Religion and the Democratic Party

Obviously, this subject has been discussed, at least indirectly, in a number of threads lately. My purpose in starting this thread is to get folks' thoughts on the subject more directly. Surveys have shown in recent elections that a person that identifies themselves as a regular church-goer is more likely to vote republican while voters who don't attend church regularly are more likely to vote for a Democrat. (In fairness, there are plenty of regular church goers who vote for Democrats and a sizable minority of non church goers who vote for repubs).

We also know that the Democratic party's "base" includes lower income families and minorities, particulalry African-Americans. And African-Americans (and, I believe, but I can't locate the survey that I'm basing this on, lower-income families) are more likely to be church-goers than white and/or higher income families.

So...does the party focus on the non church going voters who still support the repubs or should we focus on our base? More to the point, how do we fight back against the religious intolerance of the right in a manner that does not mock or belittle religion, which could threaten a significant portion of the party's base?

onenote

I've always hated that litmus test. If you don't go to a building or are a member of some organized religion or congregation, you're really don't have faith?

I know many who profess faiths in many different forms and fashions (not one written in a book...one deep in their soul) and don't attend churches or belong to one denomination or another. So are these people less "faithful" than someone who shows up once a week, falls asleep for most the service (is there to be seen as opposed to really care about the "faithful" aspect of this experience) and then for the next 6 days does everything in his/her power to ignore or break those commandments they vow to uphold?

While I don't see it yet, I hope this focus on "faith" that is led by the Repugnicans and their corporate media henchmen are making people think. I know a lot who have become uncomfortable with this topic and can see how this country is bordering on becoming a theocracy. Honestly I'm torn...maybe the corporate media should keep beating this drum a bit longer...make those people even more uncomfortable as they see other "faiths" attempt to show their superiority over others.

and yes I believe Jesus was a liberal.
I was raised to believe that you helped people.
If you have clothing you don't wear, give to people who need clothing.
If you have food you don't eat, give to people who are hungry.
My kids used to tease me because I took stray people in.
I am not advocating taking strangers in, but over the years friends and family have fallen on hard times and I have let them stay til they could get on their feet.
When my children were younger we lived in a neighborhood with alot of elderly people. I made them mow lawns, pick up newspapers, and run errands for these people. When they first started, I had to threaten them if they took even a dollar, but after that, they simply got the joy out of helping and refused any type of gratuity. I am proud now as they are young adults who will race ahead of an elderly person and open doors or carry their groceries to the car.
I believe this is what we were supposed to do. I believe this is what Jesus would do and I don't believe Jesus would advocate going to churches of these sorts because they do NOT preach his words--they teach their slanted interpretations of his word.

I have one of the biggest not far from my house. Willow Creek.

A couple years ago, they held my daughter's graduation in there. This place is huuuuuuuuuge, with several thousand people cramming in every Sunday. They have TWO huge auditoriums filled with the latest high tech gear and they keep adding on.

This was the first church I had ever encountered that had Valet parking. Walking inside there was a church store that looked more like an airport gift shop and then we went into the main auditorium. I've been in some elaborate theaters (rock concerts wuz my life) but this place was something else. There was a balcony which was one large video production suite...wide screens everywhere and a sound system that put the local OmniMax to shame. I kept thinking I was at an event. From talking to others who attend there, that's what they think too...they like the flash and "fun".

I have no problem with that as long as they keep the activist politics out of what they preach. If they do, yank their tax exempt status.

BTW...one acquaintance told me he pays upwards of $5,000 a year for his membership there...and he's in the "cheap seats".

blooming and the dogs playing and the squirrels running around.
That is well worth over $5k a year but I know people in high places so I get it for free.;)

http://www.hillnews.com/david_hill/112603.aspx
Addresses the role of religion in the Dem party.


Another view:

A spring University of Akron poll of 4,000
adults showed Americans without religious affiliation are 17 percent of self-identified Democrats, rivaling the party's traditional blocs of white Catholics (18 percent) and black Protestants (16 percent). Secularists favored Sen. John Kerry over President Bush by 57.4 percent to 27.2 percent, with the rest backing others or undecided. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 2 percentage points.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/demrocrat.htm

The United States of America does not work unless all have an equal say in the process. The right is trying an endrun to get the religious right on their side. This is because their abandonment of the social contract plays into the hands of the Corporate entities hatred of a strong central government.

The real American ideal is contained in the words We The People. Everything derives from those three words. Its not some of the people. It is We The People. That is the big tent.

The big tent is noisy. In order for it to work it has to be. As we each need to have a voice in the process it is necissary for each person to take responsibility in finding out where the other voices are coming from. What their concerns are and what their hopes are.

Its a consensus process. Such processes do not work if everyone just shouts for their agenda. We have to get to know each other and see how our agenda's affect others. If we see that it is unjust we may have to alter our paths. We do this with the understand that others in the big tent will do the same for our concerns.

Thus it is noisy. It can be boisterous. But in the end we all come together each of us one voice in the chorus that is We The People.

and it's about damn time! My understanding is that Jim Wallis (Sojo.com) has been called to the table. It certainly looked like he has some involvement with Kerry's remarks in a recent speech.

I basically try to stay away from any sign of religion in this forum because of the hostility of some of the posters. Christians have no problem with people of non-faith of other religions.

The book "God's Politics' is a wonderful explanation of the typical non right wing Christian. We don't sway the politicians to vote on Christian grounds, but on moral grounds - feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, etc. and until the Democrats can take a moral stand, (i.e.fewer but safer abortions) the party will not be inclusive and we cannot address the immoral corruption of right wing anti-moral culture of life.

go to church or not is the least of the Dem's worries. It's whether they are allowed to vote at all. And even if they do, how do we know some software program hasn't flipped them to the 'R' column?

Until people deal with the black box voting, there will be election "surprises" after each cycle leaving stunned observers aghast at what could have happened "this time" until the next time it occurs two years later.

thought. I personally think the Democratic Party can and should correct the perception that we are all heathens--not that this would be a bad thing but it plays poorly for us in the pubic eye.

Howard Dean has it right, he who frames the debate wins the debate. The right has defined us in the eyes of the average Christian as being anti-religion in general and anti-Christian in particular.

How to correct the perception? Paul Begalla made a great start when he took Wolf Blitzer to task on being classified as a not-so-good Catholic as compared to Robert Novak. When Frist makes his "opposing people of faith judge nominations" pitch our party leaders should become outraged and show their anger. Show the voting public that we take umbrage at being characterized as anti-faith. Honest anger like that of Begalla gets air time and air time is vital if we are to change the perceptions of the Christian voter.

... is HOSTILE to religion. I think we need to do a better job of attacking the PERVERSION of religion by the right (vs. religion) and make it clear that (as someone, AK stated earlier) we want a big tent.

erealtruth!

I think the misconception that the Left is hostile to religion and "godless" is detrimental to the party. The big tent approach is needed. I'd love to see some leaders work with the more liberal churches and create a coalition amongst the Democratic leaning faith based community leaders to get the message out, that religious values do NOT conflict with Democratic core values.

The Right does this well within the conservative churches and has gained a lot of ground...we need to open this door and shed the image we are immoral.

As someone pointed out, the Democrats support seperation of church and state and other values that are PROTECT religious freedom as well as maintain stands on issues such as poverty and rights, that are more in line with religious values, than the Repukes positions are.

This message needs to be articulated in such a way, that secularists and people of faith can work together and promote their ethically based beliefs.

Both, by asserting that no matter how you feel about religion, an established religion is unfair, a danger, and unAmerican.

It's unfair to other americans, its a danger of a loss of civil rights AND a danger to religions that find themselves used and abused by politicians treating religion like another "issue" and stirring up sectarian hatreds for political gain. It's a danger to both politics and religion when a politician can gain political power by going through the motions.

A member of a religious minority, religious majority, or no religion at all should see the danger. Only those willing to risk it in order to establish their religion by force would be against it.

Being of faith doesn't mean trying to force your faith on others. As Inland says that approach is unfair to all religions, even the one being actively promoted (or more appropriately manipulated).

Need to find a way to show the majority of voting Christians that they are being used and will someday be abused. After the 2004 Republican Convention I asked my neighbor--born again Southern Baptist--how he felt with pro-choice, gun control, social spending being represented on the dais. He was notably upset at having "his" President turn away from what he expected. Not enough to see the light on that day, but the Terry Schiavo case hit home too. Give them a few more obviously hypocritical examples and it may begin to sink in.

And I was never polled. Of course my God loves everyone regardless of thier orientation, stance on stem cell or reproductive. Hmm maybe that's why they never polled me I am the Christian they wish never existed.

in a random-dial poll of 500 respondants in a nation of 300,000,000 people, your odds of being polled are 100%*(500/300000000), or 0.00017%.

Does a lack of religion make people more likely to focus on the human condition and vote Democratic, or did the churches turn people who are focused on the human condition in a Christlike manner off by neglecting Christ's message in favor of not pissing off pubbie church members?

I have a strong suspicion that it's the latter. I know mainstream churches have been very timid about preaching the message of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, tending the sick, visiting the imprisoned, and giving generously to charity as ways of living Chirst's message because they've become de facto businesses who want to keep as many customers as possible, and Christ's message gives discomfort to the comfortable.

Mainstream churches need to get back on message. Until they do, the type of people who are more likely to live Christ's message of care for their fellow human beings are going to find them irrelevant.

Still the problem for us Dems is that perception that we are not only less faithful than Republicans but openly anti religion.

... not "religious values," whatever that actually means.

Instead of playing tug-of-war over a handful of red voters, let's talk to the millions of disillusioned people who are eligible to vote but don't.

Engaging them in a genuine conversation about equality, opportunity, dignity and freedom -- that's where the Democratic party needs to go, in my view.

He who frames the debate wins the debate and we need to start framing the debate and soon.

telling the gays to sit-down-and-shut-up-about-the-pope because we don't want to offendt he Catholics and if only we hadn't offended the Catholics then Kerry would have won the election. (whew!)

... by offending them in April, 2005.

Now THAT was quite an accomplishment! :crazy:

at every level.

Nevermind pandering to those who would force their religious views on the entire citizenry of this country and attempt to make laws that disregard other beliefs. That is not a moral or an American approach.

It is possible to achieve a common ground between secularists and people of faith. Whether the positions are based on ethics or religious beliefs, we, as Democrats, believe in helping the poor, equal rights, & protecting freedom of religion (which includes seperation of church and state).

When I talk with people of faith, the fact is, we share the same values. We may come to those conclusions from a different place, but we support the same things. If Democrats don't face this head on, we are going to continue to lose voters. 85% of this country, claims to be "Christian."

church and state that is the bulwark of our rights in this country.

I see, actually no reason to pander to those who fail to understand that.

We are or should be patriots enough to uphold that and it should never be diminished or hidden in order to win over those who would change it.

Once that is done, if it is done, there is frantic spin involved in order to win and if we do win, there will more frantic spin involved in order to keep those voters who will push relentlessly to dismantle the idea.

Who will the panderer represent--the patriots who would adhere to the wisdom inherent in separation of church and state, or those they beguiled and tempted into believing that separation of church and state is a non issue?

I am of the belief that we stand for something. If we stand for nothing or for that which is vague and undefinable we will eventually fall because of our duplicity.

That was said by a guy named Martin Luther.

So, must the Democratic Party "pluck out the eye of reason" to garner votes? Should they embrace ignorance for the sake of politics?

Just let them be and embrace politics.

This is so simple....we live and do the
words in red. Conservatives don't.

Period.

But point out when the Republicans are pandering. Point out that the Republicnas are disproportionately empowering a small sliver of religious people. Point out that if moderate religious people want to empower themselves, the Democrats are more logical allies than radical Republicans. They have to ensure that Democrats are elected and Republicans are defeated.

A couple of points that I think the discussion in this thread illustrates.

1. The ideals and goals of the Democratic party are not inconsistent with the ideals and goals of many people who view themselves as religious, whether or not they adhere to a (or any) particular organized religious institution.

2. People who believe in religion can and do believe in the separation of church in state. In fact, the religious have as much to worry about that wall being breached as the non-religious.

3. If we are going to convince people that we are on their side on issues relating to economic welfare (including Social Security, health care, jobs etc) and domestic and foreign security) they have to trust us. And we will lose the trust of religious Americans who ought to be with us on those issues if we overtly or subtly convey an attitude that anyone with religious faith is "ignorant." To be sure, we must continue to speak out on the issues we care about -- a woman's right to choose, gay rights, separation of church and state, etc.

The point is that I believe that, as a political matter, the primary institution that we should focus our criticisms on is the republican party -- if they take positions that are shared by some relgious insititutions, we should be carefult that our criticsims not be perceived as directed at religion in general. ANd where our criticisms are directed at a religious institution -- such as the Catholic CHurch or Southern Baptists, etc. -- we need to be careful again to focus our criticisms on attempts by these institutions to force their positions onto non-adherents to their faiths.

In other words, I don't like the fact that the Catholic Church views homosexuality as a sin. But I believe its up to Catholics to fight the church over its position. On the other hand, when the Catholic Church (or Southern Baptists or any other religion) argues that the US government should view homosexuality as a "sin" or as a status not deserving of the rights accorded to hetero sexuals -- then I say they are fair game.

Its not an easy line to draw, but if we are to succeed as a political institution I believe is important for the party to do so.

onenote