Where Liberals and Evangelical Christians can unite.....

Humanitarian issues. Darfur for example. I think a Democratic candidate living in a Red-State could eat into the evangelical base somewhat by being strong on humanitarian issues. Meeting with evangelical leaders or humanitarian groups could be beneficial politically. Of course, it's also the right thing to do. A Democratic candidate could form coalitions with evengelical and secular humanitarian groups on issues such as sex trafficking, genocide, different types of oppression etc. Focusing on aid for the troubles spots of the world, working to end malaria, world hunger and so on is something that evangelicals and Liberals have lots of common ground on. It's one step in the process I think and could be beneficial in winning over religious moderate voters. But, as I said, it is first and foremost the right thing to do. These are important issues for people who believe that morality, compassion and human rights are important aspects of policy. Humanity is much more important than politics, but if we stay true to our ideals and forge unlikely coalitions then, well, it may have other added benefits too.

An old fashion left wing clergy man.

A link kindly provided by Peter Frank: On traditional Republican principles...I kid you not...


http://www.tracypress.com/voice/2005-11-09-his-voice.ph...


"These include fiscal responsibility with the goal of balanced budgets, progressive taxation, environmental protection, freedom of individual choices, limited powers of the federal government, paper-verification of voting results, judicial independence, prohibition of torture of prisoners and separation of church and state."

Yes, there was a time when many Republicans and Democrats could, and did, actually work together for common goals for all of the American people. Rooseveldt needed the Republicans for the New Deal, and Nixon actually followed through with progressive legislation.

Well, nobody's perfect, I guess we all have our off years, or in this case, decades. ;)

one difficulty with it is that liberals and evangelicals often see the same problems and want to solve them. They just have different, often mutually exclusive, solutions to the problems.

As long as the politicians talker about solving the problems only, all is well. When specific solutions are put forward, that's where the terminal nutrient process product meets the rotary air circulation device.

Initiative, which is sponsored by the Aspen Institute. Both Sam Brownback and Madeleine Albright are involved. Last week, they co-hosted a conference called: "Uncommon Leadership for Common Values: Bipartisan Action on Human Rights." You are right, they often have different solutions to problems, however I do believe their is enough commonality to work with here.

http://gii-exchange.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=135

I have a wait-and-see attitude, laced with a healthy amount of skepticism. Us pessimists are never disappointed and only surprised pleasantly.

Don't we have some common ground there too?

nice addition.

...of those among the fundies who are sure we're in the End Times and so, by their "reasoning", there's no need to worry about things like the environment.

As far as they're concerned, this is a disposable planet God has given us, and it would be ungrateful not to show our appreciation by using it up with wild abandon while we can. In fact, there are some who are in such a big hurry for the End Times to arrive, so they can get themselves Raptured, they're hoping that trashing the planet will hasten the process along.

who spoke of other young liberal evangelicals.

The fundies, radical right wing seem to thrive more on a sense of self-righteousness for thinking the "right way," about abortion, gays, etc.

As far as I can tell, they're not into actually doing good deeds.

There may be exceptions, probably are.

mainly care about in my neck of the woods are (1) making abortion illegal, and (2) keeping homosexuals from marrying.

My husband's Lutheran sister and her husband, both Democrats, agree with (2), but they see it as unimportant compared to what they call "real" issues, mainly those that affect their pocketbook. They say that their fellow South Dakota ranchers, all whom support the Bush agenda because of these two issues, are not using their heads, that they're not thinking things through. Many of the emails they get from their neighbors have subject lines like "What Dr. Dobson wants us to do..." (They delete them, unread.)

Should the Democratic Party abandon its stand on these issues to try to win votes? These two relatives of mine say yes. I say no. Not only would it be disingenuous, but doing so would lose more votes nationally than would be gained.

the fundies are going to care about their fellow man. Right.

It would sure seem that way, uh? In the Bible, there are very few actual references to homosexuality. Only one that I could find in the New Testament and no where does Jesus address homosexuality. But there are over 3000 references to caring for the poor, Jesus washes the feet of the poor, Jesus says "love your fellow man", etc. You would think that fundamentalists everywhere would be up in arms demanding a comprehensive welfare plan that really works. But not so much.

heavily involved. Evangelicals are big into stopping the genocide in Darfur. Sure, there are some of the craziest of the crazies that you cannot ever reach, but I mean people who aren't on that loonball level.

evangelicals. I know you are right.

I pretty much am. :)