Imagine if Christians converted to Jehovah's Witness overnight

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

and the next day, laws restricting blood transfusions were being passed in states.

Would all of our little strategists on this board still be saying we should INCLUDE these people in our strategy or would they stand tough for a separation of church and state.

(this post in response to those who claim we must include and appeal to religious values even if those values are bigoted, hateful or homophobic)

I'm really just trying to get a grasp on the principles of the people saying this or figure out just how much they think we as a nation should sell out to religion.

[Dookus]

1. you have hit on an important point

this year it's gays and abortions, but what's next? If we concede on those issues, they'll find something else. ANY social issue can be brought up as "biblical".

I still think if Democrats want to point out the absurdity of using religion as a guide for public affairs, we should propose a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce.

The bible, and christ's words, are MUCH more clearly against divorce than either homosexuality or abortion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Yeah and notice none of the "cultural" defender bigots

has responded yet even though they are out there and posting.

[Dookus]

4. oddly

I'm a little more forgiving of those posts - for this week and this week only.

People are shell-shocked, and looking for answers. Exploring and discussing these issues are one thing - advocating finally that we should get the hell out of their party is another. They have a few more days to deal with it.

[RPM]

10. a fertile point?

Is there any hope of using such a thought against christians? I know that certain sects don't think of other sects as "real christians"; could we play upon their internal fracticiousness by laying out a hypo such as this:

Catholics - do you want a theocracy where morman values set your laws?

or

Evangelcials - do you want Lutheran dogma determining your lifestyle?

Is there a way to either (1) on a positive note - enlighten fundys to the inherent danger of allowing religious doctrine to set societial norms, or (2) less positive - turn these dogs on each other?

[kikiek]

3. Well they don't vote...good idea. Now how can we convert them...

Don't believe in war either.

[unfrigginreal]

5. Don't know if I'm one of posters that you're referring to but

what the fuck is your point? Some hypothetical "imagine if" to plan strategy by? Just what is your strategy NSMA to become a winning party again? More of the same?

Just wondering.

[Misunderestimator]

13. NSMA and I are on the phone, she's in her car and I just read this to her

She says "People like you are the reason this issue cannot be framed on principle. Your principles fly in the wind according to public polls. Instead of re-framing this issue, you choose to buy into their story. This precludes a unified message." NSMA wants to know, "on principle, do you support equality or not? If not, why?"

[unfrigginreal]

16. Of course I support it on principle. Her contention that my principles

fly in the wind is a joke. This is the same argument I was making prior to this election. Ask her if her principles are better served from a position of power or from the outside looking in? I'm sure it's much more important, in her mind, that we remain pure on the issue rather than attempting to actually accomplish the goal.

Now, can she answer my question? What is her winning strategy for us?

[Misunderestimator]

17. NSMA says that Elizabeth Edwards has said it better than she could:

in quoting Thomas Jefferson:

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1946483

That's the real problem with Democrats in that they do strategy instead of conducting a war of principles, and everyone can see right through it.

[unfrigginreal]

19. Well if you're going to look at it as strategy *or* principles

then I guess we should just continue on our merry way. I'd prefer to use a little strategy to win the war of principles.

[Misunderestimator]

21. Since I'm off the phone now, this one's from me...

Using a strategy that compromises your principles is never going to win a war for those very principles. And yes, you should just continue now on your merry way.

[unfrigginreal]

23. No one is talking about compromise except you. Stay pure while

we have Democratic candidates campaigning on anti-gay legislation. And no, I'm not going anywhere. I'll be fighting for this party to take the reigns from idealists such as yourself. You'll thank us for it later.

[sangh0]

27. Using principles with no strategy is never going to win either

It's just more of the either/or simplistic thinking that got us into this mess.

How about if we use both principles AND strategy. Is that too much for the supposedly smarter liberals?

[Misunderestimator]

30. You seem to argue with me wherever you find me... not worth my energy to

respond to you any more.

[ET Awful]

6. Minor quibble -

Jehovah's Witnesses ARE christians. They are nothing more than a different version of Christianity, they believe in Christ, they follow what they believe to be Christ's teachings.

Other than that, I agree with your point completely.

[BiggJawn]

15. Not according to the Evangelicals.

See, that's MAJOR "quibble" of mine.

All these denominations, all supposedly worshiping the same guy, yet you have this "If you don't go to *MY* church, then you believe false doctrine" bullshit.
Baptists don't think Catholics are Christian, Catholics think Lutherans are heretics, just like their founder.

And EVERYBODY hates the J-W's...
"Oh, yes, it's National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week..."

Me? I think it's all a bunch of hooey, and if that "offends" you, tough fucking shit, DEAL!

Keep your fucking fairy stories OUT of the laws I have to follow, M-kay?

[ET Awful]

18. Jim Jones was also a "christian" so was David Koresh.

I'm not too keen on having my life governed by some arbitrary set of guidelines that some delusional dude a couple thousand years ago says he was told by a burning bush. Sorry, but if the burning bush is talking, that means you smoked too much of it already.

[BiggJawn]

29. and don't forget Timmy McVeigh!

Ah, yes, Jimmy Jones....former fellow Naptowner and origin of the phrase "To drink the Kool-Aid"...

[pelagius]

7. We need to get out in front on moral issues to win

For example, you don't need to embrace anti-choice, you need to emphasize your commitment to abortion alternatives. Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" formulation is a fine stance for most Christian moderates. Back it up with some visible plans for promoting adoption. (We're never going to get the hard-rightists, so let's not try.)

Republicans pander to the lowest "morality", but they do nothing to serve that base once they're in power. Has BushCo made any effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. Naaahh... and they won't in the next term, either. Has BushCo gotten "filth" off TV? Of course not. "Filth" gets high ratings and corresponding profits. Banning gay marriage through a Constitutional amendment? Yeah, right... go ahead and cynically endorse that one, since it has no, zilch, nada chance of going anywhere.

The so-called "partial birth abortion" ban was very nearly symbolic, since only a handful of those procedures are done in a given year. Having the FCC get in a tizzy and slap a fine on Janet Jackson's boob is pure PR -- I haven't noticed any less sex or violence in prime time since.

[cheezus]

8. OUR moral issues: children not going to bed hungry

old people not having to eat pet food and turn their therostats back to 60

being able to support your family by working full time

these need to be framed as MORAL issues. John Edwards did a very good job of this, but Kerry ran from it

[pelagius]

12. Exactly. n/t

[Elidor]

9. Those who would throw their principles overboard

Didn't really have any to begin with.

Please don't think these idiots are representative of most democrats. We need to give them a swift kick in the shins. They can straighten up (no pun), or they can go hang with the fundies.

[pelagius]

20. You're creating a straw man...

...and beating him up nicely. Well done.

If your primary principle is "fundies suck and the sooner we get rid of religion the better" you will be sitting on the sidelines for several centuries. And odds are, if Christianity withers, something new will take its place. And then you'll be contending with that. There will always be spiritual (or superstitious, if you prefer) people and others who are willing to lead (or exploit, if you prefer) them.

In the meantime, you don't compromise your philosophy, you simply apply basic rhetorical principles to communicate it.

Know your audience is #1.

How many people know what the top Christian bestseller is this month? It's "The Purpose-Driven Life" by Rick Warren. What does Pastor Warren address in that book that makes it such a huge hit among evangelicals? Might be worth finding out, if you want to reach this audience.

Guess what the top Christian biography on the list is this month? "Against All Odds." Who wrote it? Chuck Norris. Yeah, that Chuck Norris. Oh, he's one of "them" -- why? Who's watching "Touched by an Angel" out there? Or "Joan of Arcadia". Why are they watching it?

Answer these questions -- all it takes is a little research and thought -- and you'll be able to craft a message to reach moderate Christians. (The liberals are already with us and the conservatives never will be.)

The fact is, we Democrats do have the moral message. We have the message of the inherent worth and dignity of all God's children, we have the message that to destroy creation is to dishonor the Creator, we have the message that families are honored by not letting them slip through an increasingly torn safety net. We have the message that love will always win out over hate.

Now we just need to learn how to tell others about it.

[Lars39]

24. The Purpose Driven Life is nothing but a brain-washing book

Teaching the flock to do nothing except church and church-related stuff.

[pelagius]

26. Why would that advice be...

...regarded so highly by evangelicals? Does it reach a deep-seated longing for community? Does it appeal to a notion of seperation from the evils of contemporary society? Why "purpose"?

I'm not advocating for or against the book. Simply that it needs to be understood.

[sangh0]

28. And even if you're 100% right, how does that help?

Saying it "stupid, stupid, stupid" may be accurate but it does nothing to keep them from beating us.

They're winning. So who's the stupid ones?

[Elidor]

34. Did you mean to reply to me? Straw man?

I wasn't talking about Christianity. I was talking about Fundies, as in The Cult of Christ. Mayhap you read things into my post that weren't there. My message was simple - people who think dems should through gays over the side can fuck off.

[CornField]

11. Actually, this is a very important point

Religious rites and civil rights are two very different things -- on purpose and by design. We do need to remind our "Christian" nation-mates of that fact... we need to remind them that they might not always hold a religious majority in this nation and ask them how they would feel living under the tentaments (sp?) of another faith.

If we, as a nation, allow a group of religious folks to change our Constitution based on their own personal faith, the wheels have been put in motion. What's to stop a group of Muslims, Jews or even (gasp!) pagans from doing the same at a later date?

The separation of church and state is there to *protect* religion, not to discriminate against it. They need to know this... we need to bang it into their heads.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Let's just keep hammering home the OTHER version of Christianity

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/

[exJW]

22. Well THIS one certainly wouldn't, lol. n/t

[hunter]

25. Oh, wow, thanks for reviving my deepest, darkest nightmares...

When I was a kid my mom was a Jehovah's Witness. Yes, that's me, the skinny little freak who hardly ever talks refusing to say the flag salute under tremendous pressure... But I do think my mom would have cracked sooner if any of her kids had required a transfusion. As it happened, she was eventually shunned by the Jehovah's Witnesses and left for the Quakers.

One good thing about the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they are pacifists. The bad thing is that the worst of them are going to be shocked, shocked, when they don't get a fast pass into heaven; indeed, a few of them will have to be escorted from the park by security and banished for their disruptive behavior in the queues.

Eventually I faced down my childhood fears and worked three years for a blood bank. Sometimes I'll say the pledge of allegiance, but never the "under God" part. The idiots who are most vehement about the "under God" part of the pledge act as if it is some blessing of Man's faulty and sinful creations, but not God's Creation. Myself, I honestly don't believe God is picking sides in football games, wars, or political races. If anything, all He sees in those things is a bunch of ignorant monkeys smashing one another into the turf.

There was someone here on DU in one of those stupid "why we lost" threads claiming it was official Democratic Party policy to diss religion. But I would like to think it is the Democratic Party taking the high ground by paying close attention to the Constitution. Dissing religions is our right, as is the separation of Church and State. Bush and Ashcroft, and all their followers, are the true subversives and radicals in America.

Oh yeah, thanks again...

[Karenina]

31. Nahhh...

Go the Christian Science route with JW backing, that way there's just one word added which has the "aura of invincibility!!" :evilgrin:

PLEASE, no offense intended. It's just "word play" and language IS important. Then you get to, "Thoughts are THINGS."

[PretzelWarrior]

32. WRONG ANGLE: if they all converted to JW. they wouldn't vote.

LOL. how bout that? They would willfully surrender their political clout and money grubbing? NO WAY. JW's are pretty persecuted partially because they take no political power unlike the Mormons, Southern Baptists, etc.

[Must_B_Free]

33. Jehova's Witnesses are against Bush

they think big government is the beast and are aware that Bush has killed over 100,000 and that he uses hate.

[Hubert Flottz]

35. My dog would REALLY be busy!

He trees JWs!