Obama: Democrats must court evangelicals

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_co/obama

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty.

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

Obama, the only black in the Senate, drew national notice even before arriving in Congress last year, and has occasionally used his visibility to scold members of his own party. Widely sought as a fundraiser for other Democrats, Obama responded with a noncommittal laugh this spring when asked whether he wants a spot on the national ticket in 2008.

:puke:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Contrary to the allegations above, I have *NO OPINION*
on the race of the Senators from Illinois; it has no
bearing on my life.

I do have a major opinion about a whole flock of
"Democratic" senators who don't seem to understand
what it means to be a pluralistic democracy. And when
one of them tells me we must, effectively, pander to
people who, generally speaking, are quite anti-
democratic (and anti-Democrat), then I'm more than
willing to call "Bullshit!".

Tesha

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

> If you judge Obama because you've been carefully coached to do so, ...

I haven't been coached by anyone. I formed my own opinions
of Obama from listening to Obama.

You know, there ought to be a party formed by folks like
Obama, Feinstein, Clinton, Schumer, and all those other
folks who defect from true Democratic principles whenever
it's convenient. Oh wait, there is: It's called the DLC.
They just haven't had the decency to fully split from
the real Democrats yet.

Tesha

The one and only who stated that he would run as an independent if he lost the primary. . . sheesh. He's a real winner, isn't he?

Thanks; unfortunately, I *DID* remember Joe. ;-)

(But the editing period had expired.)

Tesha

this is what a "centrist dem" is and it sucks! :puke:

Why is it that some people can't admit that everything isn't always black & white, cut-n-dry, RIGHT or LEFT? :shrug:

I am talking about the fact that obama, clinton, warner, lieberman and a whole host of DLCers proclaim to be centrist when they are actually repeating right wing republican agendas. Not Liberal Democratc agendas! I thought that was pretty clear by now.

Just because someone chooses to call himself/herself a "democrat" doesn't make it a fact. . . . Look at the giant, ripe asshole named Feinstein from California. . .

Seriously, if I wanted to vote for a Republican, I'd vote for a Republican-- not some pussified Dem who acts like a repuke but is too fucking afraid to declare himself/herself one. . . . This business of triangulating is getting really, really old. I don't expect every Dem to agree with me on every single thing. However, I DO have some core values that I really take seriously, and I don't appreciate seeing people from our party bending over backwards to espouse these hideous ideas. If they're going to BE repuke in all but name, what's the point of voting for them?

I'm talking about a Democratic Party that wants to win elections. This is a Democratic party that doesn't just kiss off a significant portion of the voting public. Perhaps Clinton and Obama realize what James Carville has stated over and over (that Democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 presidential elections). All I said was heaven forbid there be (a Democrat) someone that is not always catering to the EXTREME LEFT such as Obama, Bayh, and Clinton. You know, most of America is fairly Centrist. Perhaps, if the Democratic party would list to people instead of walking a hard line, There might be a few more elections won be Democrats.

:rant:

Carter, for one) that are with us in, dare I say,

spirit.

O8)

And I'm convinced it was the only reason he got elected. The Republicans are great at courting evangelicals and then losing on almost every cultural "value" they espouse. They do it to win, and I wouldn't mind winning sometime soon... say November.

I'm happy to point out the Biblical verses that say "turn the other cheek," and "it's harder for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." We need to espouse values that correspond and acknowledge those who are faithful in America even if we don't think faith should be the only deciding factor when going about the process of policymaking.

I'm an atheist and I approve this message.

I should add, that I'm not a huge Clinton fan. He was soft on business, but he was a lot closer to what I would call a statesman than the alternative on the years we elected him

...principally African-American Baptists. Not really the type of evangelicals alluded to by Obama.

The article characterizes what Obama said by saying "the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans."

Sounds like it includes Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentacostals, Geehosafats, Whatsits and Hollerins.

So the point you are trying to make is we should choose one race of churchgoers to speak to and ignore another?

huh?

That makes Clinton a good guy? Because he chose to speak to the demographic that overwhelmingly opposes same-sex marriage?

The point I'm making is that Clinton spoke with a church going part of the public intelligently and used the bible to make progressive policy points. I frankly don't know why we can't do a little more of that while trying to broaden the number of churchgoing people to whom our party speaks. e.g. There are a lot of pissed off people of faith who see the war for what it is: murder, and they can't reconcile that with the teachings of their faith. Why can't anyone in our party speak to that eloquently without getting a pounding from their own allies?

...I wasn't making that point at all. I was merely pointing out that it is not very accurate to say that Clinton courted evangelicals, he courted African-American Baptists. That's all.

and I think you can court mainstream evangelicals of all stripes from a position of belief.

a lot going for him in that arena:

He sounded like one of them.

Clinton, when he got fired up, had the same tonal, vocal, body language and fire/passion qualities as the absolute best tent revival baptist preacher.

A Zeller wannabe.

first off: if you believe the polls, we already HAVE a good percentage of them
second off: the rest, are NEVER going to vote for what they consider the pro-abortion party
third off: triangulate this DINObama

Like Clinton, Obama will make a certain kind of Democrat happy about accepting right wing rule. For such people, it's all a style choice, anyway.

Not me. If I wanted a party that courts fundamentalists and caters to their vile worldview, I'd join the GOP.

don't want.

A larger, more vicious group of whiners would be difficult to find. :grr:

It's not all about them. There are others here who are very offended by the ignorance in the social conservative agenda. What about us?

> What about us?

(Speaking in the "general you", not necessarily to ixion specifically.)

You'll always vote "D" so they could give a shit about your views.

Until we start showing that we *WON'T* always automatically vote
D, we'll keep hearing this sort of pandering to the Reich.

Tesha

home and not vote as I did last month.

I will not turn on our base of gays, women, minorities, immigrants just to win! That's like cutting off you nose to spite your face.

If you are comfortably settled in White middle class America and can say, "we need to turn right to win," I think you are as self centered and any freeper type alive.

I want a progressive movement in this country and that's what I will vote for. I will not vote for a center right Dem and there are many many more like me.

In stead of telling me I have to stick around and except any candidate because he/she has a D before their name, think again.

You may get a bunch of evangelicals to vote for you by pandering but you will lose and equal or more number of your base. Listen up!

He'll probably win anyway, but it won't be with my help.

See, that's the point. The centrists won't vote for *OUR*
Democrats, but we're expected to *ALWAYS* and faithfully
vote for their "Democrats" else we'd be "splitting the
party".

What a deal, ehh?

Tesha

half let liberals keep half. See which side is gaining population is a few years.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

> why do you think that evangelicals are conservatives?

As Obama says, "Context matters". And when a politician
talks about "Evangelicals", he isn't using that term to
mean any who evangelize, or Jimmy Carter, or my two
evangelical-but-lesbian friends and their two kids who
got burned out of their house in Colorado Springs by
the fundies.

Instead, a politician who's using the term is using it
as a woolier codeword for "the Religious Right".

Tesha

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

An evangelical is one who evangelizes (usually about
the Christian gospels).

No more, no less.

Tesha

Well put, and accurate.

how we should live. This guy is a real piece of shit!

How about a speech on our common humanity, Barack? It's a theme that many religions sacrifice on the altar of their "God."

reactions among a few progressives to anything that mentions religion. Religion isn't going to go away, it's a *huge* part of too many folks' lives. You do not ignore religion (hoping it will go away?). You communicate to folks and you work together to pass laws that are Constitutional and ethical and that won't start a slippery slope towards oppression.

but under the reign of King George The Second, religion, faith, and evangelical Christianity have been molded into one. The only way to "embrace" the evangelicals is to give them what they want, and what they want is theorcracy. Progressives SHOULD be talking of and to religious Americans, but in terms of freedom of and FROM it.

:headbang:
rocknation

There is a big divide between assuring people of faith that they can be free to practice the value system of their choice, and value the culture and communities that result, and instituting a theocracy. You'll recall that Clinton, while a very flawed president, won largely because when he was in the south he was a knowledgeable and inspiring Biblical speaker. He didn't seem that way to us in Urban sectors of the country, but Clinton could quote the bible, and when he did, there were a lot of evangelical voters listening... listening to the virtues of Jesus's care for the sick and dying (Aids is the Leprosy of our time), and about the virtues of the meek and the Christian obligation to help the poor. In fact Jesus goes so far as to say that rich people don't go to heaven... might not be our reasoning for supporting projects to improve the social welfare, but its a motivator for the faithful, for sure.

We need to win folks and the polling numbers are in... I guarantee you that they say people vote with their church. As long as we help shape how the holy books are interpreted in debate, we are going to lose hold of that part of the electorate.

I'm an atheist and I approve this message.

There was a time when the democratic party could count on the support of a substantial portion of so-called evangelicals. They're not all rabid homophobic anti-choice wingnuts. But they become offended very quickly at the suggestion that their faith must be hidden, behind closed doors.

Than to sell out my gay friends, those needing a safe, legal abortion, or having jeebus shoved down our collective throats!

Come on grow up...The only way changes of direction can happen is from the drivers seat...

State" comment.

Not all evangelicals are conservatives - and Dems need to recognize this.

But we need to argue from the perspective of the faithful. We need to reason with them and argue why it is in the interest of evangelicals to keep themselves separate from Government. That was the point to begin with wasn't it? Evangelicals don't want Church to touch government, because any change in denomination of the white house means that one or another "Christian" value is favored over another. Right now the Office of Faith and Community Based initiatives basically offers handouts, but those handouts are overwhelmingly to certain faiths and certain religion sets. This needs to be the point of the argument. How can government decide whose faith is better? It can't and it shouldn't? And that is in the interest of Faith based organizations and communities all over the nation.

I'm an atheist and I approve this message.

n/t

obviously not.

i am an atheist, and approve the message that says THIS atheist says all evangelicals can kiss my ass.

the ones pulling the strings right now have no concern whatsoever about any "freedom of religion".

they are totally obsessed with forcing their rightwing, evangelical, literal interpretation (their OWN interpretation, of course) into legislation, and down the rest of our throats.

that is COMPLETELY unacceptable.

i will NOT particpate in that, and if our "so-called democrats" decide that THAT is the route we have to go, they will do it without me.

i would rather see civil (in this case, between religious and nonreligious) war than to turn our country over to them.

if it comes to civil war, they will lose.

if that is what it takes, so be it.

as that piece of shit, W, says, BRING IT ON!

...."they are totally obsessed with forcing their rightwing, evangelical, literal interpretation (their OWN interpretation, of course) into legislation, and down the rest of our throats."....

....I happen to be a person of faith....but I have no intention of jamming my faith down anyones' throat to force them to live THEIR lives my way....I mean the Lords' way....that is, the Lords' way, as I see it....

....Obama, who sounded quite progressive during his campaign has slid dramatically to the right....he wants to be president, to this I say, fat chance....get in line behind Biden....

then why do we need to put so much effort intor courting them????

... as a legitimate foundation for progressive thought and action.

Certainly not as the ONLY foundation, but one among many.

I think the Senator is right about this.

I'm an atheist and I think Obama is on the right track

AMEN! I am a pro-choice progressive Christian and know there are lots of us.

I believe in the separation of church and state. Even God commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar (i.e. taxes) and to render unto God what is God's (tithes). I take that to mean more than money though. I think it means obedience to the ways and laws as well. Abortion and gay marriage have no place in the agenda. Damn * and the GOP for using them!

And I think there are so many ways to meet evangelicals without compromising our values.

Push them to act on their faith by caring for the least among us. That's something all Dems, regardless of whether they are religious or not, agree on. And something that's been signally lacking in the GOP approach to religion.

There's a small movement beginning about the environment. There's definite meeting ground there. And again, that's an area where the GOP fails miserably.

Talking to them DOES NOT mean we have to compromise our values, including the high value of separation between church and state. Closing out a group of people as not worth our time, however, is a guarantee of losing them. And why should we? There's a great deal of education that needs to happen. But the more we do, the less power the political/religious right has. What they have, we've ceded to them. That needs to stop.

But of course, before we can talk with them, we all have to be certain about where we stand. What are our values? What's important to us as Dems. We need people who can speak clearly for the party about that, without fear of offense, without hedging bets.

The Fundamentalist, Evangelical, in your face, voting for Bush because God tells them to people are disconnected from religion as much as from reality. They are sick people, and there is no way to reach them in the public forum.

the end-times are near and that if I don't have a meaningful relationship with JC when it happens, that I will eternally burn in a sea of fire. I've very little patience or understanding for that point of view, call me an elitist, faithless, worm - proud to accept the moniker. I don't believe that people who espouse that point of view belong anywhere near to the annals of power, and I distinguish between people who practice a certain faith and the folks I mentioned above. Mr. Obama advocates communicating with them, I sincerely hope he knows something I don't...

I am so glad someone said this. Christianity has been hijacked by these end times rapture heads. Their beliefs scare the hell out of me. They want to govern according to their rigid beliefs, too. No need to watch out for the environment, Jesus will be here any day now. This is only one small example.

rather it's unquestioning faith

and is therefore flawed.

Well, then shouldn't the Dems embrace Muslims, satanists, Jews, Wiccans, and atheists as well? Shouldn't they mention Allah, Satan, and Bhudda, too? This country doesn't have a state-established religious context, like say, Iran. Dems should only be embracing those who believe in freedom of religion, and not making deals to establish an official one.

:headbang:
rocknation

has no place in religion.

because the founding fathers were Christians and didn't want a representative from New York where they are all heathens to be influencing their religion large or small in Peoria. It is a protection for the faithful, and it needs to be sold to the faithful communities of America that way. I'm sorry, but people have rights to practice satanism and wiccan as long as they follow the laws that we uphold as a nation of faithful and secular people alike, and the Christian communities need to recognize that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander and that is precisely why it is in their interest to favor separation of Church and State. They can make a textbook that espouses some religious interpretation of history, but other religious interpretations have to be included also. Not sure anyone has even made that argument to them. Fair is fair. Originally the decision was to leave it out entirely, which is much better

You guys have got to understand that this is a war of position. You guys keep sounding adversarial to Faithful people, which is not going to help us win in November. Reshaping an interpretation of the law and the Bible itself to include the desires of Religious people has a better chance. In this case, doing so argues our position for us.

The fear is that the goal isn't to include Jesus in the classroom, but to actually kill "the classroom" as a conception of the public good and something that our government should provide. That's the real danger. Until now public education has been anathema to the understanding of a "religious" education and its been plain substandard because teachers aren't paid enough or compensated for continued learning. We need to invest in education soon or we lose the whole thing to "charters" and "vouchers"

I don't think Obama is excluding any of those religions with his comments.

> Are you saying they don't? (include Moslems, Wiccans, Atheists, etc.)

Honestly: When was the last time you heard a politician say
"Atheists have the same rights as everyone else".

Or "Yes, of course Wiccans have the same rights as any other
religion to have their symbol carved on those military
gravestones!"

They mealy-mouth some support for Moslems, but even then, I
don't think you hear much defense of them, either. It's more
like "as long as they don't build their mosques in *MY*
neighborhood..."

Tesha

is a Wiccan Priestess. And I am in what most around here would call a 'fly over' state.

And she works on the red side of the state as well.

I have to agree with the Sentator here. I simply cannot see winning many elections by discounting anyone.

There have been some very excellect arguments made right here in this thread for why so called 'evengelicals' would really want a sepration of church and state. Are any of us that believe this REALY out there trying to change those perceptions? Are their any grass roots aimed at EDUCATING these people?

I see no difference in discounting evengelicals as I do in discounting anyone, including 'liberals', obviously. I see the people with their heels dug in on both sides, and that is going to get us nowhere imho.

Odd, as I have this weekend off and have been thinking about this very issue for the last 2 days. The reason being is that I have two evangelical parents who both voted for * twice. And they now cannot stand him! Same for my sister. She worked for the * campaign here in Wisconsin, and recieved a personal letter from * thanking her.

No one is talking to those people! And that is sad. They are ready for change. They are receptive.

I am going to bookmark this thread, because I really like the ideas forming for explaining to them just where we do have middle ground to meet. THAT is going to begin the healing in this country. Not more division.

And no I am not talking about the Robertsons and the Falwells. Screw them.

...the way progressives 'court' evangelicals isn't through direct appeals to their religious beliefs, but by identifying ISSUES where GOP/conservative policies contradict religious teachings...such as capital punishment, the difference between "just" and "unjust" wars, economic fairness, even social/cultural tolerance. It doesn't hurt for a progressive to be able to quote a few choice passages of scripture (anyone's, not just christian) that promote "peace, love and understanding" which compliment liberal ideology and undercut conservative ideology. We don't even have to mention "God"...just make the arguement in terms/language the religious right understands (which we can teach ourselves just by watching two hours of any televangelist). The point is, there are more issues than school prayer, displaying the ten commandments and outlawing abortion or recriminalizing homosexuality with which to split the religious-minded from the GOP, and by emphasizing those OTHER issues (again, capital punishment, treatment of the poor and unfortunate, etc), this can be accomplished. It's a long term endeavor, and don't expect to see any immediate results, but it can be done. Of course, this also means the DP should adopt positions (and a voting record in Congress and state legislatures) of opposing capital punishment, against war (and its funding), tax fairness, etc...

I do agree that Obama is missing this point, or, at the very least, isn't expressing it as clearly as he should; seeming to suggest that we simply imitate the GOP in pandering to so-called "religious" values, instead of identifying which of those values can be turned against the GOP, and in an ecumenical, non-demonimational language which has broader appeal than the GOP's blatant pandering to christians only.

that include ALL Christians.

I am with them ALL the WAY.

That is a big piece that has been missing in these last years.

During the Civil Rights Marches, ministers were always marching with us.

Then all of a sudden, we allowed the Farwells of the world to OWN JESUS.
The world needs to know that Farwell does not OWN JESUS.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You know, there are quite a few evangelicals who aren't the kind of demons that we fear. Many of them are even liberals.

I've personally courted one or two evangelicals in my day. They are NOT sub-human monsters. They like modern entertainment. They like Jane Fonda (who's also now an evangelical), Oprah, Alec Baldwin, and George Clooney. They like Jews, Blacks, and G/L/B/T people. They like getting naked. And while most of the leadership of the movement is corrupt and filthy, the rank-and-file members remain in dire need of new political direction.

The day of the silver-tongued fraud in a $700 suit waving the Bible and loudly uttering about "Jehayazuss" is over. If it wasn't for the commandment to "love one another," they'd be lining up to kick Robertson and Falwell's pampered and Pharisaical asses.

Fundies are our Prodigal brothers and sisters. Let's show 'em all what a real Big Tent revival looks like!

--p!

As long as they're not about making their beliefs the law of the land. Otherwise they may be good at being religious, but they're not being good at being Americans.

:headbang:
rocknation

eom

nudists were conservative, religious, republicans. My wife's family were nudists when we met and I went to camp with them for many years. I thought surely these nudists must be liberals until I got into some religious, political discussions with them. Man was I wrong!

"All nudists are Christians" -- nope.

"Many Christians are nudists" -- yep.

"Most Christian girls actively want to have sex with their boyfriends" -- BINGO.

And it's not that I'm such a stud with the chicks, either. I just got lucky in the Faith-Based Whoopie department a couple times. And it kind of killed the whole "Christians are puritanical, anti-sexual, evil Hellspawn" thing.

The "average" Christian guy is more Ned Flanders than Elmer Gantry. The "average" Christian girl in her late teens and twenties is more Jenna Bush than Hilary Fay. And if that's not a Golden Opportunity for the Democratic Party, then we just aren't paying enough attention.

--p!

I don't tend to want to EVER convert to a nude lifestyle...and this seals it lol

First, the strawman: "Not every mention of God in public is a breach...". Who said it was? I know of no Democratic leader who has ever taken that position. Bill Clinton constantly mentioned faith during his two terms--that really helped with the fundies didn't it!

Second, the logical fallacy: "It is doubtful that children...feel oppressed or brainwashed". It doesn't matter what the children feel. Their feelings aren't the issue.

Message to clueless Obama: The fundies will NEVER support the Democrats until the Repugs create another depression or we abandon support for choice. Trying to move to the right to accomodate them will only further legitimize the rightward avalanche of the Repugs.

I agree completely.

And may I add...

Democrats should absolutely support Fundamental Christian values.

Democrats should absolutely shun Fundamentalist Christians. I've known too many of them, They do not believe in the teachings of Jesus.

people with legitimate beliefs as simply backwards, or evil, we will certainly not attract many of them to our cause.

There is a lot in the theology of evangelical Christianity that is amenable to progressive thought. But so long as we feed into the perception of a 'culture war' between us and them, instead of opening a dialogue, those openings are lost to us.

What Democratic politician has EVER treated people with legitimate beliefs as backwards or evil? This is bullshit and it is purely the figment of RW spin. In fact the situation is exactly reversed--the so-called religious right treats us as evil "baby killers", "queer lovers", "traitors", etc. etc.

Second, we don't "feed into the perception of a culture war". That is another RW construct. To us there is no culture war. We do what we believe is our constitutional responsibility as citizens. That includes supporting the right of a woman to choose an abortion. That is not feeding any perceptions, that is doing what is right. And on this issue, there is no dialogue. They don't want one because their position is unequivocal. They should be trying to open a dialogue with us.

not to politicians.

Specifically, where you state: "The fundies will NEVER support the Democrats until the Repugs create another depression or we abandon support for choice. Trying to move to the right to accomodate them will only further legitimize the rightward avalanche of the Repugs."

You assume:

1. that "fundies" cannot be reasoned with, because they are just sheep who follow their leaders.

2. that opening a dialogue with people who hold religious beliefs, particularly evangelicals, on issues of belief and its role in the commons is "moving to the right."

I don't see how either is logical or necessary, or even the substance of what Obama was talking about.

To my mind, you seem to have bought into the same set of false choices right wing politicians are trying to force us into. That is, first, that the only choices we have are abortion or choice; and second, that everything is about abortion.

Look, I'm no fool, and I recognize that a significant portion of the evangelical community will not, ever, listen to what Democrats have to say. Their identity is too wrapped up in being opposed to more or less everything that is not them. But there is, I believe, a sizable number of people who identify themselves as evangelicals or simply as "Christians," and who see the Democratic party as hostile toward belief. (Reading some of the comments on this very thread, I can see why.) They are not necessarily the mindless, one-issue-voters we assume they are; they have a sense of social justice, and economic pragmatism.

If this means again we have to turn on our base to get those outside or base I say go to hell!

no matter what their religious beliefs.

I understand where he is headed, and he is a very smart man, I just think that FARWELL should not OWN Jesus.

Why not leave religion out of it and enunciate our social justice values. If that fits your religious beliefs fine, if it doesn't don't vote for us.

We do not need to put a faith based title on this. The progressive Dems represent what Jesus taught in the New Testament. Stick to that and don't put a label on it.

We should not turn our backs on a group of people because evangelical faith calls them sinners. As JFK said, there should be no religious test when it comes to electing our President.

Obama is straying too close to the fundamentalist state for my taste. We should never go one inch in that direction. Don't play with fire, you'll get burnt!

"Religion is the most divisive corrosive institution on this earth."

deaths have been caused because of religious beliefs than any other belief including nationalism.

The problem with religion is that people don't see the evil they are doing because they are convinced that their God wants them to do what it is they are doing. That removes the human tendency to judge actions by their effect on other people. I am convinced that the human race could make huge progress toward living peacefully on earth with each other if religion were not a part of our lives. The other evil is greed and people tend to use religion to support their greedy actions also.

I am convinced that people are born good and left in that state, without the influence of religious teachings and educated with a good general liberal arts education, they would become far better human beings toward each other.

Please explain the Reverend Martin Luther King, or Ghandi. Both were deeply religious men, and acted out of their convictions. Also, while you're at it, explain to the millions of people who find in their faith solace from their grief, strength to fight oppression, and hope in seemingly hopeless situations that they are simply misguided an addicted to a "corrosive" institution.

After all, you know so well, don't you?

They were inherently good. Their religion allowed them to explain it.

Religion is not and never was a requirement for moral or altruistic behavior.

We tried to keep Christian Beliefs out of it and guess what---they put it right smack in our faces.


I don't have a problem with being Christian.
I don't have a problem with anyone's faith or lack of faith.

I have a BIG problem with Farwell and Company talking lies about how THEY are Christian as if others are not.

The RepubliCONS have made a lot of innocent people believe that stuff.

I am African American and I have a dear friend that was extremely progressive and extremely bright.

He joined a mega church about three years ago and all of a sudden, he is speaking in Bush Language~ " Democrats voted for the war too" and "The media is not getting the real story out, the soldiers are helping to build schools in Iraq."

I started asking him about his new church and went on line to find out more about it.
BINGO! He is believing all that "born again" stuff and he is right in the RepubliCONS pocket! And, he is a smart man but he is drinking some very thick cool aid.

I'm sending an email to Obama about his stance.

I'm telling him that on this issue, Democrats sand Christians need to go in another direction....

STICKIE: FARWELL does NOT Own Jesus!

and the experience out of which he is speaking....

http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm

...I just think that FALWELL should not OWN Jesus.

That's because it is the Falwells--the evangelical Christians who control the GOP--are "on a mission from God" to meld church and state. It's naive and/or delusional to believe that are after--and are willing to accept--anything less. It isn't religion that makes one a religious extremist--it's the extremism.

Progressives should openly reject religious extremism of any kind and support the American values of freedom of ALL religions and the continued separation of church and state.


:headbang:
rocknation

Democrats don't have an image problem with Wiccans, Satanists, atheists and so on in the same way they have one with conservative Christians or evangelicals. Many of the minority religions and groups already look at the Democratic Party as the one that best represents their views or at least is tolerant of them. A lot of American Christians feel the Democrats are disdainful if not openly hostile to them and their views. Those are the people we need to court.

Under the pretext of providing an open message to faiths, he is really only interested in getting money from them...since evangelicals KNOW THAT, it makes Obama look even 'less' Christian and more 'opportunistic'.

If you want their votes, then you appeal to them through policies. But since it is unlikely that Democrats will reach an viable consensus with the evangelical wishlist, Obama can really only try to get their cash.

If you take their money, then they expect some results--that's how politics works. They know it. And so does Obama. So who is being played here?

...btw, who died and made evangelicals the only Christians in the America anyway.

It has always struck me here at DU, that a great many Democrats are deeply religious and proud of it and the source of their discomfort has mostly been how the huge body of faiths that make up Christianity are routinely ignored to present the narrow views of the evangelical sect as the 'real' deal...Obama is just playing into this division.

Respect their religion, but tell them that Church and State should be kept separate.

End of courting process.

need to point out to the fundies that the Republican way is NOT Jesus' way!
Jesus, who threw the money changers and vendors out of the temple probably wouldn't look too kindly on the repukes pandering to big business.
Jesus, who gave us stewardship over the earth and all it's creatures probably wouldn't look too kindly on bush's policies that are hell-bent on destroying our air/water/planet.
Jesus, who taught us to love our neighbor and turn the other cheek probably wouldn't take too kindly to bush's illegal war of aggression on another country and it's people.

I could go on and on.....

The article is out of context and a piece of right-wing spin.

Of course like all right-wing spin it finds a home on DU, where it can be amplified and broadcast.

They really must laugh at how easy it is to drive a wedge between Dems.

is between the religious/political extremists and the religious.

:headbang:
rocknation

The minute I saw the headline, I could pretty easily guess the reactions from a fair number of of DUers.

Even Obama's quotes in the article aren't necessarily anything to panic about. Surely I can't be the only DUer old enough to remember when Southern evangelicals supported Democrats, including Jimmy Carter.

On edit: Heck, a nun at my parochial school told me I was a "traitor" for having parents who backed Goldwater. Sister was wrong to do that, especially to a child, but it just goes to show you that Catholic support for Democratic candidates was taken as a given.

But the One Person Purity Party contingent on DU is so busy compiling lists of people they no longer condescend to talk to or work with that they've forgotten that you make policy by winning elections and then having allies and a bloc of voters.

You do not make policy by scorning allies or shrinking your party.

He's totally DLC... ands yet, he doesn't get anywhere near the criticism that HRC, etc. do... why? What's disappointing is that he turned so quickly... unless there wasn't much turning to do... *sigh*

In fact, he was in the DLC when he was a state senator, as well as being a member of a hostile black separatist megachurch.

Show me a link to a credible source that Obama is now in the DLC OR that Obama was in the DLC when he was a state senator.

sounds politically correct but who`s going to decide what should be said? so barack what are we supposed to say to the religous right wing?

And it is the right strategy for the left. Our enemy in the Republican party is not the evangelicals... it is the greedy corporate minded assholes that have manipulated their fears for decades. I for one have no problem with those who are religious. If we take away the "boogeyman" they fear... that we are Godless heathens that want to destroy them, and at least communicate to them that we respect their rights... maybe they will begin to respect ours, and we can begin to figure out ways to fight together for some of our common interests, including the most important one...

our environment.

What do you propose to give them? Who gets thrown to the sharks?

Putting it this way: We piss of the fundies and many other christian sects. They are a majority voting block. We lose elections. They get everything they want, we get zip.

Listen to them, don't call them names, find a common ground on some issues. We win elections. We get more, they get less.

It could well boil down to - you get nothing at all, or you get half of what you want now and use that as a springboard to turn the tides and get even more of what you want over time.

What do we sacrifice? At this rate, it may well be everything.

finding the middle ground. Instead of fighting for something important like the Voting Rights Act Hillary works on finding a "moderate" alternative to flag burning. Flag burning! All her "moderate" talk does is piss off the Progressives and make both the moderates and the conservatives laugh, and laugh and laugh.

Obama is going down the same trail. I worked for his campaign and voted for him. I will not next time. All his "moderate" talk just pisses his old supporters off. Good luck finding campaign workers willing to spend their own time supporting that do nothing "moderate" wishy washy campaign. Fool us once.

We need someone to help take this country back. Obama and Clinton are too busy trying to find middle ground and losing sight of the fact they have lost their base.

The Christians, evangelical or otherwise, consider compromise anathema. While we may not have to sacrifice EVERY issue to win some of them to the Dem camp, we will certainly have to hand over a number of them - cut from whole cloth. So which one's will it be?

Not all evangelicals are "cut from the same cloth". Not all of them all closed-minded people who are unable to compromise.

Why aren't they part of the fold already?

some or all. It's basic compromise. The US is made up of many different minded people. We will never get them all to agree to anything. No matter how right or good the cause we may have, if we in the minority and can't get the power to make change then we lose outright. Just because we should win and get everything we want does not mean we will.

It's called politics for a reason. The person in office wants to keep their job, they hold their noses and vote for some things they don't like while pushing for things they do.....Kind of like how some here have described voting---most would vote for hillary if it was her vs a republican for president - what are they willing to give up (since she is a moderate) to get her into office? Would they campaign against their own party and the repugs? I doubt it. People will accept something as better than nothing and vote with the party. It is no longer ABB it is ABR (anyone but republicans). And come election day we will have candidates some/many here will not like (ie, think they poorly represent us) - but they will vote for that candidate, they will campaign for them, and basically compromise; any dem is better than a repug.

Now to even get to the point of the above, we also align with folks we may not like completely. The end goal will not ever magically appear. It is a long, crappy, process of alliances. Change comes from education and power.

What would I give up? Not saying I think we should give up things we have as core values to suck in some votes. Courting is different than marrying. Fundies get bashed from the left all day long, even non-fundie christians are belitted here as believing in fairy tales, etc. Tone down the rhetoric, and also tone down the absolute fear we have of a belief that most the people in this country hold (ie, some form of christianity).

I know many folks who have been turned off by the taking down of christmas displays, et al, and the PC type stuff. They mostly see the dems are supporting that. Has it gained us more or lost us more?

Which would we rather do - what would we give up?

Would we give up abortion so that we can safely drive by the local courthouse in a town of 300 people and not see a christmas tree? When the majority see that as a miscarriage of justice, they will vote the people supporting that out of office. And those same people are the ones who would also be fighting for gay marriage and abortion. So we win against a tree with lights, and lose the bigger the things.

You just saved me the time of having to think through and type up similar thoughts, though you said it much better than I would have. Your comments are down to earth and reflect perspective and most importantly wisdom.

No matter how much we court them, they'll always be ready to burn me and other godless heathens at the stake. They hate atheists worse than Muslims and other religious groups.

In some states, atheists are prohibited from holding political office. Here in Tejas, I can't serve on a jury.

What would I get courting evangelicals? Two words . . . JACK SHIT!

This is pandering, pure and simple, and I don't like it. Has Obama forgotten how fickle the evangelicals can be if you don't deliver? I say run on the issues and leave Jesus on the shelf. Democrats stand for what's good and what's right - health care for all, jobs for all, an end to poverty, the end of killing wars, stewardship of the planet, etc. - if that's not good enough for the evangelicals, I'm sorry.

we are not giving them everything they want. We are not telling them we're going to give them anything. We're saying... you are welcome to sit at our table, and maybe we can find some common ground. Maybe we will find there is more of it there than we thought.

It's tactics like this that make me consider reclaiming my Independent status.

Obama is talking about religion and politics, not religion and the state. They are two different things.

Religion and the State, and Religion and Politics???:wtf:

NOT!!!

:boring:

Some people don't grasp this.

"...the conservative leaders of the Religious Right will need to acknowledge a few things as well.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice."

Stumping for Joementum was like Anikin in Star Wars II...where he kills the Tusken Raiders, foreshadowing his conversion to the Dark Side.

This is like the night at the theater with Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith.


Read between the lines people. This is really saying "Hey, all you liberals who put me here: fuck you! I'm moving to the 'center'."

But we need to be honest about how we win them over, and not fake. Instead of acting like Bush and paying lip service to God at every photo op Dems should make it a high priotity to meet with church leaders and debunk the myths about liberals that the rebubs have created. Show them why liberals are the party that Chistians should align themselves with. Our core beliefs are certainly more in line with what Jesus taught than the Republicans.

I'm meeting more and more evangelical Christians who find themselves growing apart from the party they were more or less birthed into. But they feel like they don't have a place to land. They disagree with Republicans on economic issues, the favoring of corporations over the average citizen, the failure to render social justice and so on, but the Democrats practically push them away by disdaining their social and moral concerns and their almost rabid support for legalized abortions of virtually any kind. These folks are going to end up supporting someone. Right now, unless we give them a real reason not to, they'll just hold their noses and continue voting for the GOP and fight a futile battle to change it from within.

We can dismiss them like it doesn't matter and that they are the problem, but it won't help us in the long run.

values.

The Network of Spiritual Progressives is a new movement aimed at reaching out to all religions and spiritual-but-not-religious types to let them see the alignment between their values and ours. Check it out:

www.spiritualprogressives.org

Atheists were sent to the camps in Nazi Germany. What makes you think they will ever compromise with an atheist like me? As far as christians are concerned, atheists are the ultimate untermenschen, fit only to fuel the fires in the ovens. Ask a few christians and you'll see.

beliefs or lack of them. The values of compassion, caring for the earth and the disadvantaged, peace, etc aren't the exclusive purview of religion.

They deeply, deeply believe this. You cannot overcome that. Instead of Dems stooping to be like the loony Xians, far easier to show the true Christians (of which evangelicals are some) how Dems best represent the teachings of their Christ. Remind them of what their Christ told them to do.

The repukes can keep their 27% evangelical base--what we need to *court* are the ordinary citizens trying to keep a roof over their heads these days.

Of course Obama wouldn't know that because he is an overpaid useless member of the Senate like most of the rest of them!

There are two possible strategies for Dems: Pander to centrist voters (which has been tried in the last two cycles) OR recruit those who aren't voting because they aren't inspired to vote. I choose the latter.

to anyone who watched his speech to the Democratic convention. You remember, the one that catapulted Obama from a wet-behind-the-ears senatorial candidate to someone who's talked about, fairly seriously, for the Presidency.

I freely admit that I stepped back from the TV when I heard him say "...and we worship an awesome God in the Blue states!" You see, I associate the phrase "awesome God" with a song sung incessantly (and off-key :-) ) by anti's outside clinic entrances. But never mind that; no one who knows much about Obama at all should be shocked when he brings up religion, seeing as how he invoked it in his first major speech outside Illinois.

The general tenor of the response to his views illustrate why, if this attitude predominates in the Democratic Party, it will continue to lose and decline.

When it comes to atheists, the christian attitude is "kill all those godless heathens! They are immoral are deserve to die!"
That has been told to my face many times by otherwise good progressive christians.
So pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling!

:puke:

Can't stand him!

My relatives consider themselves evangelical Lutherans and they are not even close to being fundies, they are mostly are hard-core Dems.

He's courting the people who are conservative on social issues and are left-wing on economic issues (what political scientists call "communitarians". Some DUers need to get to grips with the fact that for the time being the US leans towards social conservatism. The problem is though, even though we lean to the right on social issues, I think we lean to the left on economic issues. Our great mistake is obsessing over ideological purity on social issues, the Pukes WANT us to do that because it drives the communitarians into thier hands. The only way we gat get rid of the "two Americas" situation is shift the debate to economic issues.

Faith-based = DUMBASSES, who can't get their mind around the uncertainties of the world. F'em.

I've had it up to here with DINOs pandering to the Medieval notions of a group of uneducated, inflexible pro-fascists.

J

With foolish posts like yours that don't reflect the Democratic Party's platform, position, or mindset at all and do nothing productive for our cause but rather promote the damage of our party. You are the DINO. There's nothing democratic about your post.

F' OFF.

Your way for the Democratic Party has resulted in multiple losses and a backwards slide for reason in this chaotic world. It's a big tent and I intend to stay and speak my mind. If you don't like it, I suggest you move over to the "other party"...the one that ascribes to fascism and Xtian fundamentalism.

J

Mr. Dean is holding on line 1.

Sometimes it connects to people more than analysis of the issues. But why did he choose evangelicals? Many of them will never be on our side.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

but most evangelicals (something like 95%) are repukes. . .

Just before the 2004 elections--

My memory may not be exact, but it's somewhere around 80-90%

:toast:

He really hasn't spent much time around "evangelicals" or he would know that they are insane. They believe in crazy ideas, like the Rapture and that every word of the Bible is literally inspired by God. They also believe in truly creepy, fascistic ideas like all homosexuals being rounded up and put in concentration camps. There is no "courting" them.

Sorry appologists but I'm not marching myself to the gas chamber because the guy has a "D" on his sleeve. I don't give a crap what you CALL yourself. It's what you do. He might as well be a Republican in my eyes. Right now there is a fight for the very soul of this nation. AND IT's not about GOD. It's about that dictator in the white house, his "signing statements" that have made the constitution moot. It's almost fun watching the end of an era. Those like Obama that would have done well in another time. But he doesn't even have a clue what is going on.

THIS IS WHAT HE FOCUSES ON?

as long as they don't let it affect their votes and policies.

And if it helps us pick up a few voters along the way, so be it.

Don't believe me? Ask Madeline Murray O'Hare and her family.

:eyes:

The Democratic Party is toast with all of it's Yellowbellied Gutless- Wonders!

:nuke:

Nobody's said they can't worship. We're just saying it's not right to force their religion down other people's throats. I'm thrilled that evangelicals have found something meaningful to them. There's no place for religion in our government.

Tell it like it is, and you'll find a lot of people showing up at the polls to vote who never bothered before. Pandering to the fundies will guarantee that they stay away from the booths another year.

There's plenty of them even in the Episcopal Church. There are certain evangelicals that should just not be courted (Robertson, Dobson, Falwell come to mind - and their ilk - that guy Phelps I believe needs to pray for repentence but that's between him and Him). The "regular" evangelicals - who are the Christians that we really need to get on our side so to speak - can and will be won over. I think they're seeing that the BA doesn't meet Christian values.

The blinkered Christians will not be won over, because they like their blinkers.

Mark

he will never go anywhere. People talk about how evangelicals vote for Republicans, but apparently 71 percent of BLACK evangelicals are Democrats (11 percent are Republican). Meanwhile the statistics for white evangelicals are completely reversed. How could two groups who purportedly share the same faith be so diametrically opposite in their voting patterns?

I can't really say, but he better start being honest and start talking about how to attract the WHITE evangelical vote.

or perhaps he is positioning himself for the VP spot on the Hillary ticket.

"Evangelicals" comprise at MOST 20% of the population.

Is Obama saying he'd rather have them than us? Or is he really fool enough to think we can all come together under a great big CORPORATIST tent? Not in my lifetime.

I get so damned sick and tired of OUR party snubbing their own base.

Ugh. These freaking corporatists make me sick.


WHERE'S OUR REPRESENTATION????
WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO COURT US???
PIGS.

Check Obama's voting record before you spout off about him not representing the Democrats, K?

of people that hate LGBTs and want women back in the kitchen as chattel.

Geez, you're no better than the people you criticize.

Most evangelicals (not talking about Fred Phelps fundies) I have met don't hate LBGT. They have a difference of opinion and belief regarding sexual morality. Hate is a gross exaggeration of how they feel. Hell, most of my family would be considered conservative evangelicals and my uncle is gay. They may not agree with him about all the issues surrounding homosexuality, but they love him and they've never treated any of his partners with anything less than the utmost respect and friendliness.

And the women as chattel thing is just the most ignorant thing I've heard from a so-called "progressive" in a long time. You really need to get out more. I want to try and address this but it's just so ludicrous and completely unrepresentative of anything most evangelicals would believe or practice it would be a waste of time.

Ask any evangelical. Atheists are worse than Satan in their book, worthy only of death.

This is the impression they send me, and people like me, K?

"You shouldn't ever have sex until you get married, and we're gonna do our best to make certain you (literally) God-damn faggots can't ever get married. If we could prevent you from hving sex at all, we would, but since we can't, we're going to legislate against you in every way we can. Contracts, housing, job security, health benefits provided by private companies NOT affiliated with the State- we will crush you under our heel, and it's going to happen, because our opinions and beliefs regarding sexual morality are the only pure beliefs, and everything else is Ungodly, immoral, and cannot be tolerated by a Christian nation like the USA."

That's the impression evangelicals give me. They own that, all of them- each and every word. I'm not the one who needs to change, and I definitely do not want to court them- I personally would prefer to drive them away, never to vote in our party again.

Put 'em in the wrong and keep 'em there. I. Have. Had. ENOUGH.

I can handle the liberal evangelicals, but they already vote "Democrat."

Really, this guy needs to get back with his constituents because he's clearly *out of touch.* :shrug:

to court those people they are concerned with flag burning and saying Merry Christmas while the World falls apart around them. :-(

What a loser he's turned out to be. . . . However, whatever led me to believe that he'd be anything other than a tremendous waste of time. . . What is this obsession with kissing up to a bunch of bigoted rednecks? I have zero tolerance for people like that and for their enablers like Obama. He's finished in my book.

I am uncomfortable with the DLC wanting to turn right. Senators Obama, Clinton, and Lieberman all need to get a clear message that they need to start acting like democrats and stop trying to appease people who will never like them.

I work with right wing evangelicals all day. They hate Hilary Clinton with all the self righteous spite they can muster. If she wins in 2008, they will try and drag her down with all the labels they used before - "radical feminist lesbian".

Supporting the war, censoring video games, and those who voted the flag amendment just confirmed in me that this wing of our party doesn't have a clue.

I hope also that Senator Schumer got the message that he won't get any support for the DSCC if they decide to support Lieberman as an independent over Ned Lamont.

If you don't like what they are doing then write to Governor Dean and Moveon.org.

:eyes:

"Americans need to learn responsibility," said the up-and-coming Senator from Illinois from the window of his black stretch limo with the "For Sale" vanity plates.

:sarcasm:

But I feel like I have to puke :puke: gotta go court the toilet

my grandfather is a life long Dem and he is very religious. The difference between he and evangelicals is that he doesn't push his beliefs on others. I have a strong belief in God, but I don't agree with the Falwell's and Robertson's of the world. Why people can't see that these peoples deranged version of Christianity is entirely contradictory to Jesus's teachings I will never understand.
As a school teacher,I see the presence of religion amongst my students everyday. They wear their t-shirts with their slogans on them and there is no problem with that. If they want to pray, they can anytime they want. It is when school boards and other religious leaders try to force prayer on others when it becomes a problem.
We should never allow the Repubs to classify our party as one that is against God. We are against doctrines that teach intolerance.

Obama came across as a phony and a triangulating idiot! His rationale for his speaking to evangelicals came across on TV as shameless pandering. Obama won't get any votes from that crowd, and his actions will lose him votes from the left.

What a winning strategy! Confirm to the rightwing that Democrats are panderers without core values, while pissing off people with Democratic core values.

this way - He's no more a Christian than I am.

Court is a wrong word.

He is out of touch with his constituency, it appears.

I think it is less about courting the religious folks than it is not antagonizing them. No one wants to be made to feel stupid about their beliefs. I think sometimes the non-religious crowd leaps passed disagreement right into ridiculing when their are disputes about issues where matters of faith come into play.

I have a hard time with this myself. I can't understand how anyone can believe in a god. It just doesn't make sense to me. Yet, I have friends and family whose faith is very much a real part of their lives. Trust me, I've talked to them about this and questioned them...and I've come to realize that for them, it is very real.

So I've come to the position that it doesn't matter if "under god" is in the pledge. I personally skip right over those words when I say the pledge (if anyone asks, I just tell them that I prefer the original version best), but have no issue with those who prefer to include the "under god" part...

I do draw the line at school prayer and any type of government funding for private, religious schools.

I could care less though if the 10 commandments are put in a court house...most Christians don't even know what they are...so I think it is pretty harmless.

I think Dems should become a little more tolerant of god and guns...these are not winnable issues. And in the end, we need to win. We have much bigger issues that need to be taken up: health care, leveling the playing field between the corporation and individual, the supreme court, coming up with a smarter way of stopping terrorists than bombing middle eastern countries, getting out of iraq, finding a way to balance the advantages of outsourcing with the need of having good paying jobs in this country....I could go on. If the other side continues to win, we will continue on this path to no where.

Though I can't believe he actually said this. What little respect I had for him is gone. The Democrats would be much beter off without the DLC wing to drag them down. Time to return to core Democratic principals. Win on them, not pandering to the religious right.

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said.

Children would who raised in Nazi Germany didn't feel brainwashed or oppressed as they did they deeds in the HJ and BM. They didn't feel anti-Semitic, etc. My point is, children know what you teach them, what example you set, etc. To have them become critical thinkers you must teach them to be that. Ludicrous.

He's not a rabid right-winger who belongs to a crazy fundie church. He's UCC, and belongs to an Africentric church in a predominantly white denomination. IF he were Southern Baptist or Evangelical Free, I'd be more concerned. But here's the mission statement for his church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago...


http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm

come if they are intelligent/progressive enough. Otherwise, the *#^% with them. To tailor the message to "evangelicals" is just counter productive. Those who "like" * because they think he's "born again" or "moral" or some such ridiculous crap seem to me a hopeless minority of nutbags. Let them go.

But, everything in moderation and I don't really go for the "Under God" thing. I really don't care, though. There are more important things to fight over than that.

I get tired of reading all the bashing of religious people on this forum. I am a solid democrat, and agree with my party most of the time. I attend church regularly, and read my bible daily. I am not an idiot, as I graduated valedictorian of my highschool class. My point is that there ARE evangelical Democrats out here, and it bothers me that a group of people (those that say I "believe in an invisible cloud being")call themselves Democrats, and then turn around and bash a huge sect of our population just for their religious beliefs. The reason I'm a Democrat is that I agree with so much of the philosophy of helping others, and freedom of choice in our own lives, including religion. And yes, I absolutely believe in the separation of church and state, and I don't think "under God" belongs in the pledge of allegiance.

I think it's backlash. People are getting sick of the fundies pushing their religion on them.
We shouldn't have to 'court' them as a religious body.
I think we ought to treat the evangelicals as adults and say "this is what the Democratic Party stands for, make up your own mind.

A lot of atheists and agnostics are tired of religion being manipulated for votes and are afraid,and rightly so,that they are going to be the 'sacrifice' to get the evangelical vote.

I will not nor ever compromise my core beliefs to win an election. I am fundamentally at odds against anything they believe. Abortion, Gay rights, Separation of state are absofuckinglutely not debatable.

Did a man 2000yrs go having a virgin mother die for our sins then was brought back to life and ascended to heaven? Unless you swallow that story and worship him you won't receive their vote.

This is what I'm talking about. I am a Christian Democrat. When I cast my vote, I really don't care what religion the person is, just that he/she shares my political views. Sometimes I lean farther to the right, and sometimes more to the left, depending on the particular issue, but isn't that what being a DEMOCRAT is all about? Some say we are the party that accepts you for what you are, but apparently, as long as you are not a religious person. So yes, I'm a Christian, (not to be confused with the Farwell, Bush, etc. "christian"), and I do resent being put down for it. I think what Obama was saying is just that we need to reach out to people who are religious, in their own private life, regardless of their religion, and the extreme rightwing needs to realize that they are NOT representative of the entire Christian population in this country.

You can believe 'by faith' whatever you want, it's your life. I don't believe in Santa or the easter Bunny nor in the Jesus of the christian church.

IMHO...

Why do you think the christian right can do devilish things yet feel good about themselves? They believe a christ in the person of a man named Jesus took all of their sins (past-present-future) and washed them clean with his blood!! What a bloody mess...

that isn't religion, it's a fucking gimmick.

An evangelical could be a liberal Democrat who attends a Presbyterian church or a populist Democrat who is a Southern Baptist just as much as they could be a Bible-thumping right winger. You think FDR, Truman and JFK said, "No way am I going to speak to a group of evangelical Christians; I don't want to offend the 5% of the party who are left-wing atheists"?

People should first get their facts before they pollute these threads with their ignorance.

Lots of uninformed folks in this thread.

about it.

Try getting told "no sex until marriage" and in the same breath "you can't marry, you shouldn't have sex" and see how you feel.

Try getting blamed for- of all things- hurricanes and terrorist attacks, and see how you feel.

Try getting thrown out into the rain by your own kin with nothing but a backpack and a bike to your name, and see how you feel.

Try getting AZT from an evangelical pharmacist, and see what he tries to make you feel like.

Some of these actually happened to me, and some are only extremely probable. Some have already happened; some will, eventually.

My point is, the so-calles "bad" evangelicals make me distrust and reject all evangelicals. And you know what else?

It's their own fucking fault. So stop telling us we're "uninformed", because some of us are actually quite painfully aware of what these evil schmucks are capable of.

Lets win without them so we don't have to represent their views in any way shape or form for the next 4-8 years. Then we can defund the FCC so they have to watch uncensored television complete w/ swear words and images of Janet Jackson's titties. Then we'll reverse all of their theocratic bullshit policies that they've been cramming down our throats for 8 years. Then, we initiate a campain to levy taxes against any and all churches that have ever interfered with American politcs (including the Catholics). And then, just when they're about ready to jump off of a bridge, we can pull out the gay guns and start turning their children into flaming homosexuals right before their very eyes. Bwaaaahahahaha

:rofl:

RUN!! It's the GAY RAY from the GAYING GUN!!!

:rofl:

I don't really agree with anything but the taxation part. Some of the churches in this country- you know which ones; what have mini strip malls inside, and the like- need to be taxed, at something like 50%.

They need their finances to be kicked in the nuts.

http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

If some of you want to speak your mind

The current crop of right-wing theocratic asshats started out by whining that, when it came to politics, they only wanted "a place at the table."

What they really wanted, of course, was to deny a whole bunch of folks a seat at that table. And walk off with the silverware in the bargain, when it came to the "faith-based" financial boondoggles.

And won't it be just great to have BOTH political parties kissing the ass of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell?

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said.

Well, he could ask the children of two extremely divergent groups who have to face this dilemma frequently in school: the children of Jehovah's Witnesses and atheists.

But I seriously doubt he will.

Democrats are now the new Fox News thought police.

We must stop Obama, he actually had an original thought.

We are Moron's, Barak. Please stop thinking. Just repeat the same message 24 hours a day on a message board and you will be a great Dem.

Thank You, Democrat Moron's. You will try and destroy a wonderful Senator because he doesn't kiss your ass.

Thank You, Barak. You have been a Senator that listened to us, comes to our meetings, and fights for us.

But you are being dismissed for the crime of original thought.

The Democrat Party has no room for an idea. In fact, there may have been a time where he raised an issue that could be discussed. Maybe some have, I read three comments and puked.

Even Democrat Underground has been hijacked by the stupid.

:toast:

You have no idea how much I needed to read that. Keep up the good fight. Please.

Cheers.

Many DU'ers disagree with NDLC people like Obama, I see you only have 77 posts, so maybe you have'nt learned that yet.

Does the following sound like a Corporatist, DLC'er right wing shill to you? I could provide you with so much more information that flies in the face of your obnoxious hate-filled comments about Obama, but you're too lazy to read about it. You are lazy and UNFORGIVEABLY IGNORANT. Really you're just a complete fucking embarrassment to the intellectual integrity and overall IQ level of DU.

--------

From Obama's Mouth to apparently NOBODY's ears:

"I favor universal health care for all Americans, and intend to introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end in the U.S. Senate, just as I have at the state level.

"I would have voted against the October 10th congressional resolution authorizing the President to use unilateral force against Iraq. I believe that we could have effectively neutralized Iraq with a rigorous, multilateral inspection regime backed by coalition forces."

"And although I believe that free trade - when also fair - can benefit workers in both rich and poor nations, I think that the current NAFTA regime lacks the worker and environmental protections that are necessary for the long-term prosperity of both America and its trading partners. I would therefore favor, at minimum, a significant renegotiation of NAFTA and the terms of the President’s fast track authority."

But I'll not miss an opportunity to vent my disgust at the fundies/evengelicals and; furthermore, I don't think we should be "courting them". If they realize how fucked up, hypocritical, and full of shit they are and come to us of their own volition, then fine; however, we shouldn't encourage their insane world view by paying it lip service lest it infect our party with the sickness.

I am extremely frustrated at the one-liner posts declaring that Obama is a DLC'er or on the same side as the RW'ers or similar comments. These people always show up on Obama threads with the same B.S. and I'm to the point where I'm ready to explode. Do people not respect themselves enough to know what they're talking about so that they don't look like complete idiots when they spew hate speech?

Although, I agree with Obama, I also separate the fundies/neocons from the rest of the people including the rest of the religios people. Therefore, I didn't take his comments as meaning that we should court the fundie freaks. In any case, as I mentioned above, I wasn't referring to the people who were venting at fundies. Sorry for not clarifying.

I don't reject Obama- only this suggestion.

Let these people get a foot in the door, and they will start makming undemocratic demands.

What we need is a national press against evangelism and fundamentalism of all stripes. Neither can be practised in a modern democracy and have that democracy remain inclusive to all.