Obama: Democrats must court evangelicals

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 prepared for delivery 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_co/obama_3

Fuck you, Obama. Go ahead and court those people :grr: You've lost my respect from here on out for expecting dems to pander to the same people who support much of what the dems stand against.

edited for clarification

His ideas aren't exactly new or fascist. And not all evangelicals are fundie nutballs, most notably President Clinton.

He acts like dems have ignored those of religious belief and that is so not the case. He blames the dems when in fact he should be shaking his damn finger at the repukes for how they've used bumper-sticker slogans to act like they've got the corner on the religious market.

I'm sick and damn tired of dems eating their own when it suits them. If Obama wants to be a democratic leader, he should stand with the dems united in cause to gain back the Senate.

What good does it do to say that democrats don't have enough tolerance of the religious? Wouldn't it be far better and far more beneficial to hold the repukes feet to the fire...show their hypocrisy?

The freshman senator that would be president thinks he can be all things to all people. He is a snake, keep your eye on this one, he goes where the wind blows. Just remember he specifically asked for Liebermann to be his mentor.

I remember the intimidation when I was going to PUBLIC schools, and the prayer that was recited before classes started

Attracting people with ideas is one thing, but ignoring your base is disaster

This thread is NOT about Bill Clinton, but Jimmy Carter is a far better model than Bill Clinton

from his speech:

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressives need to do on this, I that 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. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/06/obama_on_faith_and_politics_an.html

I VOMIT every time I see him cozying up to a REAL, honest to goodness fascist like his predecessor



and Obama is becoming a DINO, in my eyes, with all this neothuglite crap

those trogs are NEVER gonna vote dem

maybe I'm wrong

it'd be nice if I was, but......

I am an evangelical Christian...studying to be a minister. I am a Democrat. I am FOR separation of church and state, and also for freedom of religion (including voluntary student-led prayer groups at schools...I wouldn't attend most of them because the people sometimes annoy me, but I support their right to exist). I am seeing more and more evangelicals questioning what is going on with Buchco, and especially with the church's constant affiliation with the GOP. Keep talking like you are and you are gonna stop this movement dead in its tracks. Unfortunately, the evangelicals who come to realize that the democratic party really does share Christian values are quickly chased off by people who call them names, insult them, and villianize their friends and family who they know to be good people, only people who are still misguided and supporting the GOP. It is hard to be in my position and be hated by both the majority of my Christian family because I'm a Democrat and spoken against by my fellow Democrats because I'm an evangelical. Please show some respect for those of us who choose this hard road.

I am Jewish and I am pretty damn sick of the way Christians in particular get shit on on these boards. The Dems dont court them, thats why they went over to the Repubs in droves. Everytime we make something like abortion and euthanasia an excuse to bash evangelicals as the root of all evil (and it indeed does happen) we push them further and further away. Obama has a very good point.

Below is a post that I made in another thread on the same subject. The OP asked if Dems should target evangelicals:

Return to our values, strengthen our message

Roman Catholics used to vote heavily Democratic because the party stood/stands for issues that are morally relevent to them. The NT instructs it readers to work for social justice. The teachings of Jesus were one of the main factors that made me a liberal. That has not changed for me.

The RC church now is fairly spit in their vote because, like many of the other large christian religions, they have been targetted by the rw to push a rw message from the inside. This didn't begin to happen in 2000, this push began years ago in a similar timeline as the rw invasion of the radio with rw hate-talkers. The chrisian coalition and other faux christian groups were organized by politicos to infiltrate mainstream christian churches and turn them into political organizations.

I cannot disagree strongly enough to the targetting of religious groups. It demeans both the Constitution and the church. The Democratic platform is (or has been & should continue to be) built around concepts of social justice. When government & society works well for the little guy, it works well for everybody. When we promote strong environmental protections, then we are honoring those who will come after us by leaving them a safe place to live. If someone proclaims themselves to be a christian and yet do not value these things enough to vote Democratic, then there are other issues besides their "christianity" that pushes them to vote repub.

I think the answer is rather than "target" the religious vote by eroding our values and beliefs, do a better job, like Al Gore does with global warming, of explaining why our platform is the only "moral" choice. The rw targetted churches BECAUSE DEMS HAVE THE MORAL AUTHORITY on issues. The rw is the party who's agenda (greed & power)is based upon exploitation of the average person to accumulate great wealth so that it will be used to continue to exploit more and more people. They depend on smoke and mirrors to confuse the issues, and they ended up with a message that we are godless and they are morally superior. Insane, eh?

The answer is to return to our values and strengthen our message. Civil rights is a moral issue (this includes a woman's right to choose and gay rights). Unions and fair wages, benifits, & working conditions are moral issues. Regulating big business so that they do not damage the environment nor endanger their workers, and pay their fair share are moral issues. Envirnmental protections is a moral issue. Honoring our veterans by ensuring that all of the services that they deserve are fully funded is a moral issue. Saving public education and strengthening it so that ALL children can recieve a good education is a moral issue. Universal health care is a moral issue. A foreign policy that relies on diplomacy not dropping bombs on people is a moral issue. A social safety net is a moral issue. A strong national security that takes logical steps to protect us without stripping away civil liberties is a moral issue. RESPECTING OUR CONSTITUTION, BILL OF RIGHTS, AND THE RULE OF LAW IS A MORAL ISSUE.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1524628&mesg_id=1525472

where do I mention evangelicals? you think Clinton ISN'T a DINO? what policies did he advance that were progressive when he was pres?

NAFTA?

welfare reform?

'Media consolidation' Act of 1996?

stuff like that....want more?

I have no problems with evangelicals, just trogs, and if you want to spend time trying to sort them out, have at it....we need to spend time getting the vote out among our real base, a LARGE portion of which consists of unmarried women.... if we'd gotten them to vote......well do some research on that; the numbers are astounding...a MUCH larger pool than luring evangelicals over

but I can see your mind is made up


EDIT: and please, with the peremptory, preachy tone. thank you

praise the lord!

What was so nauseating about that? I don't see where that post was so offensive. I'm a Christian and I didn't get offended. Can you post the specific part that was so offensive? Just curious. Maybe I'm missing something here.

and boring

that's what I was talking about, mostly, but Obama is my senator, and I'm very disappointed in his lack of leadership, considering all the hype over his "star" quality

sorry for the overgeneralizing

You seemed to say that all evangelicals are trogs, since Obama said we need to reach out to evangelicals and your reply was "those trogs are never gonna vote with us".

I think you are right that Clinton was a DINO. I thought so from the start, which is why I did not vote for him. However, my third party vote in 1992 had the potential of re-electing Bush. I knew that, and did not care, which means I was way naive about the insidiousness of Bush 41.

Also, Clinton did advance many progressive policies when he was President - first "don't ask, don't tell" was a step forward if not as much as he promised, second, he raised taxes on the wealthy and cut them for the lower incomes, third he raised the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15.

If you want more, see Chapter 1 of Begala's book "It's still the economy, stupid"

Unless your mind is already made up :P

''I have no problems with evangelicals, just trogs...''

isn't that a distinction? I understand where your point, but I HAVE made my mind up on certain things, just as you've done, yes?

perhaps I should rethink what you've said about reaching out more, but....wait, I'm going to dig myself in deeper here, so I'll wait til I'm less tired to try to make my point (been up all night)

while the economy SHOULD be the issue for the demographic I mentioned, it's no longer the central issue (since 911), cause the pugs have substituted FEAR, SMEAR, and queers (Al Franken's book) to an extent that made the squishy middle more susceptible to classic propganda/marketing techniques. Ever read Ellul on that? Spells it out pretty clearly, and Goebbels took Bernays' work, honed it for Hitler...then Rove refined to a fare thee well. their KEY objective is to eliminate ANY critical thoughts from being part of the voters' decision making process.

let me see if I can find the article that ties them together

I only did the acceptable four graphs, but this article really sums up why these NEO-FEUDALISTS have become so successful....the epitome of 'scientific' market strategy gone criminally insane.

(the classic joke quote being "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts")

But I am also not sure how we got to "La Technique" or the author thereof.

I was talking about post #30 where you said "those trogs are never gonna vote with us" (or was it "for us") When you said this ''I have no problems with evangelicals, just trogs...'' it was after the other poster had responded to say "you are wrong" (meaning some evangelicals will vote with us (and we should applaud them for it and be more welcoming, instead of leading with our hostility to religion))

Despite recommending Begala, I was not trying to say that the economy should be the issue we use, although it is my pet issue, as an economics major and a member of the working class, but only to say that Begala lists some of the ways that Clinton was progressive. He talked too much like a DINO, but he did many progressive things. I also remember him vetoing 2 welfare reform bills before he grudgingly signed one.

The article you posted should have its own thread.

I am not an Evangelical, but I welcome you and others of your faith into our political party.

and do what is right for the good of this country because it is the right thing to do?!

It's offensive, it wrongly lumps all evangelicals together and blames voters for a political party not reaching out to them on certain issues.

Issues such as Environment, lving wages caring for least among us.

Your stated sentiment should not represent the Demorcatic Party's viewpoints or strategy.

to actually practice their own religion. The monkey is on the christians back to do what is right.

but it isn't done in a phony way at all. He speaks in a way that they can understand and relate to.

People around here can freak out anytime dems talk about reaching out to anyone other than dedicated progressives. We can reach out in a way that doesn't compromise our values at all, and Schweitzer (and others) have done it.

I don't have a problem with trying to attract evangelicals with progressive ideas, but to try and change the party to become more like the enagelicals is BS

YOU WILL LOSE YOUR BASE if you keep this crap up

did not want their congregation to support anyone who was for gay rights

This guy seems to have an inate ability to slam his foot square in his mouth just as his stock begins to rise with me...

Back to square one for you Senator....

EVangelical and Fundamentalist are not the same thing..,

It is possible to be an Evangelical and not be a fundamentalist

And some of my best friends are stereotypers. I'm series!!1!

but Jimmy Cater never tried to push prayer in schools, and maintained the seperation of church and state

I admire Bill Clinton immensely...as I do Jimmy Carter...

but what he did with NAFTA, and especially the telecommunications act of 1996, has put the Democrats into the position we are in now. The equal time policy was destroyed by reagan, and clinton finished what reagan had started. 95% of the dribble on talk radio is right wing, because of these policies

That I disagreed with I would think they are all bums. FDR interred Japanese Americans, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, Washington was a slave owner.

On his whole record, Bill Clinton was a superior President who left the country in FAR better shape than how he found it!

but respectfully disagree with you about Bill Clinton

for peace in the middle east, and bush threw that opportunity away. In addition, he left an opportunity for the bush administration to negotiate with North Korea, and they destroyed that opportunity also

There are much more positive thing that Clinton has done, that I did NOT acknowledge. Your point is received and accepted

if you read the article in full

I do not believe that schools should formally allocate a time slot for silent prayer, that is a violation of church and state, but that does NOT restrict a student from saying a silent prayer on their own if they are so inclined

...especially since it's our country to have to live in under the Republicans and not yours.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103

See you in November.

..and since when have religous nutjobs EVER been part of the Democratic base?

Religion has absolutely NO place in politics.

PERIOD.

I'm an evangelical and I agree that religion doesn't belong in politics. Values does, however, and there is no harm in courting to people with similar values. There ARE evangelicals who recoginze that our Christianity and our political affiliation as dems share the same values.

Regardless, as a fellow democrat I resent being told "fuck you" simply based on my faith affiliation.

You know, like, "may you have a pleasing sex life." In that context, fuck you is a very nice thing to say.

So, fuck you, melnjones. Fuck you well.

Oh man, I got a good laugh out of that one. Hee hee hee.

Many of them are progressive, virtually all are passionately anti-war, and the denomination's official position on reproductive rights is pro-choice.

Evangelism is not our enemy. Fundamentalism, when practiced by political activists, most certainly is.

There's a difference, an important one.

most certainly do vote.

Here's one piece I'd plucked from their website, that sheds some light on the dillema some devout members faced in 2004.

http://www.mennoniteusa.org/news/news/oct-dec04/10_06_04.htm#4

A lot of members tend to be anti-abortion as well as anti-war, but the church's official position statement is "pro-choice" since they definitely oppose criminalizing the procedure.

I was raised Mennonite. There are many different branches of "mennonite" and a good number are quite progressive. The Mennonite I was raised in was very conservative which is why I am no longer there, but I love and respect Mennonite Central Committee for the progressive work they have done.

The Republicans are sending them straight to hell. The Ten Commandments clearly say, "Thou shalt not kill" ...many innocent people have died as a result of the Republican war machine. The Ten Commandments say,"Thou shalt not steal." but Republicans made it easy for Enron to do so. The Ten Commandments clearly say, "Honor thy father and thy mother" but the medicare drug plan makes that all but impossible :D

But the evangelicals that support Bush and the Republicans only pay lip service to those commandments, they don't truly believe in them.

And they are only Christian when it suits their purpose, just like Bush.

And it can be done. Evangelicals and fundamentalists are two completely different things.

My grandfather was an evangelical and a Democrat. You can be both.

I also have a couple of aunts who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 that are evangelicals. They have stated that they wish they had voted for Gore and Kerry. And they've pointed out similar statements as you have made.

I no longer practice the faith. I just can't practice the evangelicalism of my youth. But I do know quite a number who would listen to what the Dem party has to say, if said with a bit of common sense. Most of the evans I know might claim that they are correct religious-wise but would allow someone to practice as they wanted (since evangelicals were mostly made fun of until recently). And quite a few are more socially liberal than they let on-they've just been taught that the word "liberal" is bad.

It's the confusion of fundamentalism and evangelicalism that gets us in trouble. Few fundamentalists will ever listen to our message but many evangelicals are working class folks who would listen. They might not accept everything we have to say but let's face it-most of us do not accept every last bit of the party line as gospel.

Leave no stone unturned...concede nothing to the Republicans. I have no problem with this whatsoever!

and though I don't always agree with obama, what he said in context was not that outrageous. However, I still do not believe the PUBLIC schools should provide a FORMAL environment for students to pray. If they want to pray silently on their own, who cares, and who knows, but that is not the public schools responsibility to set a formal time aside for prayer

and let people come flocking to you because they identify with it?


Why pander to a group of brain-dead morans?

pandering. I don't agree with his position about prayer in schools, but if you read the entire article it is not as much in your face as you would believe

by scolding dems.

Just a thought.

Obama was a rising star in the Demo party.
He apparently has chosen the path of least resistance
leading to a comfortable life of banal obscurity.

Obama has a young family and is not willing to risk all
in a fight to save the country from a psychopathic government.

Screw that.

Don

Just like we don't like to characterize all "libruls" as being weak or tax and spend, many religious people...while they may agree with the biblibcal and spiritual tenets of the Evangelicals, not all are fundies or think to the extremes this regime does. I know many religious people who would prefer to avoid the political process...many of them did in the past...but got caught up in a propaganda campaign that perverted both the seperation of church and state and the role of religion in American life. It started with Schaivo...where many saw a bigger threat in a government determining who should live and die to the invasion of their own privacy and an immoral war that is hitting many of these families up-close and personal...especially those that gave blind faith to this regime and now have graves or broken family members as a result.

Democrats have to reach out to ALL Americans and take the road of truth and respect...an inclusion of all people not based on their faith or lifestyle. Just like we detest Repugnicans who attempt to use Gays or Blacks or Hispanics as a political tool, the same should be applied to Evangelicals and people of faith.

As a practicing NOTA (None Of The Above)...born and culturally Jewish...I've always been very sensitive to the threats of crossing the lines separating church and state, it's wrong to go in the opposite direction and say that since someone is deeply religious, their views or opinions or votes don't count. As my mother would have said "Be Bigger".

BTW...look at how well the Democrats did when we formed common cause with religious groups in the fight for civil right in the 60s. Many of the biggest hate spewers on the right are far from being Evangelicals or even fundies...most are the charlatans.

Look it up first. And before you reply to this. I dare you.

I won't be around to see it though.

See you in November.

I guess that is one sure way to make certain that never is heard a discouraging word...

That doesn't always work out. It's my time to manage and not anyone else's.

I am here chiefly to get other people involved in real-life politics, and find out ways to get involved with them myself, as well as learn things that would be useful to that end. People who are busy tearing down the Democratic Party rather than building it do not share those goals with me, and thus do not share my attention either.

In real life, gaining someone's attention requires work to be done in the area of establishing credibility and usefulness. That's absent on the Internet, and people take advantage of it. But not with me.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ZEV6LJb9msEJ:www.newsreview.com/issues/Reno/2003-12-04/essay.asp+greenberg+single+women+voters&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

seems to me a much more easily tappable font, especially in urban areas

what do you think

this is NOT new...check the date

we couldn't get them to vote in 04

I tend to think that, with the right approach...really bad economy for single female household heads now, compared to 03....they'd be more accessible than evangels

??

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Once again, the assumption is that anyone who is bothered by the pervasiveness of Christianity in American politics is overreacting.

I think. I have a neighbor, blue collar middle class, works in a chemical plant. He and I were talking a few weeks ago, he said if you do not make $250K you have no business voting republican, but is you are a Christian you have no business voting Democratic either. Just food for thought.

Gays? Choice? Public Schools? Vouchers? These are the issues we'd have to cave on to win the support of the "evangelicals." I'm not willing to give on any of them.

I will say one thing though. There is a certain amount of vemon on this thread that woudl surely turn them off from listening to us. Just food for thought.

...the RW and the obedient lapdogs in the MSM. I seem to recall many many pictures of President Clinton leaving the church after Sunday service regularly. I can't recall the same being true of the alleged 'christian' currently residing in the WH....

Ask your neighbour exactly whom jesus would approve bombing as the supposedly 'christian' republicans do almost daily?

to, as you put it, "speak to religion".

Especially when Jesus had a lot more to say about helping the poor than he did about gay marriage.

Him and a lot more. I do believe amny in Tx would support moderate dems, but fi you like many on this thread hammer on religion bad you will only make enemies.

are the people who understand the First Amendment, The Importance of Separation of Church and State, the right to privacy, and the concept that what a consenting adult does with his or her own body is none of the government's god-damn business - PERIOD.

Frankly, I think there are a lot more of them "in play" in this country than there are Evangelicals.

And again, you didn't answer my question- please explain in concrete terms what "we" are supposed to be doing, other than not allegedly bagging on religion on an internet message board.

Look at how many people actually take the time to vote. It's a pretty pathetic number. It's not because a president isn't religious enough although they like to think whoever they vote for believes the same as them. In fact, religion shouldn't play a role at all. The government is there to serve the people...not to pander to them in name of a god.

What it comes down to is the average person wants to feel like the government really cares about them and their problems. They want to be able to connect with that person and know they are looking at real leadership.

There is so much discourse on both sides that most people are feeling rather malaise about the government and politics. In their eyes, no matter who they vote for, it's not going to matter. Their lives aren't going to be made any easier, they have to continue to scrape by from one paycheck to the next, they have to pay their taxes, they have to navigate through government red tape in order to get social security, welfare or whatever.

People see this hulking monster sucking up their hard-earned money which reaps little rewards in the big picture. The only way a real difference can get made is a complete overhaul on the people who are currently serving.

While there are some worthwhile individuals who do work for the people of this country, the majority are in it for the donations, publicity and doing favors for those that have got the money. When I look at the big picture, I sit back and I wonder...why the hell should I make the effort?

Big business is going to be the ones that get heard in D.C. It's not going to be us little folk. The government is more like a greedy monkey on our backs. It is so far removed from what our founding fathers had in mind. Sometimes I think if they were here, they'd be in the street yelling that it's time for another revolution.

My point is with a government like we've got, that we've had for many years now, why vote if it's not going to change? Why vote if big business continues to be in bed with majority of the politicians? Why vote if all we see is business as usual no matter who is in power?

It would be nice if the dems got really radical and said it was time to put the people back in charge of this country and kick big business out of the halls of congress. I'm not holding my breath.

right next to the repukes.

for imagined crimes against religion? Fuck you, Obama.

We don't need any more guys in the goddamned circular firing squad.

There's more of 'em, and they're much more likely to listen.

than any other citizen who should be "courted". Fundies can't be won over by a democratic party that is faithful to it's platform. Non-fundamentalist christians should be treated like any other member of the electorate and reached out to using reason, common sense and compassion. A free thinking individual can be reached regardless of their religious beliefs. A closed mind is a closed mind.

I'm a liberal who grew up in a very conservative and evangelical community (Grand Rapids, MI). Evangelicals are not bad people, even if I disagree with them about politics or doctrine. It would have sucked to grow up hating my neighbors for disagreeing with me or my family over religion or politics.

Most christian conservatives care about their country and it's citizens. I disagree with a lot of how they want to go about expressing that concern (like making abortion illegal), but I don't question that they are acting out of concern. They truly believe that abortion is murder and that women who have them are going to have serious repercussions for it. They believe that gays are unhappy in their lifestyle and that they would be happier if they were not gay.

Now, I'm not talking about the Jerry Falwells or the Pat Robertsons, who are shallow, manipulative power brokers who use their followers' good intentions to do harm. I'm talking about your average baptist, dutch reformed (my former neighbors) or conservative catholic, people who go to church weekly, give to the poor, live decent lives and so on. Calling people like that names does no good for anyone.

like McCain has been doing, it'll backfire in a major way. They'll be screaming 'hypocrite' like there is no tomorrow.

at the bush god? Good Luck with that.

I don't feel any more need to pay respect to anyones religious beliefs than I do to pay respect to the tooth fairy. I'm not going to run around trying to tell others how to think or believe, but if they want me to pay respect to it they are nuts.

We had faith in Iraq policy, we had faith in our drug policy, we had faith in our leaders over recent decades and faith doesn't seem to have worked out too well in itself. It's about time for a shift from feel-good policy to results oriented policy. Keep your private beliefs past that to yourself, they don't belong in a public forum as a tool to get votes. In private life faith can lead to charity and good stuff, in public it just leads to empty rhetoric void of substance or fact and based on anything but results.