Pay close attention to what Obama's doing:

Using terms like "prayerful" and "special rights" to defend liberal beliefs. He's risking alot of bad reactions with his base, but take a moment and listen to these words from a 700-Club watcher's perspective.

He's turning their own coded language on its end. Yeah, it's a bit manipulative, but it's the best rhetorical strategy for getting through to these numbskulls, if there's any hope of it at all. Heads will explode over this. I can feel it.

It's not politically motivated. The politically safe tack would be to avoid these issues altogether. This is mission driven (in the most secularly possible sense of the term). He's inserting himself right smack in the middle of the culture wars - not accidentally. And he's approaching it in a way we've never seen before. Trust me on this - he's attempting something huge and incredably gutsy, here.

:thumbsup:

He did the same thing with the speech at Rick Warren's church.

What is he doing, and what is he hoping to achieve?

And come to think of it, nobody from our side has ever attempted to do anything but try to destroy the RR-ideologies head-on and with a blunt instrument.

When we express our beliefs, do we even try to approach our differences of opinion with the Religious Right in a way that is intended to persuade them to our point-of-view?

We usually call them what amounts to dumbasses, and you will never win anybody over with that approach, even though it may make you feel better for saying it.

If you really want someone to listen to you, you have to use their language.

Decidedly. He is stepping right up in the faces of the so-called religious and talking about abortion being the woman's choice. He is the only candidate that admonishes black churches for preaching homophobia. I'm pleased that some here at DU get it. Thank you.

to heal the breach between secularist and evangelical WITHOUT stepping into the middle of the culture wars. At some point, someone who understands the views of both sides (and the emotional significance invested by both) must step into the middle ground and suggest that we reason together.

But Obama and his people must understand that for many of us here, there is no room for surrender and not much room for compromise on certain issues. For example, equality of legal rights for gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. For another example, the right of women to control their reproductive processes. When Obama speaks in this code, he must remember that many of his potential supporters will never, ever acquiesce to the surrender of their liberty to sooth the egos of those who think they know without error the will of God.

(and I'm a genuine agnostic for full disclosure), Obama is pro-choice and has a good LGBT record (as rated by LGBT critics). I think that is the bottom line that should IMO resonate. My point is that he stands firm on these issues, and that is what matters to me. I ignore the religious overtones because it doesn't apply to me.

On edit: Of note is that Obama lectures in Constitutional law and is a civil rights attorney. He believes and will fight for EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW for all Americans. IMO this race will come down to Hillary versus Obama. With the Clintons, we got DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. That was the "compromise" they touted as successful negotiations. I believe Obama can and will do better than that.

about protecting are those the religious right are against. The left only wants to fight the morality police on rights, but not a peep about our Government tracking us without probable cause through our cell phones.

What is that all about?

of the rights we are loath to surrender, friend. Your point is well taken, however.

You got it girlfriend!! :hi:

Still LOVE your avatar. Always. Sigh.

In fact, Obama reminds me of Wes Clark in this way. Leaving the echo chamber and stepping into the lion's den. It takes guts.

at least beyond the primaries. Engaging and enabling these sorts is ultimately not going to help him, and may well cost him more in terms of voters he's managed to alienate than any number of fundies he'll pick up.

Seems to me it sets up a dichotomy in people's minds- either he's being duplicitous- or he really does believe he can reach out and talk sense to these folks.

Either way, one tends to question his judgment.

Can you name anybody from our side - besides maybe Jim Wallis - who's ever taken this approach with the religious right?

Though I'm sure that if I did some research, I could come up wih some examples. Of course, even if that were the case, it isn't probative of much- except, perhaps, naivity.

What's to be gained by legitimizing groups that ought to be releagted back to the fringe- where they are in every other Western nation? Seems to me that drawing a stark contrast against their lunatic views would be a LOT more effective than trying to pander to them in coded language.

He's telling them they're wrong without sounding like he's telling them they're wrong. He's doing it in a non-judgemental way, and that's the only way to do it.

Marginalization is a bully tactic, and it just makes them fight back like cornered animals.

My in-laws were frothing-at-the-mouth 700-Clubbers. They can't stand the show anymore, and it's not because of my Liberal-Jew rantings. It's because of Joel Osteen - another tee-vee preacher who actually has something meaningful and compassionate to say. It was then that they became aware of all the hellfire and hate they were exposing themselves to, and just felt better watching Joel and reading his books.

Thank you Joel Osteen for making my in-laws tolerable.

It says they are worthy of being pursued.

And he's very naive if he thinks he can change them through the force of his personality. He seems to think he can persuade them without offering them any more than any other Democrat has offered them.

Very naive

but consider this: The fundies are looking for a reason not to support the drag-queen and the Mormon. If Obama leaves a good impression with them, it may be enough for them to at least stay home next November.

The aim is to delegitimize their awful beliefs, not to legitimize them.

of the movement, nor the vast majority of its adherents. Be nice if it were- but it isn't. Give these groups even an inch- and they want a yard- give 'em a yard, and they want a mile. You cannot turn or appease them, and they'll never be satisfied until they've acheived what amounts to a theocracy.

Krugman in the begininng of the Great Unravelling made this point (curiously, using Henry Kissinger's doctoral thesis). Compromising or coddling groups like these has always been done at a nation's peril.

The leaders are psychopathic. The people are just misled, for the most part.

I don't see Obama paling around with Pat Robertson, but he is using their media as a way to reach the sheeple sitting in their living rooms.

...first time in his life in '08. He is quite socially conservative but on economic issues he is surprisingly progressive. There are plenty of these people that are socially conservative but are on our side on economic issues.

Some feel they have no place to go because the left treats them with such disdain. All Christians aren't fundies but many on the left don't even give them the opportunity to show you.

There have been many news reports lately about the religious right and how they are not going to be big players in the election. Many of them would be ok just staying at home. Why not grab some of those disenchanted voters and show them that the Dems are not what they've been taught by the Fundies?

I sure don't see that- if anything, they make sure to be respectful (as they should). Fundy groups on the other hand- who've apparently never read nor understood the Gospels- they're a horse of different color. As are, I'm afraid, fundamentalist Catholics- who, among other things, work tirelessly to restrict access to womens health services and family planning.

I see it with individuals. This board is a prime example.

I do agree about the Fundy groups who don't seem to have read the Gospels. I also agree about the Fundy catholics who also restrict women from being priests.

I feel that most Fundamentalist groups misused their authority and misrepresent their groups.

And many of these people would vote Democrat if they voted solely on economic issues. And please don't call them "loony," We may disagree with many of their views on social issues but in most cases, such as my socially conservative baptist friend/coworker, they are normal people.

Just off the top of my head.

I was thinking more recently.

I agree he won't get fundy votes, but it's not what he's looking for.

Many people dismiss the religious and assume that all Christians are fundies. This has been baffling to me for awhile. Many liberal Christians don't feel there is a place for them in the Dem party.

I must say, from reading many of the posts on this forum I understand their feelings.

All religious people aren't fundies.

of the worst sort. We're not talking Lutherans here.

Seems to me that a reasonable person would want them associated with the Republican party- and not one's own candidate.

but all the viewers are not.

I'll choose to be a realist.

Anyone who's watched these groups since the early days of Reagan understands that they're pernicious- and yes, that applies to the vast majority of the 700 club's audience- not just to the program and its sponsers.

I guess I'll repeat: anyone who thinks these types, with all their indoctrination are about and change their stripes is naive.

Call me what you what but I know what I'm talking about. I know what I'm talking about because I know these types and know how many of them feel after being fooled by this administration. I don't think you're a realist, you're a cynic.

If you really understood their indoctrination then you would understand that their beliefs are more closely aligned with the Dem party.

Having been brought up in a Southern family- I've heard (and hear) a LOT of things- many which would absolutely make your jaw drop.

No, their beliefs are NOT aligned with the Democratic party (at least, not with traditional Democratic values). Many of their interests (particularly economic ones) lie with the party and its once upon a time values. But, unfortunately, they'll be triggered to vote against those until the cows come home.

Recognizing this fact is part of growing up- literally as well as metaphorically.

I've tried since I was a young scrub to handle on what in the world is going on in their heads. Kevin Phillips in American Theocracy gives some nice background, and some points to ponder (such as suffering being required for salvation) -but unltimately, it boils down to emotion, indoctination and religiousity short circuiting the reasoning process

but I know more who don't agree with the Fundy doctrine. Many of them are indeed more closely aligned to the Dems but they don't know it because they aren't taught this in their church. Social justice is very important to many Christians and that is not addressed in many of the Fundy organizations.

and people who watch 700 Club are Fundies who can't be reached.

You've also posted in this thread you don't think these people are worth pitching to.

With each insidious little encroachment, it's made subtly more apparent that no real human activity of value can be had without tipping one's hat to the big boss.

"Ceremonial Deism" and "casual references" just serve to inject more and more mandated and endorsed fantasy into our lives.

Have you had your Jesus today? Gotta have your Jesus if you want to grow up to be big and strong. Gotta love the whoseywhatzit or you're gonna burn in agony forever. Have you had your Jesus? Have you had the RIGHT kind of Jesus? Do it like his friend Donnie: try the breadsticks.

There are many religious people who believe in social justice and many other beliefs of the Dem party.

The table has been set quite grudgingly for them, but dining in the democratic tent on a regular basis tends to leave a bad taste in one's mouth if one is a Christian. :(

This "persecuted" schtick is getting out of line. People of belief aren't disincluded, they're just not given a position of superiority, which is taken by many of them as subjugation.

Christianity, as practiced by many, is intrusive and expects to be treated specially. I don't stand up and demand to evoke the concept that there's no supernatural being and we must all grunt some kind of agreement to it; that has no place at the table of discussion about policy and governance. The ABSENCE of religion is taken by far too many believers as an affront, and they can't see the obvious: bringing religion into the discussion is an affront to others, and no matter how "good" believers may think it is, many of the rest of us consider it to be yet another assault by those who would dominate.

Nobody's demanding an evocation of the dismissal of belief in the supernatural, some people just want to keep that discussion elsewhere. How much of the public consciousness is enough? Isn't there enough evocation of god on a daily basis ringing from every nook and hollow?

Anti-religion is divisive. Religion is divisive. Absence of religion is accepting. Those of belief are given a great deal of welcome; they just aren't given what far too many of them consider their due: total, absolute and unquestioned aristocratic control and some kind of proclamation that they're "better" than others. Bummer.

Many of you lump all Christians together, and are VERY anti-religious.

In your own words - that is "divisive."

language.

Kudos to Obama for doing this. Religious people belong on the Democratic ticket.
We are the party of values, not them.

Obama impresses me as a very, very smart man.

Dangerous stuff, this religion: it has unintended consequences.

and, to WesDem's point above, they're not all fundies.

The Evangelical Crackup
NYT Magazine

The hundred-foot white cross atop the Immanuel Baptist Church in downtown Wichita, Kan., casts a shadow over a neighborhood of payday lenders, pawnbrokers and pornographic video stores. To its parishioners, this has long been the front line of the culture war. Immanuel has stood for Southern Baptist traditionalism for more than half a century. Until recently, its pastor, Terry Fox, was the Jerry Falwell of the Sunflower State — the public face of the conservative Christian political movement in a place where that made him a very big deal.

...So when Fox announced to his flock one Sunday in August last year that it was his final appearance in the pulpit, the news startled evangelical activists from Atlanta to Grand Rapids. Fox told the congregation that he was quitting so he could work full time on “cultural issues.” Within days, The Wichita Eagle reported that Fox left under pressure. The board of deacons had told him that his activism was getting in the way of the Gospel. “It just wasn’t pertinent,” Associate Pastor Gayle Tenbrook later told me.

Fox, who is 47, said he saw some impatient shuffling in the pews, but he was stunned that the church’s lay leaders had turned on him. “They said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year, hearing about all this political stuff!” he told me on a recent Sunday afternoon. “And these were deacons of the church!”

These days, Fox has taken his fire and brimstone in search of a new pulpit. He rented space at the Johnny Western Theater at the Wild West World amusement park until it folded. Now he preaches at a Best Western hotel. “I don’t mind telling you that I paid a price for the political stands I took,” Fox said. “The pendulum in the Christian world has swung back to the moderate point of view. The real battle now is among evangelicals.”

Fox is not the only conservative Christian to feel the heat of those battles, even in — of all places — Wichita. Within three months of his departure, the two other most influential conservative Christian pastors in the city had left their pulpits as well. And in the silence left by their voices, a new generation of pastors distinctly suspicious of the Republican Party — some as likely to lean left as right — is beginning to speak up....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html

It's a typically long NYT Magazine article, but I encourage all to read it. There's votes in them thar pews!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders



A DU member recently started posting about these people. Scary shit.

His platform is nothing like theirs.

Old article, BTW. The '06 elections dampened their hopes of national domination.

But you haven't actually defined who "they" are that you are referring to, so it's hard for me to make the point.

edit: Looks like you intend to mean the "religious right". I would say they are a demographic just like any other (perhaps a little less well defined), and if Team Obama sees them being neglected by other candidates, sure they might try to go after them. Clinton is leveraging women, Edwards laborers, and Kucinich pacifists.

Obama is selling progressive values to the fundies in a very appealing way.

We tailor our language, sometimes even our accents, to make ourselves better understood. It's something I did when collecting oral histories in very rural areas of the South ~ it's not what you're saying that changes, but HOW you are saying it.

It's about time we tackle the culture wars ~ we Dems should be proud of our stance on moral issues. Thanks for the post!

So--is it ok when Obama does it? I am trying to get the rules right.

Clinton: bad when attempting to connect with republicans
Obama: good when connecting with republicans.

Clinton is sucking up to corporatists in order to get money. Obama is stating his pro-choice position in language evangelicals understand, giving the reasonable ones something to think about and causing the heads of the unreasonable ones to explode. That so many DUers are not understanding what Obama is not improving my opinions of the culture warrior Dems suck using outdated framing of issues as if this was still the 70s.

And not mission driven. He's hoping to get the black fundamentalist vote, that's all. It's a constituency that doesn't feel comfortable with Republicans or Democrats and he's trying to show them a way to vote Democrat and feel good about it.

And I don't believe avoiding talking about religion is a "safe tack." I'm hoping for the day when a candidate has the courage to be secular.

It's any vote from those that want to get out of the fundamentalist movement. A point that most here don't consider is that many Christians who are fundamentalists are very disenchanted. There are reports that show that they can't be counted on to carry the Pubs like they did in past elections. They are looking for a better alternative.

they can't see that.

I'll admit I'm one of the folks who has been rubbed wrong by his recent actions, but this gives me a little to chew on.

:thumbsup:

You know, speaking the "coded language" of the right wing in order to appeal to that ilk? Would that be brilliant and gutsy?

using the word "prayerful" to justify a progressive value such as a woman's right to an abortion with Reagan's use of "getting rid of welfare queens" to sell a policy of cutting off aid to the poor?

Embarassing.

Adios, good luck to your candidate.

:thumbsup:

That drives Repukes around here NUTS.

If I were at some less than progressive venue and started opining that "illegal immigrants" and (segue:) "welfare queens" were a big American problem, would that be gutsy and good strategy?

It becomes a problem when associating everything Christian to the right wing.

"Using 'prayerful' to defend liberal beliefs"

Only following along with his premise.

Obama's taking its meaning and putting it back into its correct context.

He used the language of the evangelicals to support his pro-choice position, giving the reasonable among them something to think about and hopefully making the unreasonable ones' heads explode. Based on the ignorant, and/or stupid responses in this thread he's apparently making the heads of the ideologically purist cultural warriors on our side explode to.