How About Some Democratic Outreach to Liberal People of Faith for a Change?

[rug]

December 29, 2016
4:13 p.m.
By Ed Kilgore

Every time Democrats lose an election, and sometimes even when they win, you hear a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the cluelessness of liberals about religion, as evidenced by the donkey party’s poor showing among white, conservative Evangelical Protestants. Donald Trump’s 81 percent performance among that demographic this year has revved up that particular complaint all over again, as reflected in a long piece at The Atlantic by Emma Green about “the [Democratic] party’s illiteracy on and hostility toward faith.” Green discusses this question exclusively with Michael Wear, a conservative Evangelical who once worked for Obama but is now obviously estranged from Obama’s party. Reading through the piece, a visitor from Mars would be excused for thinking the only Christians (or real Christians) in America are conservative Evangelicals. Yes, there are throw-away references to African-American Christians as a special case, and to “white Catholics” as suffering from the same ignorance and disdain from Democrats. But you would not know that there are an estimated 36 million Americans who are affiliated with the (mostly) white mainline Protestant churches and probably a similar number of “modernist” Catholics who don’t agree with their church’s conservative positions on the very issues Wear and Green are worried about.

This is hardly an isolated example of the invisibility of liberal Christians in American discourse. And they are joined in cultural limbo by millions of religiously observant Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other people of faith who are typically thought of as belonging to ethnic minorities rather than to a faith community.

Part of the disdain to which liberal Christians in particular are held by both conservative and secular observers is attributable to the steadily declining number of mainline Protestants, for so long America’s dominant group (a problem that many conservative churches are now beginning to experience, perhaps as divine punishment for their endless chortling about the “dying” mainline denominations). But in addition, many years of conservative agitprop has contributed to the perception, which many secular people have uncritically absorbed, that liberal Christians don’t really believe in anything other than trendy social causes. In the Atlantic piece, Wear refers to white liberal Christians as “cultural Christians,” meaning people who are only nominally followers of Jesus Christ.

Whatever the genesis of the strange inability to see liberal Christians and non-Christians as authentically religious, it may be as big a problem for Democrats today as the vast gulf that separates them from conservative Evangelicals.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/the-case-for-democratic-outreach-to-religious-liberals.html

[guillaumeb]

1. There have been numerous posts at DU that 'explain" that Democrats cannot attract believers

and that the GOP is the "natural" position for them. Generally because of social issues. As if all believers subscribe to the same few positions.

[rug]

3. Whoever holds that position has either not read the gop platform or not read the New Testament.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. As long as mormons and catholics vote for things like Prop 8 in california

I don't have much to say to them, except 'knock that off please'.

When evangelicals spin the supreme court to try and overturn Roe vs. Wade, what do you want me to say to them?
When catholics try to block the ACA over the contraception mandate, or further restrict abortion, or deny me the right to end my own life if I am suffering a debilitating fatal illness, what do you want me to say to them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_politics_in_the_United_States#Voting_guides

USCCB:

FCFC (#34) lists “intrinsically evil acts,” and says that Catholics cannot vote for a political candidate “who favors a policy promoting” them, at least “if the voter’s intent is to support” any such positions. It mentions here abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, “deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions,” “redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning,” and “racist behavior.” It suggests that this list is not meant to be exhaustive, by prefacing it with “such as.” In fact, later in the document it also mentions human cloning, in vitro fertilization, and the destruction of human embryos for research. While not specifically calling “intrinsically evil” such acts as torture, unjust war, genocide, attacking noncombatants in war, human trafficking, and imposition of the death penalty—although clearly almost all of these would also fall into that category—it says that Catholic teaching calls on us to oppose them and to also seek to “overcome poverty and suffering” (#43). It also cautions that a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to intrinsically evil positions such as these to “justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.” Still, and while rejecting “single-issue” voting, it says that a Catholic voter is justified in “disqualifying a candidate” who embraces such intrinsically evil positions (#42).

Go tell the USSCB they don't know what's in the new testament. I'll wait.

I'm perfectly willing to mine votes wherever they can be had, but you seem to be placing the onus on US, rather than them. They need to come around on a SHITLOAD of issues to be compatible with the DNC platform, let alone a progressive platform.

[HassleCat]

2. Here's my outreach.

We will protect your right to practice your religion. Evangelical fundamentalists will try to confine your religious freedoms where your liturgy doesn't match theirs.

[rug]

4. Here's your first problem:

Next to your condescension.

"We will protect your right to practice your religion."

The First Amendment applies to everyone. It's not a "we" versus "your religion" proposition.

The second problem is that's not what the article is about.

[HassleCat]

6. OK then. I disagree with you and the article.

It is very much a we vs. them situation. "We" are Democrats, and we will stick up for the First Amendment, even if our religious views do not coincide with those of other people. "They" are religious fundamentalists, and what they really want is to make it more difficult for people of competing faiths to practice their religion. This would be my basis on which to appeal to religious Americans, not the rather vague and convoluted proposition, if there is one, in the article.

[rug]

8. No, the "we" is Democrats, religious and nonreligious, native and immigrant.

It is a party and an organization that strives to improve the conditions of all people in this country.

The "they' is not simply religious fundamentalists. It is the corporations, the military-industrial complex, and the other instruments of wealth that use the fundamentalists and other panderers to continue ther work of concentrating money, power and capital.

To cast the politics of this country as a religious us versus them struggle is shallow and playing the role of a dupe. It is also deeply divisive. As they wish.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Where does the USCCB fall in the laundry list of weath?

Just curious.

[rug]

13. It itself owns little.

What you're really searching for is the wealth of the RCC.

To establish it, you need to go through the 197 U.S. dioceses.

That, or reread your Jack Chick comics.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Rich people excel at insulating themselves from tax exposure.

Trick one is not appearing to own stuff.

[rug]

16. As correct as it is irrelevant.

Particularly as it's tax exempt.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance Archbishop Bernard Hebda of Saint Paul and Mi

google google...

oh look what I found.

http://www.startribune.com/archdiocese-low-balls-assets-creditors-claim/380681881/

Sell that bullshit someplace else, rug. Nobody's buying.

[rug]

18. Sell your own bullshit, ac. They have no "tax exposure".

That is a tort lawsuit.

Seriously, your bias against all things Catholic is leading you to make some really ignorant and stupid posts.

Oh, there's a thread about an 84 year old pedophile priest, posted by trotsky of course, that's just aching for attention. Why don't you go nurture it? You may get some bites.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. If I were the church, I'd consider legal judgments related to sexual abuse a B&O tax at this point.

That diocese is hiding 1.7bn in assets, approx. BILLION.

Insulate and hide wealth. That's what wealthy people do. They're masters at it. Usually it's to escape taxes, but the church already effectively manages that by way of special pleading, so fine. Now they're insulating wealth from legal judgments.

Totally invalidates my point rug, boy you sure got me today.

Rich beyond the dreams of avarice. What a charitable sack of shit.

[rug]

20. Wait, you didn't mention pedophilia yet! Or misogyny.

Your reflexive spewing at the word Catholic is slipping.

And before you go on, remember what the OP is about. It's not about routine bigotry. In fact, it's the opposite.

I'm going to start a thread about mashed potatoes next and see how many posts it takes you to get back to this spot.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. The entity I referenced that led to this point

has a doctrinal position on a number of social issues that is inimical to the Democratic Party Platform.

AND they're a bunch of two faced liars about wealth and the sooner you come to terms with that, the better.

Faith is fine. Don't care. WHAT you believe, now, that's an issue. Hence, everything upthread.

[rug]

23. And the OP is about the Democratic Party's connections to religioius Democrats.

Start your own thread about "two faced liars". Not that there will be an original thought in it.

And you, of all people, are the last person to suggest to me what I should "come to terms with". Do not mistake my indulging your posts with any real interest in them.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Still awaiting your wizened deflections for post 10. Hop to.

[rug]

24. Keep waiting. You've exhausted your quota of bullshit.

You should be more careful with it next time.

If you're anxious, ask Biden: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/vice-president-biden

If you don't get an answer, he's probably out building the party instead of, like you, ignorantly telling millions of Democrats they can't be Catholics and Democrats.

Why would you do that?

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Oh please, in post 8 you prattle on about instruments of wealth all the while, dancing around the

wealthy fundamentalists, like the RCC.

That shit ain't gonna fly.

The value of that one diocese I linked is approximately the same as the yearly profit of the ENTIRE gun industry. One diocese from one committee leader from the USCCB.

You want to talk wealth? Let's do.


You'll note I never said word one about the millions of catholic MEMBERS nor did anyone but you say they couldn't be catholics and democrats.

The members don't make the rules that fly in the face of the Democratic Party Platform. But to callback to a recent thread about a 20 week abortion ban in which 3/4 of the democrats of the Ohio legislature that voted in favor of the ban were catholic, it remains an issue that bites us at unexpected times. Again, callback to Prop 8 that never would have passed without catholic support. (Never would have passed without Mormon support either)

You're the only one saying they can't be Democrats and catholics. They can. But it helps a great deal if they don't actually adhere to catholic dogma.

[Bretton Garcia]

38. Jack Chick is straight Reformation material.

When the Protestants broke away from Catholicism, the two religions were soon in literal, violent wars. When the Spanish Armada sailed against England in 1588, it sailed with the aim in part, of ending religious freedom; destroying Angican Protestantism in England. Then there's the Thirty Years War, 1618-48.

At that time, protestants regularly said the Pope was the antichrist; and Satan himself. And in the religious, Protestant/Catholic war? The armada and the Chuch were defeated in say, England. Which is officially Anglican.

And gradually the Church has given ground to Protestant ideas. Like 1) a nonliteral Eucharist. And 2) acknowledging the evils of suggesting that monetary contributions to the church, could save your soul.

[walkingman]

5. Most religious Democrats (myself included)

cannot stomach the demonizing of people based upon their race, sexual orientation, and reproductive choice. The WPP (White People's Party) is all about religious liberty as long as it is Christianity. Trump's support by most Christian leaders is proof of their hypocrisy.

[delisen]

7. I Agree. n/t

[rug]

9. Welcome to DU.

[J_William_Ryan]

12. Well, no...

“This is hardly an isolated example of the invisibility of liberal Christians in American discourse.”

It's not a matter of liberal Christians being ‘invisible,’ it’s a matter of liberal Christians correctly understanding and acknowledging the fact that it was the original intent of the Founding Generation to keep church and state separate, unlike conservative Christians who for the most part seek to conjoin church and state, in violation of the First Amendment, and attempt to use religion as a political weapon and wedge issue to divide the American people.

[rug]

14. Do you actually think liberal Democrats who are religious do not know that?

[50 Shades Of Blue]

25. ENOUGH with the religious pandering, PERIOD.

And spare me from the humblebragging expression "people of faith."

[rug]

27. Do you think the Democratic Party acknowledging that most Democrats are religious is pandering?

[50 Shades Of Blue]

30. Yes.

[rug]

31. You're denying reality.

Not all fantasies are religious.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

34. Acknowledging and pandering to are the same thing when it comes to politicians and relgion.

They need to IGNORE RELIGION and focus on Americans' SECULAR needs and interests. Let peoples' own CHURCHES take take of their religious fantasies.

[rug]

35. Says who? Some opinions, especially the overwrought ones, are themselves fantasies.

[hrmjustin]

26. Not easy being a liberal believer. You get hit from the right as heritics and from the left for

believing in fairy tales.

It would be nice if the Democratic Party put more effort in courting us and people of no faith.

[Bretton Garcia]

28. If Rug and Justin would outreach to conservatives,

... evangelicals, on behalf of atheism, that would be fine.

[rug]

29. No, that's what David Silverman does.

[Bretton Garcia]

39. And the Pope

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/10302850/Pope-Francis-reaches-out-to-atheists-and-agnostics.html

In some ways the Pope is 1) reaching out to atheists.

But in doing so, he is also 2) in effect encouraging conservative Catholics to change their minds on such things as atheists.

If only Rug would listen to his pope....

[rug]

41. By all means, elaborate.

[Bretton Garcia]

43. Pope Francis remembers the Good Samaritan

Who, the Bible said, was not a good Jew or Christian, but was a good person. Who did good in many ways; even better than a priest.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3320757

So here, in the "Good Samaritan" story, Jesus himself prefers a non-Jew, a non Chrsitian who does good things, to a religious person who does not.

Possibly, Jesus and then Pope Francis even hints, a nonreligious but good person, might be considered saved. Even over and against Christians.

This in fact was a sermon I often heard, for instance, from military chaplains when I lived overseas. Our priests and ministers must have felt that Americans living abroad, needed to get over their all-American, and Christian vanity and Pride; to have some respect for the other foreign cultures they lived in.

In this way note, our - note, liberal - Christian priests and ministers, were teaching conservative Christians, to overcome their conservative pride and vanity; their ethnocentrism and xenophobia.

Later on to be sure, many liberals accepted such lessons, to the point that they no longer felt the need to be even nominally Christian or religious at all. Especially given the other many other, bad things built into Judeo-Christians culture.

However, today Pope Fracis appears to be, increasingly, liberally, giving higher and higher status, to even agnostics and atheists. If they do good works, and so forth.

The church in the 1950's and 60's had often liberally suggested that a nonreligious or non-Christian but good person, with a strong sense of morality and ethics, a "well-formed conscience," could be a better person than an intolerant conservative Christian fundamentalist or evangelical.

Here on Democratic Underground, Religion group, most of us become impatient with the downside of almost all Christianity. However? However annoying even liberal Christians like Rug may be in that context, we might encourage Rug and other liberal Christians, to go and talk to, liberalize at least to a degree, their even more conservative and intolerant brethren.

In this way, liberal Christians like you, Rug, could serve a valuable purpose; even to good agnostics and atheists. By following a neglected but real voice in the Bible, and in Catholic doctrine: its liberal - and at times even atheist? - voice.

[hrmjustin]

40. Evangelicals wouldn't listen to me.

I am gay and Episcopalian, so I am lower than shit to them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. What kind of outreach to religious liberals does he want that isn't also outreach to liberals?

Could it be running candidates who are overwhelmingly religious - more so than the average of the population? The Democrats do that already. Could it be having liberal pastors as major speakers at conventions? Democrats do that already. Some people have been in both categories for years.

"the invisibility of liberal Christians in American discourse" - doesn't this man even know who the current president is????

Ed Kilgore is a stupid whiny self-absorbed writer who has nothing better to write about.

[rug]

36. How is an atheist liberal different from a religious liberal?

Either there is none, in which case 2/3 of the posts in here can be ignored, or you can start by defining the difference. If you define the difference you've answered your own question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. I don't see why you're re-asking what I asked

"What kind of outreach to religious liberals does he want that isn't also outreach to liberals?"
"How is an atheist liberal different from a religious liberal?"

I'm not going to define the difference, form the point of view of how political parties should behave. I asked the question. It's Ed who thinks there is a difference that means the religious liberals need more political attention. But his whole article ignores the dominance of the Democratic party by religious people, who he seems to think are shunning themselves.

[rug]

42. Because a proper question usually contains its own answer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Looks like no one knows what Ed craves, then - not him, not me, not you

Maybe his question wasn't a 'proper' one, by your standards.

[rug]

45. The article was pretty straightforward.

But then, I have no ax to grind.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. But you cannot say what the extra-special treatment he wants for religious liberals is

Kilgore's axe seems to be "Democrats aren't stroking the egos of religious liberals enough", even though most Democratic candidates are religious liberals. It may not be your axe, but you did post the article, so I thought you understood it, and would be able to explain it. Oh well.

[rug]

47. Sure I can. For one thing, it's not "extra-special" treatment.

When he is observing is a tendency to lump all religious people - who are voters - together. It's a stupid approach. It's not a nuanced approach. And it ignores the reality that there is a diversity of beliefs. The sum of this is that voters who are liberal and religious are ignorantly ignored. Dull, broad-based hostility towards religion and the religious is disruptive. I thought you had the capacity to grasp this. Oh well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Don't you consider President Obama a religious liberal? Don't you consider Hillary Clinton one?

What about Joe Biden? Or Tim Kaine? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi?

It would be a lot easier to name the Democratic party leaders who aren't religious liberals than those who are.

What "hostility towards religion"? In what way are you accusing these religious people of hostility towards the religious? Voters who are liberal and religious had a very obvious presidential candidate to vote for - the one who was liberal and religious. The Democrats had loads of liberal policies, and no anti-religious ones. So there must be some special treatment for the religious you're demanding.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Charles Pierce: "A Few Thoughts on the Democratic Party's 'Hostility' Toward Religion"

This is a reply to the Wear interview rather than Kilgore's own "won't someone think of the feelings of religious liberals" reply, but it shows what the response should be - people vote on their political views, and it would be a moral surrender to give up political principles and pander to religious conservatives on the grounds that they're religious. And religious liberals got liberal policies from Democrats, so what's their problem?

I have great empathy for the people whose lives feel so desperate, or whose spirituality feels so besieged, that they decided to hand the government over to a vulgar talking yam. I have great empathy, but Jesus H. Christ on a grand piano, I am completely out of sympathy. Ever since November 9, I have been told that the only thing for us all to do is buy a cookie for every member of the White Working Class while simultaneously abandoning "identity politics." Come now, inevitably, the white evangelical Christians, shoving their way to the front of the snickerdoodle line.
...

It shows not just ineptitude, but the ignorance of Democrats in not even pretending to give these voters a reason to vote for them. We also need to have a robust conversation about the support or allowance for racism, misogyny, and Islamophobia in the evangelical tradition.

This answer is politically absurd. Evangelicals went 81 percent for perhaps the most irreligious presidential candidate in American history because evangelicals vote their conservatism and not their Christianity. Long ago, I was on a panel with a theology professor who said he could envision these voters supporting an out atheist if the candidate held the right positions on the social issues and tax cuts. I thought he was mistaken. In 2016, I realized I was wrong.

And who, precisely, is the Democratic politician who could embark on this "robust conversation" among religious and sexual bigots about how their dearly nurtured prejudices were not necessarily what the gospels had in mind without being condemned as a godless infidel?
...

Another reason why they haven't reached out to evangelicals in 2016 is that, no matter Clinton's slogan of "Stronger Together," we have a politics right now that is based on making enemies, and making people afraid. I think we're seeing this with the Betsy DeVos nomination: It's much easier to make people scared of evangelicals, and to make evangelicals the enemy, than trying to make an appeal to them.

My father worked in public education for 35 years and Betsy DeVos doesn't believe in public education. She's also manifestly unqualified and has demonstrated dangerous incompetence. That she's also blatantly theocratic about it is only part of the problem. (Taxpayer money for religious schools is so nakedly unconstitutional that it shouldn't even be an argument.) She's not an "enemy." But she's also a terrible example in terms of the case Wear is trying to make.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51957/obama-aide-democrats-evangelicals/