Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It's not that Obama is pandering to the religious wrong

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:00 PM
Original message
It's not that Obama is pandering to the religious wrong
it is that we are trying to reach over to them while I don't see any of them trying to reach over to us.

They claim to have the "moral values" to follow their gods which means they do not accept any compromise. When we are going to them, when we are willing to bend our values, we demonstrate that our core beliefs are weaker than theirs.

And this is the problem with all these pandering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. I wouldn't reach out to them
Just rudely tell them if they want to live in a theocracy they are in the wrong country and they should fucking leave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. He has politely told them
that we don't live in a theocracy and that if they want to call themselves Christian Americans they need to change their ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's confronting them
People who don't speak the language of the religious don't get it. He's the only one who is confronting them. He also does it while maintaining respect, which is also a new language for the wacky right, but it's also the only way to shame the haters into silence. Some people don't know any language except hate, and that's not just true of the right wing radicals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well said. The GOP does not own religion and

we need to stop letting them act as if they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The people here seem to also believe that n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. I'm not even religious
and I get what he's doing. It's what DUers have said we need to do for years. Here comes somebody who is doing it, and they're horrified that someone is talking to the religious community. It's absolutely insane.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
32. Nothing wrong about talking to the religious community
but if we - everyone - agrees that the nation is divided, polarized, whatever one's take it. And if we want to bridge the divide, it has to be a two way street.

So far it appears that we go to their churches and profess our faith as a sign of goodwill but I don't see any of them coming to us to talk about civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Well-said!
This Jew gets it. What he's doing will help, the same way Jim Wallis and Joel Osteen have softened many hate-filled hard-right Christians with a truly compassionate message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Does he need to reject a part of the population to include another one.
Because this is the implicit meaning of what he says: that those who are non-believers do not matter.

I am not really surprised and it will not change my support for Obama, but, at some point, Democrats have to learn how to speak to evangelical and other religious people without ignoring (or worse) the part of the population who is not religious. This is all I am asking for. Unite people. Do not divide them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. He's specifically said the opposite
I've posted it repeatedly. He's the only one who goes straight to the religious right and tells them that our Constitution includes everybody. I honestly don't know why you can't hear it, he says it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. I do not know how you do not see how the Democrats have gone from one side to the other, as if
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 02:47 PM by Mass
it was simply impossible to talk to both sides at the same time.

I understand what Obama was trying to say, but I doubt he needed to use the word "prayerful" to say that. In many other instances, he has been doing this: intentions were good, but he was wording that as if he could not use a neutral language to speak, but needed to use a religious language. And I sincerely hope he gets him some evangelical votes, because if not, it was not worth it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. He's delivering the same message to everybody
I'm talking about Obama, specifically. That's what is unique about him, he doesn't say different things to different people. He says the same thing about abortion to the 700 Club as he does to any Democratic women's group, he trust women to make their own choice, prayerfully or otherwise. I'm sure most women would pray about it, why try to pretend otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's hardly pandering when he sticks to his pro-choice guns at the 700 Club.
But the hostile anti-religiosity here at DU invokes all kind of crazy responses, as crazy as any of the raging Bible-thumpers, and there is a mile between the two extremes. The problem is most Americans lie in between and are turned off by both bents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. It's huge, he goes straight at them
And says point blank, women are capable of making their own decisions. I can't understand why people don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A-Long-Little-Doggie Donating Member (895 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Well, you know, if he had said
"Women are capable of making their own decisions", period, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But he had to talk about there being a reason to appeal to the sky father in order for a woman to come to a decision and thereby injected religion in the middle of a secular argument.

And I can't understand why (religious) people don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. He was talking to people who pray
He wasn't at an atheists convention telling them to pray. He was telling the religious that women have the right to make their own decisions. Same as saying it's between a woman, her doctor and her god. Except he went straight to the 700 Club to say it.

And I'm not religious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. But he will not go to an atheist convention. This would not be good for a presidential candidate.
Neither him nor any other mainstream Democrats.

This is the main issue. You have to be religious or you are not worth talking to. This is very, very sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. They have atheist CONVENTIONS?
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 03:26 PM by Capn Sunshine
aren't they then just another organized religion? The one that doesn't believe in God?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. That's ridiculous and you know it
Honestly, I don't know why you're saying this stuff, but I know you know better and I'll leave it at that with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A-Long-Little-Doggie Donating Member (895 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. So when he attends an atheist convention he will say something different?
I understand the need to tailor the message to the audience, but he could have gotten the message across without bringing religion into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Maybe he'd say the same thing
He'd tell them he trusts women to prayerfully make their own decision, or whatever other means they choose to make their choices. Lots of people pray when they make tough choices, most do. So what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. What is so hard about that for people to understand?
He didn't go on the 700 Club pretending to be anti-choice. THAT would have been pandering. He stuck to his position and explained it in a way that would be accessible to a specific audience. I can't figure out why there's so much outrage about this. The McClurkin thing I can understand, (to a point since Obama made it clear through the whole thing that he supports GLBT rights and McClurkin's views were no reflection of his own but he should have disinvited him nonetheless) but to get wound up over him saying "prayerful"? On the freakin' 700 Club? GMAFB.

I'm about as personally anti-religion as it gets but I understand that this is a country of believers and no candidate has a prayer (pardon the pun) who doesn't reach out to them. People on this board who are so intolerant of any reference to religion by a candidate ought to work on a few Red State campaigns, as I have. I got off my secular high horse real fast. Religious voters want to be acknowledged and validated (not necessarily agreed with) and Obama is doing a brilliant job of doing just that. And he's the FIRST politician to affirm the existence of non-believers in a major speech that I've ever heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. They don't want to understand it.
Raw partisanship at DU is manifested by knee-jerk rejection of anything to do with another candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. It's that middle ground again...
Try to see it as anti-superstition. In effect, "That black cats thing is crazy, but I wouldn't go breaking any mirrors."

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. it's been the same problem with the republick party
since reagan.

it's just even more noticeable with those fundies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
17. What garbage...
Why are some here on DU so inept that they think that "all Christians" are either Republicans or are not to be engaged with?

There are plenty of progressive Christians out there who vote Democratic. It's tragic that some here are so incapable of figuring out the real World.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. Obama isn't reaching out to anyone
The people he is saying these things to are already Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Those that watch the 700 club? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ilovesunshine Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
20. I will give this prayerful... I mean thoughtful consideration!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
28. Obviously he is not pandering to them.

Pandering means saying what they want to hear him say. He says what they do not want to hear, that religious women have abortions too.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Egg Zackly! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
30. Religion doesn't belong in politics..
on either side of the aisle. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC