The reason so many of fear religion and politics mixing and so many don't

[dsc]

I grew up in the period that saw the rise and power of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. For people who came of age when I did, religious involvement in politics was largely one that supported right wing ideas. I know that there were liberal activists on with a religious agenda. Martin Sheen and the American council of Bishops are two examples. But for many my age and younger who are progressive, religious involvement in politics is pretty scary.

Conversely, for those who grew up in the 1960's religion had a much different role in politics. The Civil Rights and anti war movments are nearly unimaginable without religious involvement. From the Southern Leadership Council to religious pacifists the footsoldiers of those movements came from the ranks of the religious.

I don't know if these views can be reconsiled. Admittedly I am more than a little uncomfortable with our candidates attending a forum of religious leaders most of whom don't recognize full equality of gay and lesbian citizens. I can also understand pro choice Demcorats being profoundly uncomfortable with that forum as well. But I also understand why other Democrats take great comfort in that very same forum. Those raised in justice oriented churches probably found that forum both unique and refreshing. As uncomfortable as I found this forum I also have to say it was more focused on poverty issues than other similar forums.

I would love to see this reconciled but have no idea how. But both sides need to understand the other. People like me need to understand the history that leads the otherside of this debate but those on the otherside need to understand just how scary religion and politics have become for those whose very right of citizenship is at stake.

[Bluebear]

1. 'But both sides need to understand the other.'

I am all for "understanding", but the fact remains, at least for now, that there is a separation of church and state, so I can understand but I do not have to accommodate religion in government.

I have seen my fill of faith-based politics since 2000!

[More Than A Feeling]

2. You forgot a large reason.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=129884&mesg_id=129884

[Jed Dilligan]

3. Civil rights leaders of the 60s

never sought to impose their religious views on others. Therein lies the difference.

[Critters2]

4. Sure they did. Their religious view was that all people are equal.

That was a tenet of their faith. And they worked hard to spread that belief. Dr. King did what he did because of his faith.

[Jed Dilligan]

7. That's one tenet that also happens to be

a founding principle of our nation. The agenda of today's religious right does not coincide with the founding principles of our nation.

If someone wants to promote equality because they were ordered to by the Great Baby-Eating Demon, great. It doesn't matter to me why someone does right as long as they do right. If they promoted baby-eating, they would be wrong.


What the civil rights leaders tried to impose on America was nothing other than its own law.

[Critters2]

11. The agenda of the religious right doesn't coincide with

the founding principles of our nation, but the progressive Christian agenda does, imo. I know Obama's denomination best (because it is also my own), and I know that it advocates gay marriage, choice, anti-poverty work, labor rights and other progressive values.

Not all Christians are wingnuts.

[Jed Dilligan]

19. Never said all Christians are wingnuts,

but since their out there I'd be cautious about our leaders' bedfellows.

[dsc]

6. Of course they did

They sought to impose their religious beliefs in regards to race, we just tend to agree with them.

[Jed Dilligan]

9. That's not imposing religious beliefs

That's making people obey what was already the law of the land. I wouldn't equate "Don't condone slavery" with "Believe in Jesus," and the latter is what today's religious right wants to impose.

[Critters2]

12. Which Dems who participated in that CNN forum are

"the religious right"?

[Bluebear]

10. That was not their religious belief in regards to race. nt

[dsc]

13. King was filled with religious imagery

and his views on Civil Rights were greatly informed by his religion. It is very hard, heck close to impossibe, to imagine him without religion.

[Bluebear]

14. So you think he wanted people of color to be free because of what is in the Bible?

And not the American philopsophy that 'all men are created equal'?

He wanted to end segregation because he is Christian? Or because his brothers and sisters were being tormented by inequality?

[dsc]

16. I am sure it is all of the above

but I am equally sure one big reason for their success was that millions of white, Christians believed as fervently as they did that they were doing God's work.

[Bluebear]

17. "millions of white Christians doing God's work" - I think you need to revisit the 60's :)

The Civil Rights movement was not won by millions of white Christians.

[dsc]

18. Not entirely no

but without the massive change in heart among whites there is no way the Civil Rights agenda would have passed. Just like gay rights won't become law without massive straight support.

[Demeter]

5. There Is A Subtle Difference Between Then and Now

In the 60's, the churches were the organizing structures to support an effort to make America live up to its blueprint (the Constitution) and fulfill its destiny. Every town had at least one church, and each church had a congregation, so it was convenient. The Civil Rights people and the Anti-War people could have used bowling alleys, or grocery stores, and there would have been no difference.

The Women's Movement, a spin-off from the Civil Rights Movement, used college campuses and coffee klatches. There never was a serious church involvement in the support structure.

But in the 70's, a backlash against all these reform movements coalesced in another group of churches, the churches with the attitudes exemplified by Jerry Falwell, etc. And in their zeal to return to the "good old days" when their self-importance and real political power were not threatened by upstarts, these churches decided that America need religion--their religion--and set out to swamp out any other voices. They succeeded for a time, and they have yet to be repelled by reason, fact, and law. It is the cramming of their One Faith, with its support of manifest inequality on earth, that distinguishes their movement as a totalitarian one.

[Critters2]

8. Perhaps people need to do a little research

For instance, Obama's been getting raked over the coals for participating in that forum. He belongs to the first Christian denomination to ordain glbt clergy, the denomination of Andrew Young and Barry Lynn---hardly a bunch of wingnuts. That his faith informs his ethics is of great comfort to me (of course, that's my faith, too).

It is possible to be Christian and progressive. But it's easier to just lump everyone together--All Christians as RW whackos.

[Bluebear]

15. I "fear" politics and religion mixing because of batshit crazy Leviticus readers.

When it comes down to it.

[jonnyblitz]

20. don't forget, in the 60's all those bigots with the firehoses and

dogs plus the lynchers, etc. were all christians, too.

Seriously, I have no problem understanding there are good religious liberals out there but is it necessary to have to line up all the DEM politicians and ask them how often do they pray or how much do they love baby jesus? Is this telling us anything important? DO people REQUIRE obvious PANDERING before they will support a person? are they THAT fucking gullible and easily swayed? Do religious liberals actually believe this is necessary and believe just because somebody prays 8 times a day that makes them automatically GOOD and people will fall for that? I just don't get it.