on the majority leader from Texas will hurt him. So will supporting a felon when his own party. It's a win-win.

Arneoker, are you willing to share some of the facts or principles that inform and/or inspire your political view that couldn't be found anyplace other than
from your religion? If you would rather discuss this in some other way I would
still be interested in your thoughts on it.

Just why is this an important question to you? I mean no disrespect, and I will try to answer it. My own view of my religion is that if I don't consider it when forming my perspectives in important areas, such as politics, then it is a shallow thing. It is more than enjoying the singing of hymns or putting up a Christmas tree.

I'm not sure that I can think of any political principle that I couldn't find support for in another source. I'm no expert on Islam, but my guess is that a good Muslim could have exactly the same political principles that I do. I'm certain that a good Jew could. My theological differences with the Jewish religion would not pertain to principles that one could reasonably use to help establish political views. I'm not sure that I couldn't find support for all of my political views in the secular humanist principles of an atheist such as George Orwell, most of whose views that I have read I agree with. There are certainly political views out there that I think contradict Christian principles, and I oppose such views. I could hardly think of myself as a serious Christian otherwise.

Simply because I am a Christian doesn't mean that I am automatically suspicious of the views and principles of non-Christians, or even the non-religious. I make no bones about saying that Christianity is the better way, but I respect those who disagree, and recognize that such people aren't "totally in the dark". Simply because I am Christian doesn't mean that I cannot be in the dark myself. I think Christians such as Falwell, Robertson and Delay are living proof of that. Non-Christians can provide much illumination, I think that it would be extremely narrow-minded to say otherwise. You apparently think that religion, "taken very far" anyway, can be a kind of stumbling block, interfering with one's healthy psychological development. You might be right. I don't think that you are, except in cases of twisting and perverting religion, something that can happen with any philosophy, but I am not going to push that argument. (If I am mischaracterizing your views, please correct me.)

In our diverse society we must tolerate those of other views, even if we strongly believe in our own views and their superiority to others. (If we don't think that our views are superior to the alternatives, then why do we hold them?) We must be open-minded and be willing to grow, and correct mistaken notions that we might hold.

I don't want to repeat every point that I've made on the proper relation between religion and politics. I do believe that there is a proper relation, but there has to be some distance as well, in the interest of both realms. And I do believe in the separation of Church and State, which are different from religion and politics. And I think that while political campaigns should not emphasize religion as the main theme, that speaking to people's religious values is appropriate, when done in an inclusive way stressing unity rather than division. That is one way to reach people where they are.

Arneoker -

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us.

Arneoker,
Thanks for your generous response. We view the world from different perspectives
and I may not always agree with your take on things but I always admire your
well reasoned discourse and the solid character that is protrayed through your words.
I believe that all the mainline religions, in their best form, can be used by persons
in either adaptively or maladaptive ways. Unfortunately, I have observed more of the latter than of the former and so has History. The same, however can be said
of alchohol, pot, streneous exercise and lots of other things.

Will continue this later.

Fair enough.

Certainly religion has very often been used in perverve ways, as it is now by many. It's not a problem to be minimized.

GeorgeWeigel, biographer of John Paul II doubts that it is possible to,"sustain a democratic political community absent the transcendent moral reference points
for ordered public life that Christianity offers the political community." On the other hand 1360 scientists from95 countries recently concluded that disease and starvation resulting from over population was the most critical problem facing
society, as reported by the British Newspaper The Guardian . I believe the Catholic Church Hiearchy is partly responsible for this. My concern is that individuals and orgainzations speaking in the name of religion are not held
accountable to the same extent as other individuals and organizations either
by public opinion, the media or by goverment. We give lip service to freedom of speech and freedom of the press but you better not be too critical of those who hide behind religion regardless of what excesses they may be guilty of. An
awfull lot of bullying gets done by religion and to me this represents a major social deficit in our culture. The widespread assumption that everyone should
identify with some religion and there is something wrong with them if they
don't is not supported by any evidence while there is plenty of evidence that
religious superstitution and myths are seriously retarding progress in education in general and especially in science.

Arneoker -

But why should people even consider voting for a candidate who calls himself "holy"? Isn't that the first indication that we shouldn't trust what he is saying? If a man is "holy", he shows it in his actions as well as in his words. So why should we listen to the words if they are incompatible with the actions? Why do certain people of a particular religion "need" a politician to be a part of their religion in order to feel confident about voting for him? And why don't candidates who have actions to support their words not directly subject their opponents who have only words to open castigation?

Chris

1. If there is a disconnect between words and actions no sincere religious person would fail to criticize that. Jesus warned against people who flaunted their "holiness" hypocritically, although he didn't want his followers to "keep it private" either. Here's a hint as to where I'm coming from, the professed Christian politician Tom Delay disgusts me more than practically any other U.S. politician.

2. I don't need a candidate to be of my religion, or even religious. I would like to have an idea of what values he or she has, and whether they are compatible with mine as they are relevant to politics. I think someone who can only vote for those of their own religion is very narrow-minded.

3. As far as your last question goes, good point. We have to start calling these people to account.

Ria, I'll get back to you later. You make some important points in your last post.

My main point is that, as usual, Democrats are doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing! Instead of rationalizing the incoherency of the religious arguments and openly castigating those whose actions do not measure up to their words, the Democrats are instead pandering to that audience! Do I smell fear?

Chris

How are they pandering? By, for example, Howard Dean daring to say that there are good things about Christian values and that the Democratic Party better exemplifies them than the Republicans? Shall we have a situation where the Republicans say "Our party is the party that has and respects Christian values" while Democrats jump up and down, get red in the face, and say "Unfair! Unfair! You're just hypocrites!" and offer no positive alternative in the discussion of values and how Christian values (not to exclude other religious values) might apply? How is the middle of the road voter who happens to be a Christian likely to react?

The way they have. When Republicans insist they are Christians and Gods Party, and Democrats say and do nothing, middle-of-the-road Christians can be expected to assume the ones CLAIMING to be Christian are, and the ones that aren't, and content to leave it at that, aren't. We don't need to get secular liberals to wanna vote for us even more. We need to give those that support the other side, or (more likely) give those who support either reasons to support us.

self-delete

-IMHO -
Religion in political discourse is so much smoke and mirrors... a fulcrum of cultural leverage to manipulate one segment of society against the target society segment. A powerful divide and conquer technique used for centuries to keep populations at each other's throats. It is particularly effective on societies that are brainwashed and passive. Not very effective on progressive or independent minded individuals.

When the opponent sets the rules of the game and defines the terms, you are at a disadvantage... better to just ignore it and stick to the facts. - don't get sucked into their game.

The problem with taking a "respecter of the faithful" position no matter what religion that a particular individual believes in and no matter how different the "spoken goals" of the faith are versus the "actual measurable results" is that there is no accountability. People can have whatever beliefs they want and tell me lots of lies and since everyone who doesn't object is a "respecter of the faithful", their tyranny continues.

When Kerry said in the debates that he has "strong religious convictions" but respects the wishes of the (un)faithful and does not want to impose his beliefs on another person, that was fine. But what is not acceptable is the political necessity which has come about that says that a Democrat (running for national office at least) has to appeal to a particular religious base. No, instead of questioning the liars, he affords himself the passive title of "respecter of the faithful". He remains silent because he is afraid of the repercussions. He is not brave enough to confront the liars and make them eat their words. And that is the point.

Chris

I think trying to convince the public that democrats, progressives, liberals etc. are religous is a losing strategy. Rather we should question publicly where this notion came from. Whether we are religous or not,
we have a much better record of walking the walk. I cannot think of even one Republican who has devoted his/her life to the betterment of the human race. We have lots.

Gotta put the righties on the defensive over this.

GitUSA

Being "brave enough to confront the liars and make them eat their words" means getting involved in the religious debate. We, as a political movement, have largely conceded this battle. Do a search on (In)justice Sunday and see what comes up. The impression that the majority of Christians are conservative Republicans has been so successful that even I believed it for a while, but the evidence indicates the opposite.

We SHOULD expose their lies. When they call themselves Christians, and then go on a campaign against their political opponents TO COVER UP THE GENOCIDE OF CHRISTIANS and curry favor with the Turks to further their own goals, and when they do this IN THE CHURCH, it's worse than hypocrisy. It's apostasy, and we have nothing to lose and a great deal to gain by calling it what is to every Christian we can find. They call us anti-Christian and then actively assist those persecuting the Church. This is just one example, but the best I can think of how we can engage in this debate and come out on top.

The fact is, the only reason the other side is winning the religious war they started is because we let them. They're not stupid. They know that every succesful Progressive movement from the Revolution to the Civil Rights movement has been LED by the Church, and the best way to beat us is to take away this very effective tool. We let them at our peril. If you wish to campaign on appeals to the 30% of the country that doesn't call itself Christian and cede the other 70% to the right, you can. Be prepared to see them ADD to their power though. I intend to do everything I can to see that the Greedy Old Party is exposed as the apostates they are, and to have the DNC do likewise. Your beef is not with the Church or with God (Who created free will, and wants it to be used) but with the Pharisees (a misunderstanding that is one of my biggest arguments with them.)

That's how you put them on the defensive. As long as they can count on close to 70% support, you can't.

It could be Democrats know, NO ONE want's someone else's religion shoved down their throat, when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s it was considered rude to discuss politics or religion at social functions.

It's OK to have fanatical and even fanciful political and religious beliefs, but people with good manners, don't inflict them on others,(the loss of manners is probably the worst loss in current incivil society, it fuels road rage, bible thumping, and hate crimes.)

Believe it or not, I've found myself reflecting a lot on the move away from the view expressed in the first statement. A lot of THAT had to do as much with not starting an inevitable fight as protecting minorities. Somehow it seems to be popularly accepted now. With that in mind, the debate has begun, and, to personalize the issue, SILENCE=DEATH.

I lifted this wholesale because it bears repeating. Kinda gives all those "moral values" voters some clarity, yes?

What fact tells me that there is a problem with racial discrimination? Pope Benedict criticized the destruction of the environment in his sermon upon his installation. What fact would he have been basing that on? Or is this something that has no importance since no facts tell us that the environment is important?

No, I'm not arguing that only the religious have values and therefore have morals and thus must guide our country. But there are much more than facts at issue, there are values, and whether you like it or not, for many millions of Americans their important values come from their religion, thus it's kind of hard not to have their religion influence where they are politically. Karl Rove is smart enough to see that and thus is trying to portray the Republican Party as the party that thinks that "Christian values" are important. The game is reaching the voter. What you are proposing would be like a soccer team deciding that they aren't going to enter spots constituting 50% of the field, and yell "unfair" when the other team enters those spots. Guess which team is going to win?

What about when Kerry said that there wasn't enough following of Jesus' commandment, "Love thy neighbor" in America today? Was that unacceptable? What if I were to say that Tom Delay is at odds with what Jesus Christ wants and I cite references in the Bible? Does this address what you were saying about accountability? And would this be okay or would it be "mixing religion with politics"? If you are saying that a Democrat shouldn't be afraid of saying things that might piss off the twisted sensibilities of many of the Christian Right, then I would agree with you. If Democrats have the courage to suggest that those on the Christian Right might not actually be the best followers of Jesus Christ, then they are sure to make many in that quarter angry. IMO the reason that they don't do that as often as they should is that there is another quarter that will be made uncomfortable, their allies who are so afraid of any religious references in politics whatsoever. Again, it's a matter of tying your hand behind your back or conceding half the field to the opposing team and getting mad when your opponents don't do the same thing.

But if you say that we are better at walking the walk but are afraid of saying what kind of walk it is, or at least the kind of walk that many millions of Americans are trying to follow, will you be surprised when people get confused? People aren't as likely to cotton to a politician who does and is for all sorts of great things but cannot allow him or herself to utter the word "Christian values". If a Christian asks him or herself, gee, why can't this politician say Christian? Maybe Jerry Falwell is right, the Democrats are in opposition to Christ.

That's right, the big problem in America is not inequality, poverty, terrorism, eroding protections for the middle class, the destruction of the environment, prejudice, no, none of these things. The problem is the lack of proper etiquette in political discourse.

Since the "Christian" Right started this fight, maybe we Democrats should finish it!

I've said before that an ACTUAL Christian is a delight to know. And even if we didn't agree on everything, they would have the spiritual grace to not judge me on that.

It's the phony Christians that need to be exposed as the hypocrites, and power seekers, and judgemental wolves they really are in "Lambs" clothing.

1. I have to take claims that the "evidence supports" thus and so with a grain of salt when the question is the value of religion is involved. I think this is a question so complicated that it may forever beyond the capacity of humankind to answer. And parts of the answer have to do with assumptions about "what is good" for people.

2. I think that the major problem with overpopulation is that it threatens the environmental carrying capacity of the planet. IMO this is primarily a threat for the future, although it manifests itself in some negative ways now as well. But while I am all for controlling population and birth control, I think that poverty, disease and starvation of today have much more to do with corrupt, authoritarian and vicious governments than with overpopulation.

3. I certainly have no problem with criticizing the Catholic Church (although I defend them too when I feel they should be). I disagree with their stand on birth control. My Catholic wife certainly doesn't follow their teachings there, and she has vast company. I think that the Catholic hierachy should consider the effects of what they teach in terms of condoms, a cheap way to prevent HIV infection. I agree with them that there should be norms on sexual behavior, even if I would not be so strict as them. They are right to say that if people only stuck to monogamous relationships that the HIV infection rate would only be a fraction of what it actually is. That is a powerful argument. But it is wrong to oppose condoms for those who won't follow those strictures. We can all condemn going to a prostitute, but it is better that a man going to a prostitute wears a condom and thus avoids getting infected and passing it on to others. I think that many are still afraid to criticize those in religious authority, and this is bad is you say, but this is not as huge a problem as many claim. I don't mean to minimize this problem, but it should put into the perspective of such things as many believing Catholics, such as my wife, going their own way as regards things such as birth control. IMO this is a problem that has declined over the years, as new problems have arisen.

4. Just a general comment: When we discuss this issue I think that we should avoid blanket statements and try to discuss things more specifically, and especially that it would be a good idea to bring in particular cases, either real or hypothetical ones. That way we can discuss this in more nuanced terms and might find that we have more "common ground" than we think, even between those of dramatically different belief systems.

The position that I support is that we keep the focus on actual values, behaviors,
norms, assumptions, etc. Terms like "family values" and "Christian values" are
used to avoid comunicating about the concrete and specific concers that people have.

These terms certainly can be used to avoid communicating about specific and concrete concerns. IMO the solution is not to avoid using them and play into the schemes of those who want to imply that Democrats stand against "family values" and "Christian values" but to connect such terms to specific, concrete concerns. I don't see how this Administration particularly supports either set of values. When his Labor Secretary supports loosening overtime regulations on business which will mean more people working long hours how is this in support of "family values" or "Christian values" for that matter? It seems that another, often opposing set of values is actually being referred to.

" A lot of THAT had to do as much with not starting an inevitable fight as protecting minorities. Somehow it seems to be popularly accepted now. With that in mind, the debate has begun, and, to personalize the issue, SILENCE=DEATH. "

How opputunistic of you to throw over minority rights, while using a minority slogan, SILENCE =DEATH!
Silence = Death is from ACT UP which fought for the drugs and care facilities to help people dying with AIDS, so there was a time crunch on what they were fighting for, Christian beliefs have been around 2000 years so it's hardly a damn topic that needs urgent attention.