Should religious people whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever be welcome in the Democratic

[Douglas Carpenter]

Last edited Fri Oct 10, 2014, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Party and the progressive movement?

34 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	No, sky fairy worshippers an impediment to progress - we don't need them and we don't want them.
	6 (18%)
	Christian and Jewish believers should be welcomed - but Islam is so reactionary and illiberal - they have no place in the Democratic Party or the progressive movement.
	0 (0%)
	Religious believers whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever should be welcomed in the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.
	25 (74%)
	I could really enjoy right now some hard bread or crackers served with a puree made from artichoke hearts and fresh crab meat.
	3 (9%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[surrealAmerican]

1. odd question

There has never been a time when they weren't, and there is no risk of such a time coming to pass in the foreseeable future.

In fact they were always made to feel far more welcome than atheists.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. perhaps some place, but not always here on DU

[Mariana]

37. DU is not the Democratic Party

nor is it the progressive movement. What happens here on DU isn't relevant to the question in the poll.

[YoungDemCA]

133. "DU is not the Democratic Party, nor is it the progressive movement. "

The way some around here act, you'd think that this site IS representative of either of those...

[HERVEPA]

127. Ridiculous. Small minority.

As long as not pushing religion on someone else, or thin-skinned about criticism of religion, there is no issue.
By the way, I'm an atheist, think religion is ridiculous, but don't criticize some based on religion.

[hobbit709]

2. As long as they leave their religion out of politics, I don't care what their religion is.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. "Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me"

What if this verse motivates them to advocate for social welfare. Should they still check their religion at the door?

[hobbit709]

11. "'And if ye mingle your affairs with theirs, then they are your brothers.'"

One can do that without forcing one to follow your religion

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. If voting one's conscience is forcing beliefs on others then none of us should vote. nt

[hobbit709]

13. Does voting one's conscience include passing no gay marriage amendments and abortion restrictions?

Those are two examples of what I consider an unwanted intrusion of religion into politics.

[LondonReign2]

120. If that's what it takes, so be it

Not sure, however, why one needs the veneer of religion to advocate for social welfare.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

122. Perhaps you have reversed the order of the matter. nt

[LondonReign2]

123. One needs social welfare to advocate for religion?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

124. Or perhaps a sense of something higher coupled with moral duty leds to social welfare. nt

[LondonReign2]

125. Which goes back to my original statement

I don't know why a sense of something higher in the form of religion is required in order to believe in social welfare/justice.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

129. Your statement implies social justice precedes and then faith is tacked on as an after thought to

trick people into compliance. Maybe faith motivates people to social justice.

Frankly, I'm amazed people seem to resent the concept so vehemently. They'll complain if people of faith want to become involved in social justice and they'll complain if people of faith don't become involved in social justice.

Or, maybe they just want to complain.

[LondonReign2]

142. My statement didn't imply anything

I flat out said that I personally don't see the need for faith in order to believe in social justice. I also stated that if that (faith) is what it takes for people to be motivated, so be it.

Pretty sure I wasn't complaining either way.

[HERVEPA]

130. Why do you need a sense of something higher to do the right things?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

131. It seems to work better than a sense of

survival of the fittest.

Cute avatar, by the way.

[HERVEPA]

132. Thanks. Are you equating atheism with Suvival of the Fittest?

I don't understand your post.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

135. I think evolutionart theory equates with survival of the fittest.

If there is another strictly materialist mechanism for the appearance of life and its progression I'd certainly entertain the conversation.

[HERVEPA]

141. I don't understand. Are you equating somehow belief in evolution to lack of caring about humanity?

By the way, atheists donate more to charity per capita than Christians, if you eliminate giving to the church, which is mostly just giving to yourself.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

143. If charity were predicated on an evolutionary herd reflex

then you'd still be giving to yourself.

[LondonReign2]

153. So again, to make sure I am not misunderstanding you

you're saying religious belief is required in order to be charitable?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

155. You are, in fact, very much misunderstanding me.

Obviously people engage in charitable acts every day even if they are atheist or agnostic.

The impression I'm getting that if a person of faith is motivated to charity they are expected to check their conscience a the door or else their money is no good.

[LondonReign2]

157. The impression you are getting seems to be of your own manufacture

Certainly I said nothing remotely like that. To reiterate, I said that I don't personally see the need for faith in order to believe in social justice, but if that (faith) is what motivated some people, so be it. Somehow you seem to have taken that as somehow vaguely oppressive.

[LondonReign2]

145. Errrr, perhaps I don't understand

Are you saying you don't believe in evolution?

[HERVEPA]

149. I don't think we're getting an answer on that one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

150. Should I believe in survival of the fittest as the underlying mechanism of life today?

[LondonReign2]

151. Should you believe in science?

I'd say yes, but your mileage apparently varies

[Nuclear Unicorn]

152. Science is predicated upon the apprehension and comprehension (and virtue) of the observer.

Assuming the above mentioned attributes to be infallible then perhaps we should govern society according to the principles understood within Survival of the Fittest. Ancient Rome had its gods but they understood the principle that water under its own power only runs down hill when they were building the aqueducts.

[LondonReign2]

154. Ah, I see. Society should be governed by faith

Whose, exactly?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

158. Should society be governed by the principles drawn from our understanding o survival of the fittest?

After all, why not?

I'm not advocating using government power to impose morality (check the avatar); it would be a contradiction in terms. However, at the same time I don't think holding beliefs predicated on faith disqualifies anyone from participating in the government of a presumably free society.

And I also think governing society based on evolutionary principle could just as easily create Hell on Earth.

[LondonReign2]

160. You seem to have conflated number of things

You somehow seem to have gotten the impression that believing in evolution is somehow in conflict with a fundamental morality beyond your "survival of the fittest" mantra. Sorry, for many, their moral point of view is not dependent on faith.

You also said>"I don't think holding beliefs predicated on faith disqualifies anyone from participating in the government of a presumably free society." OoooooooK. Who said anything to the contrary? That's quite a strawman. That oppression you seem to be feeling is entirely self-inflicted.

And>"And I also think governing society based on evolutionary principle could just as easily create Hell on Earth." Who said anything of the sort?? How are you conflating the scientific principle of evolution with a form of government?

And lastly, I ask once again, if we are going to base the form of government on faith, which one do you want to pick?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

161. "their moral point of view is not dependent on faith."

Okay. Then where does it come from?

Who said anything to the contrary?

As of this writing there are 13 in the OP's poll.

How are you conflating the scientific principle of evolution with a form of government?

Eugenics for starters. Perhaps that's just the survival of the untermenschen making them feel defensive but their concerns may not necessarily wholly unfounded. I know many a re-education camp in the USSR and Maoist China have performed tirelessly to relieve these people of their wrong thinking but apparently work remains undone.

I ask once again, if we are going to base the form of government on faith, which one do you want to pick?

And once again I answer: Check the avatar.

[LondonReign2]

165. Morals are aboslutely not dependent on faith

>Okay. Then where does it come from?

Secular humanism, facts, and reason.

>As of this writing there are 13 in the OP's poll.

I don't believe the poll question had anything to do with whether people with religious beliefs are allowed to hold government offices. certainly those 13 may very well choose not to vote for such candidates, but I suspect few would say that didn't have the right to run.

Belief in the science of evolution has nothing to do with the governments in China or Russia.

>Check the avatar.

The symbol for anarchy? Or does it also have some other meaning?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

166. "Secular humanism, facts, and reason."

Reason says that is little more than argument by assertion. Generally things that are being presented as established fact are accompanied by observations, test results or formulae.

...I suspect few would say that didn't have the right to run.

I hope your faith remains unshaken.

[LondonReign2]

167. And?

>Generally things that are being presented as established fact are accompanied by observations, test results or formulae.
Yes, and? How does that in any way argue against the idea that faith isn't necessary for constructing a set of morals? Or being concerned about social justice?

>I hope your faith remains unshaken.
And I hope you overcome your sense of persecution.

I'm still curious how "anarachy" is the answer to the question of what faith should be selected as the basis for government.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

168. "How does that...argue against the idea that faith isn't necessary for constructing a set of morals?

What you invent to personally satisfy your life isn't incumbent upon anyone else. And that is all your "morality" is: a personal invention for your personal benefit.

[LondonReign2]

170. Ahhh, yes

My "morality", in quotes to signify it isn't real, is just for my personal benefit.

Your morality, on the other, is far superior because it based on the belief of a sky wizard. OK.

You know, we could have dispensed with this entire subthread if you had simply honestly stated your opinion up front. HERPVA had it right early in this thread. You believe that faith is required to have any sort of moral code, those without faith are simply amoral, and interested only in what personally benefits them. Thus, shitty government in China and Russia can be traced back to lack of faith. (My advice is don't think about the Spanish Inquisition, ISIS, Northern Ireland in the 70's, or current mainstream Southern Baptists).

Gosh, what a lovely faith you have there. And who says true believers look down their noses at everyone else, eh?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

171. The absence of a sky wizard doesn't prove you have actual morality.

Can you empirically demonstrate this morality?

[LondonReign2]

173. You don't seem to understand logic

No where did I say, nor imply, that the lack of a deity proves I have morality. That makes zero logical sense. It's merely inept rambling.

What I did say is that one does not need "faith" to believe in social justice, nor have a moral code.

However, your belief that one needs to believe in a sky wizard or you are immoral, or at best amoral, is just another example of religious douchery. Obviously your faith -- which apparently is so secret it only goes by the code name anarchy--is the only way one could possible be moral.

We're done.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

174. "believe in social justice"

Anybody can believe in anything; including flying spaghetti monsters. But believing in a thing doesn't make it so; as I'm sure you have asserted at times, yourself.

However, your belief that one needs to believe in a sky wizard or you are immoral, or at best amoral, is just another example of religious douchery.

I never said a lack of religious faith is immoral.

I said it has yet to be empirically demonstrated, i.e. unscientific. So far your posts have done nothing to alleviate this deficit.

[etherealtruth]

3. The Democratic Party and the progressive movements have always ...

.... been populated by the devout, by atheists , by agnostics ....

[arcane1]

5. This atheist cares more about the progressive part than the religious part.

[JI7]

6. depends on what their views are, if they are opposed to teaching evolution like most republicans are

and ISIS, i would not care to appeal to those views .

[Bohunk68]

117. Most Republicans?

Are you serious? You are now equating religious beliefs with voting Republican? I guess you don't want anyone from the Christian Left on this website.

[immoderate]

7. The Overlords don't really care.

--imm

[KentuckyWoman]

22. ^^ THIS ^^

[BlindTiresias]

8. Yes

Christian socialists were foundational to furthering the interests of the left in the United States, and every major religion has a very strong social justice component. That this is perverted by cynical people and the right wing does not mean that all religions should be abandoned, as it was this very abandonment due to a misguided approach to Marxism that enabled the right to take hold of religion and use it to their own ends.

[Union Scribe]

23. Great reply! nt

[jen63]

63. I agree with the poster who said "great reply"

I don't think that there are any fundies on the left, or in the progressive movement. I can only speak about the Protestants and the Catholics that I know. I think that there are many Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Catholics who vote democratic. I will leave out the Baptists; my brother started attending a Baptist church and now believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I think most of the others are into the social justice movement and if they have issues with abortion, the death penalty etc., they keep it to themselves.

I was raised as a Methodist and the only social causes I can remember being spoken about all centered around poverty. I don't remember the word abortion ever coming up. That's also been my experience with the Catholics I know also. They are fairly liberal religions and would be an asset to the left and the progressive movement.

Those fundies are a different breed of cat and their crazy talk spills over to the more liberal religions and makes them all look bad. I'm mostly agnostic with a little atheist bent; I'm still a work in progress and haven't quite figured out my truth yet, I do find religion fascinating though. Sorry such a long post!

[Revanchist]

139. About half of the African American population identify as Baptist

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356

[Arugula Latte]

95. But three big monotheisms have been subjugating people since the day they were made up.

Their very purpose is to control other people, and this happened well before Marxism. The goddess religions were stomped down as men asserted themselves through religion -- oh, and they had the omnipotent ruler of the universe on their side! How convenient! The Abrahamic religions have treated women like shit for centuries; that's their very basis. Also, they're a way to control the poor and the oppressed, no matter what gender. "Don't worry -- your life on Earth here is crap and brutish, but richly awards await you in the heavenly afterlife!" The Vatican, for example, has literally raped and plundered its way through history, keeping women out of roles of power in the church, telling them they can't have autonomy over their own bodies, even fighting the equal treatment of women to this very day.

[valerief]

10. Religion should have no bearing on government. nt

[LawDeeDah]

28. If an athiest government is best, which it is. Athieism is best for all.

[BklnDem75]

14. If we ever want to win an election again, sure...

79% of the American population identifies with a religious affiliate. No serious party will give up their base to please 21%.

[Thinkingabout]

15. I hold the freedom of religion and do not care what religion one may choose, I choose what

religion I participate and strongly think it is an individual's choice. I do not look down on others choices though it may not be my choice.

[edgineered]

16. Brie on Chicken in a Basket crackers,

with vodka and cranberry juice chills me out just fine. Tests are next week so no herbs after snacking...

[bobclark86]

17. Ugh... are you high, or just stupid?

That's the dumbest poll I've ever seen. You do know about 2 percent of the US is atheist, with another 16 percent are non-religious, right? If not, Google it.

Good job trying to alienate more than 80 percent of the population. I'd love to see what 18 percent can accomplish at the polls.

[Oktober]

19. 2‰ admit their atheism... Common sense would suggest the numbers are higher...

... As the religious whackadoodles have gone out of their way to make folks uncomfortable with open atheism.

Don't believe me? Imagine what would happen if a presidential candidate dropped that bomb on either side of the parties...

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. no, I'm not high and I'm not stupid. I am autistic though and I have had a couple of shots of Scotch

I think we should welcome religious people including the vast majority of Muslims who once voted Republican and now vote Democratic.

[liberal_at_heart]

27. Democrats have become accustomed to bad mouthing people they think are beneath them and then

still expect them to vote with them. They have become accustomed to this because no one challenges them. They know they can get away with it so they do.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. that's true. In 2000 about 70% of Muslim Americans voted Republican as well as about 70% of Arab

Americans - most of whom are Christian. . In 2004 there was total realignment - and about 70% of Muslim Americans and Arab Americans switched to Democratic - And they have remained overwhelmingly Democratic every since - But the message seems to be loud an clear, "we can shit on you and piss on you- but we still expect your votes - because you have no where else to go."

[Fumesucker]

60. Hmm.. That's funny, the Democrats treat Muslim and Arab Americans like they do leftists

[Douglas Carpenter]

178. I hadn't thought of it that way. But I suppose they do

[Bluenorthwest]

80. LGBT people vote 7O% and more Democratic, for all known electoral history.

The first President to acknowledge that support going in, Bill Clinton, answered that support with DADT and DOMA, he and Hillary also spent the following 17 years shouting about how strongly they opposed the equality of the very people they had thanked for early and important support.
Being treated equally and being treated well are not always the same thing. I think all Democratic voter subgroups feel they are not respected due to being taken for granted, including groups that have extremely long history as Democrats. That's what it is like to be a Democrat. I was born into a Democratic family, my whole life has been Democratic and yet that is how I feel, as if they disrespect us and take us for granted.
So it does not at all surprise me that other groups would feel the same way.

[JDPriestly]

62. That is a stereotype. Liberals disagree with some ideas of some Christians.

But, the essential messages of progressives and Christians are the same. The essential messages of the Republican Party and of Christianity are diametrically opposed on most central issues. Jesus would have been a Democrat. Of that I am certain.

[Shrike47]

77. I cannot but agree.

[Stardust]

109. "But, the essential messages of progressives and Christians are the same." Thank you! nt

[Oktober]

18. Welcomed and hopefully cured of their affliction...

[Union Scribe]

20. That's not welcoming.

[Oktober]

33. Only in the sense that I would welcome someone suffering from an affliction of OCD or PTSD as well..

... and would hope that they eventually find a cure, potentially as a part of having associated with the group.

[rug]

49. It's a shame narcissistic personality disorders are untreatable.

[whathehell]

51. LOL!

You hit that one out of the park.

[Fumesucker]

67. Indeed..

If that condition were treatable perhaps we wouldn't have so many people who think they are so incredibly special that the creator of the universe takes a deep personal interest in them.

[Oktober]

71. Deep enough interest to hear your internal thought request to keep all the lights green....

... so you can get to the store before they close.

[rug]

84. Why yes, that's exactly what religion is about.

[rug]

83. If it's any consolation, I don't tke a deep personal interest in you.

[Oktober]

72. Says the man with the Marx avatar...

[rug]

85. Oh, do you favor capitalism?

There are many, many libertarians who share your views on religion.

[Oktober]

86. Many are also left handed and attended school in the North East...

What's your point?

[rug]

87. The point is in the question you didn't answer.

Do you favor capitalism?

[Oktober]

88. Yup.. Just like President Obama and every significant member of the Democratic party...

What in the wide world of sports does that have to do with religious nuttery?

[rug]

89. And do you favor corporations?

This has about as much to do with your self-absorbed view of religion as does a Marx avatar.

However, the fact that you lunged at that suggests quite a lot about your political views which you're in the process of answering.

[cordelia]

91. Brilliant!

[Brigid]

118. And we have our thread winner.

[gratuitous]

24. Well, "serve one another in love" certainly sounds terrible

No room for that affliction anywhere, is there?

[Oktober]

31. If you they are only doing it because of a fear of punishment...

... a.k.a. an eternity in hell, then no...

They can keep it.

Serve one another in love is a fine philosophy but loses something when it's done under the threat of a physically absent but strangely influential paternal headmate.

[gratuitous]

52. Well, that's your take

But strangely enough, it's not the way a lot of Christians practice their faith. Maybe you should get out more, instead of indulging casual bigotry against people you don't know.

[jen63]

66. Yeah, the fundies on the right

make the more liberal religions look bad. Most Protestant and Catholic churches are more into social justice. I was raised in a Methodist church and most sermons were about WWJD, not the old testament that the fundies run on about. They didn't force creationism on us and I don't remember ever being taught that evolution was "bad." Science and the Bible weren't mutually exclusive. I've become more agnostic as I get older, my 20 year old son just converted to Catholicism and he definitely leans to the left, as most of his cohort do.

[Gore1FL]

56. People do that anyway.

The idea didn't come from religion.

[whistler162]

94. No need to insult the beliefs of

atheists!

[Oktober]

96. It would be utterly fascinating to have you explain that wistful bit of humor...

[Generic Other]

25. This sounds offensive to me

Much like if you asked whether people of color were welcome.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. personally, I think religous people and all supporters of good will should be welcome - but if I

listen to Bill Maher and his supporters - I get the impression that many people here on DU don't agree

[Generic Other]

30. I think we need to be tolerant of each other

I don't agree with people's worldview, but we can agree on trying to get along -- no matter who we are. I am even trying to learn to be this way toward people to the right of me.

[Scootaloo]

35. Bill Maher and those like him are bigots

They pretend to have a problem with "all religions" when called on their bigotry, but they will only ever talk about the one. They're no different than the skin-wastes who hate Jews or Catholics.

[LostOne4Ever]

29. It should have nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the policies one supports (NT)

[Scootaloo]

32. That artichoke spread sounds lovely.

[hrmjustin]

34. Interesting that some admitted we are not welcome here in their view.

[NaturalHigh]

100. I'm not the least bit surprised.

[Nye Bevan]

38. I guess some here would have been none too happy about that "papist" JFK (nt)

[sarisataka]

39. Prehaps the question should be

is a person progressive if they are intolerant of those who have different beliefs.

It is one thing if a person is a fundamental Christian, Muslim or Atheist who is trying to force their belief system down everyone's throat but an entirely different if a person is respectful of others and can compromise, not forcing their own beliefs as the basis of all policy.
For example, a Christian can be morally opposed to abortion but be pro-choice in law knowing the majority do not have such opposition. The Christian will then make their own choice based on belief, allowing others to choose as they believe.

Unfortunately very many of all beliefs think they own the One True Moral Compass that all should follow...

[Tikki]

40. Who says they aren't?

Tikki

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. 10% of this survey say they are not - there have been many posts on DU which suggest religous people

are not welcome. Personally, I am not a religious person at all. But there have been many DU posters making it 100% clear that they have no respect for any religious believers. I am not a religious believer myself. But I respect those who are. It saddens me that so many DUers are so hostile to 90% of the American population.

[Tikki]

45. 10% of a poll of Democrats....means nothing.

Dems want progressives...if a person can be progressive and religious....

Tikki

[OilemFirchen]

41. In 1980 Liberal = Jew. Read some Reagan.

If not for us Joos (and a fuck lot of Catholics) we wouldn't have a liberal Democratic party.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Yes. They are very welcome, as far as I am concerned. nt

[LostInAnomie]

43. They can believe whatever the fuck they want.

I, personally, think all religion is idiotic superstition.

As long as they are going to support actual liberal principles like equal treatment for all, and free speech, they are more than welcome.

If they are just some prick that is only for that stuff until their ox gets gored, then fuck 'em.

[LondonReign2]

147. ^This^

[LanternWaste]

176. I'll add politics to that, too.

"I, personally, think all religion is idiotic superstition."

I'll add politics to that, too.

[Lars39]

46. Depends....

Are they working to ensure equality for everyone? Or are they working to relegate women, gay people, the non-religious, etc to second class citizens?

Do they believe that government and public spaces should be secular, ie neutral so that everyone is on an equal footing? Or are they trying to replace our government with a theocracy?

Are they working towards improving and creating programs that help everyone in the country? Or are they trying to gut what social netting is left so that their pet faith-based charity can proselytize and decide who gets the services?

[whathehell]

54. Simply put, it's deeds not creeds that ultimately matter.

I think spiritual belief is personal. I don't push mine on anyone and those pushing their views,

including atheism, are not welcome in my sphere.

I was glad to see that most here seem to agree with me and I'm betting

that the minority of Intolerants who voted "no" on this poll are all

residents of my ignore list.

[Kalidurga]

47. I would choose option 4, but...

I am really full from dinner and no bake cookies. So that left me with option number 3. If they are liberal and can keep church and state separate, I have no problem with that.

[FrodosPet]

48. Can I have the crab meat used to stuff mushroom caps...

..with some cheese and bread crumbs and broiled? And perhaps the artichoke hearts on the side, with some cuke slices and grape tomatoes, and a cold Sam Adams Cherry Wheat?

Wow that would rock the world right now.

[panader0]

50. I'm an Agnostic, Dyslectic Insomniac--I lay awake at night and wonder if there really is a dog.

And I'm a Democrat! Progressive too.

[bravenak]

53. I want that dip!!

Sounds delicious.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. ALL religious people of any sort should be shunned and banned from the Dem party.

Only atheists (and maybe agnostics) allowed. That should advance the progressive agenda in this country.

[eridani]

57. Only if they share Democratic Party values

Some religious people do, and others don't.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Awwwwww

War on Christmas start early this year?

[randome]

64. I swear, it gets earlier every year.

The store aisles are already stocked with inverted crosses and blow-up dolls of Jesus giving you the finger.

Obviously religion has taken a 'hit' during the discussions on the abhorrent practices of far too many Muslims.

So sad.

Maybe it would be a clearer concept if Muslims would stop promoting it as their religion to force women to be submissive and gays to be dead.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Well like the song says, it's hard out here for a Pope.

[NanceGreggs]

59. Religious people ...

... Christians, Muslims, Jews and "whatever" ARE the Democratic Party - as are atheists, agnostics, and anyone else who chooses to be.

Why raise the question as to whether ANY group should be "welcome" or not? And "welcome" according to who?

If you're a Democrat, you're part of the Democratic Party. If you're a progressive, you're party of the progressive movement. You are who you are - not what someone else deems you to be.

I could say I don't know what point you're trying to make here - but the truth is, I do know.

[Douglas Carpenter]

111. thank you Nance - unfortunately, the point I was trying to make has gone over some peoples'

Last edited Sun Oct 12, 2014, 07:51 AM - Edit history (1)

heads, I appreciate the fact that you got it

[JDPriestly]

61. Absolutely yes.

In fact, in my opinion, only the Democratic Party reflects the core values of the major religions, especially Christianity.

[randome]

65. Well, maybe they should start reflecting the core values of PEOPLE, instead.

What does religion have to do with it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[LanternWaste]

177. Values, religion and politics are all as imaginary as the others are...

Values, religion and politics are all as imaginary as the others are, and exist nowhere but our own little minds (I do concede however, that we often rationalize to ourselves that one bit of the imaginary has no place in another bit of the imaginary)

[baldguy]

68. They already are, and have always been welcomed.

Only the political purists, the religious chauvinists, those who can't see the differences between the parties to begin with would refuse help & support from a valuable ally.

[pampango]

70. Many liberals are religious and view their religious beliefs as a part of their liberalism.

Many conservatives consider themselves religious and view their religious beliefs as a part of their conservatism.

If religious beliefs support caring about others and inclusiveness that is a good thing. If religious beliefs support hatred and exclusiveness that is a bad thing. The key is not whether one is religious but what one believes about other people.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

73. Do you want to lose tens of millions of supporters?

That's what you'll get if you kick all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc. out of the Democratic Party.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

74. Warm Artichoke and Bacon Dip

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/giada-de-laurentiis/warm-artichoke-and-bacon-dip-recipe.html?soc=fyesocial_20141011_33085656



Warning: not Kosher. not Halal either.

[Gothmog]

75. Believers are welcomed and active in the Democratic Party

[liberal N proud]

76. One of the problems with republicans; their inclusion of a single religion in politics

Politics should not be in religion and religion should not be in politics.

I no longer attend church, because the GOP mixed the two.

[bigwillq]

78. As long as their views are progressive

I have no problem with it. The more the merrier.

[NaturalHigh]

79. I certainly hope so.

I was a Christian long before I was a Democrat. My grandfather was a Baptist deacon and Sunday school superintendent, and he proudly told everyone that he had never once voted for a Republican.

I can't believe some of the nasty things that I see posted about people of faith.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. The label one announces to others is of no concern to me, I care about actions

So progressive people treating others with respect and equality should be welcomed in this Party, no matter what reason they give for taking those actions, be it a faith, a love of plants, some poem they read that moved them to kindness.
I really don't have any reason to believe what others say is their subtext, nor any reason to care about that personal narrative. I can see their actions and that truth is enough to suffice. If people treat others well, I do not really care why they do so I'm just glad to see them. If they treat others poorly I also do not care what excuses they give, I blame them for their own actions, not some teacher or school of thought, I blame the doer for the deed. And it is about deeds, not creeds.
Anyone who thinks other people are inferior or that they should be treated differently under the law from themselves should not be welcome in this Party. I'm not going to be welcoming racists, bigots or misogynists to advocate racism, bigotry or misogyny within our Party. Again, I don't care what reason is given for the bigotry, racism or misogyny. It is the act, not the excuse given for the act that matters.

[madokie]

82. If a person wants to believe in God thats their business

So they should not be discriminated against for that in anyway. We are a free country or claim to be, if you aren't brown or black that is then all that about free is out the window
I don't need the fear or feeling of love of a god to keep me from doing bad things all I need is a willingness not to do bad things and a desire to sleep at night. I want to be treated right so I treat others right to foster that. I don't put up with bullshit though and never have.

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. A most excellent philosophy. n/t

[madokie]

98. Hey Bro'

Give me a five

Been worried about you as I haven't seen you wandering these hallowed halls lately. Hope all is well

[edhopper]

90. Do you think challenging religious beliefs

especially if they are at odds with progressive ideals, shouldn't be part of the Democratic party?
Do you equate challenging beliefs with not being welcome politically?

[LeftishBrit]

93. I think that religious believers of all stripes, and nonbelievers, should be welcome in the

progressive movement, so long as they actually are progressive!

A Christian like Bishop Tutu; a Jew like Rabbi Lerner; a Muslim like Malala Yousafzai - all are great contributors to progressivism. So are many atheists and agnostics.

[MisterP]

97. honestly I blame HG Wells for this: he promised a Godless, Anglophone, technocratic

world state by 1960 at the latest: when that fell through (and when everything Dow and Raytheon combined threw into Vietnam didn't win the war) caused a huge crisis in these managerialists

somebody had to be found to blame for these failures

[dilby]

99. It's going to be a really small party once you kick them all out.

Wonder what they will call themselves, maybe they will be the Orthodox Democrats.

[Iggo]

101. Oh, for fuck's sake.

[99Forever]

102. You need another option...

... it should read:

This poll is ridiculous.

[questionseverything]

103. today's fight is the .01% against the rest of us

as part of the 99%, the only party we have a chance of influencing is the democratic party so all comers should be welcomed


since the repubs own the machines,program the machines, it takes more of us voting to get same count

http://beta.slashdot.org/story/170755

[Doctor_J]

104. Religious people or fundies?

I would rather not have James Dodson OR ISIS in the party.

[RadicalGeek]

105. We Have A Place

And I say WE speaking as a "Francsican Catholic".

There is a long history in America of religious progressives, just as there is a history of a reactionary strain of religion.

I will say that to be a religious progressive, sometimes dogmas need to be discarded.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

106. It'll be a darned small party if they aren't.

I suspect that the vast majority of current Democrats are religious in one way or another, so electoral viability alone requires the answer to such a question to be 'yes'.

[lame54]

107. the majority of them already are...

what a misleading question

[Lady Freedom Returns]

108. We should welcome everyone.

I may not be Wiccan, but that line of "The Wiccan Rede" is something for us all. An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Believe what you wish, just don't push it on others. And I find that most in the DEM party do just that, believe what they want and don't push it on others.

[CBGLuthier]

110. Good to see there are only 11 intolerant fucks so far.

Some people defy description in their inanity.

[Douglas Carpenter]

116. now 12, but at least they are a very tiny and very nutty fringe

[KinMd]

112. Martin Luther King was a believer, just as an example

[TBF]

113. Everyone who supports the platform

should be welcome.

[YoungDemCA]

136. The platform is fairly long and multifaceted

What if someone supports Democrats on 90% of the issues in the platform, but disagrees with them on the remaining 10%? Do we welcome their support, or do we say, "Sorry, because you are closer to the Republicans on these one or two or more particular issues, you're not welcome in the Democratic Party." ?

[TBF]

140. I don't think you need an

algorithm for this - you generally support the party or you don't.

[WinkyDink]

114. This is just a damn stupid question.

[Douglas Carpenter]

115. thanks for kicking the poll

I'm just glad that the vast overwhelming majority of DUers agree that religious people whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever are welcomed in the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. One could get the impression that there are many people here who don't feel that way. I'm glad that this poll confirms that they are simply a tiny lunatic fringe.

[whatthehey]

119. Of course - as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on others

Couldn't give a sparrow's fart if people feel the need to stand on one leg singing falsetto for an hour every Tuesday, abjure from tomatoes as a mortal sin, and think nobody under 6' should be allowed to be a doctor, all because the Bright Blue Baboon told them these things in a dream.

Just as long as they don't try to enact these things into any kind of law, rule, code or normative expectation outside people who willingly become devotees of the BBB.

[DirkGently]

121. Is DU's religious tolerance somehow subject to question?

I have as much contempt as any for religion used as a basis to have contempt for others, or to justify violence or exclusion or imposing irrational rules on everyone else.

But belief itself is pretty clearly within the realm of the tolerance for different types of thought progressives are supposed to embrace, no?

[YoungDemCA]

137. There are those among us who have contempt for ALL religion

That's fine, everyone is entitled to believe or not believe what they want, but oftentimes in expressing their contempt they manage to insult all religious people. Which, if we're in the process of trying to expand the Democratic Party coalition, get more people on our side, and build up our electorate, is a pretty fucking stupid thing to do.

[Bluenorthwest]

156. It runs two ways. Some of the defenses of religious faith manage to come off as wildly bigoted

toward other groups. Because when a government or 10 is lashing and jailing a minority group, and the concern is that someone has insulted an idea held by the guy with the lash I think there is something wrong with that.

[Mike Nelson]

126. Of course, as long as they respect others'...

... belief systems!

[Orsino]

128. It's not a fucking country club.

We don't have gatekeepers, and our members can't just sit in pews. People work with us or don't, with or without religious beliefs.

[YoungDemCA]

134. I didn't realize that the Democratic Party had purity tests

That sounds more like the Republican Party-specifically, the Teabagger wing of the Republican Party.

Aren't we supposed to be better than that?

[tiredtoo]

138. i voted for the hard bread, artichoke and crab meat.

Anyone holding strong Progressive/Democratic values should be welcomed.

[el_bryanto]

144. Are they voting for Democratic and Progressive candidates?

Have there been Progressives in history who are also Christians, Muslims or Jewish?

I understand the impulse behind the question though.

Bryant

[Arugula Latte]

146. Who is saying they're not welcome?

Last edited Tue Oct 14, 2014, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I suspect this is some sort of attempt to say: "Stop criticizing religion and religious beliefs!" But barring people from the Democratic party (huh?) and pointing out the hypocrisies, idiocies, ignorance, repression and so forth that often spring from religion are two very different things altogether.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

148. yes, unless they want their religious doctrines incorporated into public policy. nt

[Bradical79]

159. Seems like a backwards question

Most Democrats are religious in some way, Atheists like me are the minority. So it's more a question of whether those with religious beliefs want me in their Democratic party if any group is going to be giving an opinion on who should be allowed in.

[Dorian Gray]

162. Of course they should

And anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

163. I would think that "religious" Democrats are already in the overwhelming majority.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

164. If, but only if, their political views are liberal.

Belonging to a given religion should not, in and of itself, be held against anyone.

But there are any number of opinions which correlate strongly with religion that should make people who hold them unwelcome here.

That said, among Americans (who make up most DUers), that correlation is probably much weaker - African Christians, Israeli Jews, and Muslims anywhere with a Muslim majority are all more likely to hold right-wing opinions than their coreligionists in the West.

[abakan]

169. Of course they should be welcomed...

Luckily for us the repubs won't take most of them.

[KamaAina]

172. Of course not, silly.

Who needs Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Alan Grayson or Keith Ellison?

[LanternWaste]

175. I think religious tests to be accepted into a political party would be a swell idea...

I think religious tests to be accepted into, or denied acceptance into a political party would be a swell idea...