Obama and the white working class

Obama is a politician...he hooked up with the big church to get street cred, to become "black enough."
There is no way that an Ivy Leaguer should have put up with those crazy sermons.

"Still, I'm thinking of a point my DMN colleague Mark Davis, a conservative talk radio host, makes in his column tomorrow (which I've seen on page proofs): black leaders and liberals have driven whites who have made racially insensitive remarks from their jobs. He brings up Trent Lott and Don Imus. It's more than a little rich to insist on context and understanding for someone like Wright and his followers, when the same grace is not extended to whites. "

Mr. Dreher, I have a simple question to ask:

Does this Rev. Wright currently have a position with Obama's campaign, or was he driven out of his position due to his statements.

Also, what is your opinon of Martin Luther King, who had this to say

"I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government."

Rod,

You say that Obama is toast with the white working class after today's speech, because it contained too many nuanced arguments. You may very well be right about that. But the question remains: Is that not an indictment of the white working class for their idiocy? What, Obama's too smart to be president? May be true -- but if true, a pathetic statement about the character of our democracy.

Oops! I better be careful or I'll start to sound like the Rev. Wright.

Hi Rod, just one serious question to you:
If - lets say - George Bush was holding hands with the Saudi-King
and the Bush family was making deals with Saudi royals, would you say that George Bush is too close to this sort of (muslim) extremists and that Bush should therefore not be president?

If - lets say - George Bush was holding hands with the Saudi-King
and the Bush family was making deals with Saudi royals, would you say that George Bush is too close to this sort of (muslim) extremists and that Bush should therefore not be president?

If - lets say - George Bush publicly identified the Saudi King as the most important influence in his adult life and took his children weekly to listen to what the Saudi King had to say about the world, then no, he should not be president.

Damon: But the question remains: Is that not an indictment of the white working class for their idiocy?

Why would it be idiotic for them to conclude that Obama was not trustworthy because of his close association with Wright? I know plenty of people who will not be able to get past that, because they can't comprehend a man of good character tolerating Wright's views. Consider Mike Huckabee: I think secularists made way, way too much over his stance on evolution, which was considerably more nuanced than they thought. But for them, the fact that there was any nuance at all to it was beside the point: on an issue as fundamental as evolution, they simply cannot consider voting for a candidate who is not unambiguously on the right side of the question.

I would call that decision misguided, but not idiotic.

"If - lets say - George Bush publicly identified the Saudi King as the most important influence in his adult life and took his children weekly to listen to what the Saudi King had to say about the world, then no, he should not be president."

Yeap, the Saudis aren't a spiritual advisor to Bush. They're merely long time friends of the Bush family.

"""""
I also think that the section of Obama's speech where he expressed understanding of white resentments against black crime
"""""

Which is odd considering the Wright-Grandma rejection equivalency.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-throws-his-own-living-grannie.html

"Is that not an indictment of the white working class for their idiocy?"

Well, as a white, working class (FYI: depending on where one works in this field, solid, middle-class wages are, in fact, the norm) firefighter/paramedic, I find this whole train of thought to be just as indicative of the idiocy of the so-called educated elites as the idiocy that would be ascribed to us poor working schlubs, akin to the infamous Washington Post writer who wrote many years ago that evangelicals are ignorant and easily led.

Now, I believe Rod is right, but Damon's reasoning is wrong: Obama lost us not due to our ignorance but due to the fact that most blue or gray collar workers have a finely honed BS meter, and Obama pegged it out over the last few days.

Also, and while I have nothing other than anecdotal evidence, I also believe there's a difference in how many of us in the military and public safety fields view government and the concept of freedom generally. Sen. Jim Webb, whom I disagree with but who nonetheless speaks eloquently of the Scotch-Irish who settled a good bit of the South, gets it right.

I--and just about everyone I work with, and in the DC area that's a lot of firefighters--are contrary by nature and suspicious, if not downright disdainful, of government doing any more than is absolutely necessary.

Despite what the union bosses say, nearly all of us are either Republicans or Zell Miller style Democrats. We have no time or enthusiasm for government taking over the healthcare system, we hope the Supreme's decide to affirm and individual right to keep and bear arms, and while we believe in live-and-let-live, gay marriage is an affront to most of us.

I happen to be a captain, which means I attend more meetings than I'd care to. Meetings suck, and this fact is what keeps me from going any higher, where I'd end up riding a desk ALL of the time rather than the 50% I now do. I didn't choose this field to "ideate, visualize, think outside the box, shift my paradigms, insert-the-catchphrase-of-your-choice-here."

Well, I guess this ended up being some sort of Eric Bogosian stream-of-consciousness rant, but it felt good.

Obama lost the white working class because most of us love our country, our families, and we do not feel the need to engage in any sort of white guilt, the sort that will be assuaged if we only vote for Obama, who reavealed himself to be a lying bag of s*#^.

revealed....

When I read Obama's speech I noticed that he subtly compares Wright to three separate people/groups: Obama's own grandmother, the black community as a whole, and, in a rather nifty juxtaposition, right-wing commenters/talk-show hosts. What he seems to be saying, between the lines, is, look, we all know that people like these can step outside the bounds of appropriate civil discourse on occasion, but we don't necessarily conclude that we have to cut them from our lives--which then is intended to explain his continuing friendship with Wright.

People have already pointed out the glaring error in regards to the comparison of Wright to Obama's grandmother, which is that we can't choose our relatives (and if presidential candidates could be disqualified by their extended family members, Jimmy Carter, for one, would never have been president). The error in regards to conservative talk-show hosts is equally obvious: no presidential candidate has ever pointed to a twenty-year mentoring relationship with Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. But the subtle connection Obama makes between Rev. Wright and the black community is both more presumptuous and more difficult to dissect. It is presumptuous, because not every member of the black community harbors bitterness and anger toward white people as an intrinsic element of his/her identity (and it would be terribly insulting to claim this for a moment). And it is difficult to dissect because, as Rebecca has been saying in the other threads, some members of the black community do indeed share some of Rev. Wright's bitterness and anger, and though this may look like racism to those outside the community it isn't necessarily always perceived as such from within it.

But Obama didn't grow up in that community, as Rod points out. Coming into it as an adult, and in some ways as an outsider, he chose not only to associate himself with Trinity but with Rev. Wright personally, an association he has been proud of up until now. It is easier to excuse Rev. Wright's angry rhetoric, unpleasant as it is, on the grounds of his life experiences than it is to understand Obama's quiet toleration of it for two decades.

The question that occurred to me is a theological one: Does not a pastor--a shepherd of the flock--have an obligation to not create an occasion for sin? That is, granting the sensitivities of blacks and whites on a variety of matters, why would a pastor intentionally target and amplify those sensitivities with wildly false claims that will not result in reconciliation or forgiveness (both Christian practices), but rather, increased bitterness, resentment, and polarization? If one knows, for example, that a brother is given to certain temptations that harm one's soul, why place those temptations in front of him? Perhaps this is why Christ warns his disciples: “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble." (Luke 17:1-2)

Senator Obama has told us of his commitment to the Sermon on the Mount, and he should be commended for publicly and unashamedly embracing the words of his Savior. But in that Sermon, Jesus says, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.... Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...."

It's an interesting question of whether Obama lost working-class whites, because arguably he's never had them to begin with. They, along with women generally, are the most likely to vote for Clinton. Arguably, Obama never had a chance to win over working-class whites. Democrats lost working-class whites over the issues of race and it seems unlikely they will come back to the Democrats by voting for an African American.

It's too bad, if it's true, since the best chance for working-class whites to improve their situation probably lays in the hands of Obama. He wants the war to end, not last 100 years. He wants to improve health care, not seem bored by the prospect. He will stand up for the working-class, not the corporate class.

Alas, people usually don't vote their economic interests and instead are informed by social issues. What's wrong with Kansas is also what's wrong with Connecticut. The people of Connecticut (and Mass, and NY, and NJ and Calif.) would probably be better off economically with Republicans in office, but they vote for Democrats because they don't want to be aligned with social conservatives. Kansans would be better off economically with Democrats, but don't want to be aligned with liberals.

Actually, Bill Frist drove Trent Lott from his position. If you go back and look at the actual record, there was a lot more pressure coming from Frist and some of his supporters in the Conservative media--for cynical reasons--than there was from the Left. I'm not saying that some Lefties weren't calling for Lott's head too, but let's be honest about what actually happened. It wasn't the liberals who deposed Lott. Go back and look at the the conservative blogs and journals from that time. Frist wanted Lott's position so he used liberal outrage at what Lott said to stage a coup.

Regarding Stanley Kurtz's comments, I'm mystified at how he gets from Obama's compassion for somebody who, in your words, nobody believes Obama shares his radicalism, to an insidious conspiracy to enable and even appoint such people to positions within the Federal government. Shouldn't we show the same level of suspicion of John McCain for accepting Hagee's endorsement while disavowing his anti-Catholic rhetoric? It seems to me that you either have to take both of these candidates at their word that they reject such politics or you have to take neither of them at their word. Being an optimistic person, I prefer to believe both of them. I could also understand condemning both of them. But condemning one while remaining silent on the other would be hypocritical. To my mind, the real issue is not so much Barack Obama as it is what standards we are going to hold our politicians to. If you feel (or Kurtz feels) that Obama is not meeting an important standard of integrity, then OK. But I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on how McCain stands up to the same test. And if they *both* fail, what does that tell us about American politics?

Bravo, Doug. Suspect we've seen some of the same things but from different angles.

Damon-

Typical liberal tripe. You insult the white working class,but you condescendingly patronize blacks. And the whole "what a great speech" meme to today's "granny under the bus" speech is just the latest example.Granny uses the "n" word in a weak moment and it's the end of the world. But black youths and rappers use it like a pronoun and you say nothing.

I cannot help but come back to the idea that Obama equated a weak moment or 2 in private by his own grandparents that loved and raised him with a nasty, public bigot, who sells his "the white man is the devil" DVDs for more to see and hear. But what can you expect from Obama, really. His grandparents get hammered by him today, but his ne'er do well abandoning POS dad and the bigot pastor get the titles of 2 of his 3 autobiographies.How ungrateful and low.

Rod:
You wrote:
"I know this won't seem fair to liberals, and Obama explained why we should be more tolerant of Rev. Wright, whose generation really did suffer. But still, the double standard is there. Grace and understanding for old black bigots like Jeremiah Wright, but not the slightest hint of same for old white bigots, even if they, unlike Wright, express sorrow for what they said, and seek forgiveness."

Did he actually challenge you to be more tolerant of Wright, or even agree with Rev. Wright? I don't think so. It seemed to me what I heard wa Obama trying to provide context, for the confused white listener, about what might drive Wright to say what he says.

I never got the slightest hint that Obama was asking you, me, or anyone to totally buy in to Wright's views.

And, no tolerance for whites? What, then, of the mention of his own grandmother, if not to hopefully help guys like you and me see that he understands the challenges we have with our elder generations too?

blacks did NOTHING to earn the hatred of old white bigots. Whites did much more than we care to think about to earn the hatred of old black bigots.

To think that treating the two differently is a double standard is INSANE! Given the very different starting points of the two hatreds, to insist on treating them both the same would be yet another double standard foisted on the black community by us poor, mistreated, put upon whites.

What rubbage.

In 2002 Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act in Illinois. This was the bill that would have recognized babies that survived late-term abortions as patients, and protected them. Instead, he was all for viewing them as unwanted runts in a litter of puppies and letting them die. The former abortion-business nurse who testified during the debate over the act, Jill Stanek -- go ahead and Google her -- said Obama was not fazed in the least by the photos she showed of viable babies left to die.

Meanwhile, for all the perpetual-victim rhetoric we've heard in these loops from Pastor Wright -- the anachronistic viewpoint that sees every ill among Black Americans as the fault of an endemically oppressive white-majority society -- we heard next to nothing in Obama's speech acknowledging the elephant in the Black community: a culture that accepts and even celebrates an 80% illegitimacy rate. White prejudice doesn't fill prisons and cemeteries with young Black men. Fatherless homes do.

I'll be more receptive to Barack Obama's Christian vision thing, such as it is, when he starts standing up for human life in every stage of its development. Bonus points if he were to invite Mr. Bill Cosby to serve as an adviser on his campaign. There's the father figure he needed during his formative years. Far more fatherly -- i.e., genuinely wise and sincerely caring -- than Pastor Jeremiah Wright, an enabler of Black self-destructiveness and an exploiter of Black victim-identity politic$ par excellence.

"you'd be fine with my remaining a member of a traditional Catholic parish whose priest only preached antisemitism 1% of the time?"

Of course, anti-Semitism is qualitatively different from what Wright said. A white minister saying racist things about blacks is qualitatively different from what Wright said. So your hypothetical is sort of "do you still beat your wife" question which is disconnected from reality.

A better comparison would be if the priest said, "God damns America because of abortion." I wouldn't expect you to leave over that.

Rod, I have a post which got eaten because of hyper links, if you have time to fish it out it would be much appreciated.

This is just to add to Rebeccat's pleading for a little context.

Back in the 90's when I was an awkward adolescent growing up in rural Wisconsin, my family attended a few churches where post-Waco, radical, borderline violent, anti-government opinions were the norm among the congregation, and were frequently heard from the pulpit in a slightly moderated form. If somewhat more politely expressed, these views were born of the sort of anger associated with the Rev. Wright.

Why did my more conventionally conservative parents attend these churches? Because in the mid-90's that sort of rhetoric was common and tolerated. Because they were spiritual brethren and simply good people whose perspectives were distorted in a few areas. And because the churches as a whole preached good doctrine.

In the same way, Wright's inflammatory opinions are more common and tolerated among African-Americans. That's why Obama could tolerate a few outrageous statements by his pastor when so much of TUCC's work was good in his eyes. Does that mean Obama didn't make a mistake by sitting quietly while Wright made his infamous statements? No. But who hasn't made the same mistake.

One more thing regarding the white working class. In a blue-collar suburban bar a few months ago I was listening to a conversation between a conservative friend and two or three forty-something men about politics. When asked who they were going to vote for, one responded, "Not the woman or the [insert Charles Cosimano's "forbidden word"]." To which all the other participants in the conversation politely laughed.

Those who don't think Obama's race is the mountain he must climb to win over working class whites are engaging in wishful thinking.

Daniel, I would certainly be angry if a priest said that "God damns America because of abortion" in a sermon; such a statement would ignore the large number of Americans who don't agree with our current laws in favor of abortion on demand, just as the Rev. Wright's rhetoric ignores the fact that many fine Americans of many colors have deplored racism in every possible way, and worked for positive and lasting change.

Steve, I am Catholic, and I'll never leave the Church, because I'm convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church which Christ intended to found as the ordinary means of salvation for all of humanity. But Obama isn't being criticized because he's a member of Trinity; he's being criticized because he has repeatedly referred to Wright as a spiritual mentor and close friend, someone who has had a huge influence on his life.

The situation is closer to some of the unfortunate ones Rod has sometimes posted where a Catholic congregation refuses to believe that its beloved pastor was an abuser, avoids any cooperation in an investigation, and ostracizes the victim and his or her family for "bringing down" their priest. Would we look at these people and say, "Well, sure, their priest was an abuser, but he married this couple and baptized their children, and did a lot of good in the community besides, so we can't expect them to turn away from him now?" Of course we wouldn't.

Put in its plainest terms, what we're being told here is that it's perfectly acceptable for Obama to have had a man who holds definitely bigoted views as his spiritual mentor and as a strong influence in his life. We're also being told that those views themselves aren't really all that bad, considering the legacy of slavery and racism that forms the narrative of black Americans, and that when black Americans say these things they aren't really being racist or hateful; but if a white American says anything that can even be interpreted as racist, it's fine for him to lose his job or be charged with a hate crime.

We're also being told that even to wonder about the judgment of a man who continues a voluntary association with a person who has made these bigoted statements is committing an act of subtle racism; we're simply supposed to take Obama at his word, whether we believe that he never heard any bigotry from Wright or his later explanation that he condemned the bigotry but then continued the friendship. Neither of these explanations would be acceptable for a moment from a Catholic who was continuing a close friendship with an abuser priest or an antisemitic one, or for a Baptist whose pastor was a white supremacist, or in any other circumstance--if that person were also running for president.

Daniel: Alas, people usually don't vote their economic interests and instead are informed by social issues. What's wrong with Kansas is also what's wrong with Connecticut. The people of Connecticut (and Mass, and NY, and NJ and Calif.) would probably be better off economically with Republicans in office, but they vote for Democrats because they don't want to be aligned with social conservatives. Kansans would be better off economically with Democrats, but don't want to be aligned with liberals.

So you agree, then, that the culture war is still with us?

Michael: Actually, Bill Frist drove Trent Lott from his position. If you go back and look at the actual record, there was a lot more pressure coming from Frist and some of his supporters in the Conservative media--for cynical reasons--than there was from the Left.

Why do you assume that it was for cynical reasons? Do you believe conservatives are always and everywhere bigots? I was working for National Review when Lott said what he did, and I can tell you, we were all mortified and offended. Most of the writers there (and maybe all; I can only speak for the ones I talked to) are acutely aware that the GOP was on the wrong side of civil rights back in the day, and we are offended and embarrassed when it erupts (do you remember the conservative media pile-on when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot"?). If you're convinced that deep down in the hearts of every conservative is a racist and homophobe, you're not going to believe me, but I can tell you that the sense of anger and frustration over Lott in my little corner of the conservative media was genuine. Anyway, we've learned the lesson that you don't tolerate that kind of talk from the people you look to as leaders, and anybody who trafficks in it is tainted.

As to Imus(and I'm not a fan); I'd note as per Imus, Obama was among the first to say that Imus should be fired, context be damned. The fact that Imus had made a poor attempt at humor, was apologetic and had raised millions for children's charities didn't matter.No context there. Grandma uses the "n" word in a weak moment, no context, she's under the bus. Wright rants and raves from a pulpit for years and sells it in DVDs, and we are now supposed to take context into account. Context whether it be public/private or an attempt at humor/preaching from a pulpit only seem to get taken into account when Obama wants it to be and when it's in the favor of Wright. Very convenient.

Again, Obama is telling us that it's a black thing.Context my hiney; what nonsense. And like Doug, having seen how that double standard plays itself out in an urban enviroment, many white people are going to be less inclined to hear him out nor vote for him.

But what he is prepared to do about it?

The same thing George Bush is willing to do about the issues of stagnant wages and rising fuel prices in America: nothing. But people will vote for Obama anyway because they're say, "Oh, I might not agree with everything about him, but he's a straight shooter." And, over time, an Obama presidency will cause a lot of them to shift their views further over to the left, particularly as their standard of living rises and their wages do get better, they'll have less time and interest for the (very real) resentments.

Man, I was actually waiting for Dreher to chime in here. I was kind of hoping against hope that Dreher, by dint of his religious background, dissent from the standard Republican-pundit-line on Obama's relationship with Wright. Dreher, of all people, should be in touch with the idea that religious leaders are allowed to have a much more ambivalent relationship with the United States and the civic faith everyone is expected to participate in.

For those who don't know: Orthodox Christianity counts amount its religious scholars those who point blank feel that democracy is wrong and that monarchy is the only valid form of government. The anti-materialism streak runs so deep that some people will openly deride the "American Dream." And, wow, don't even get me started on the things said about certain foreign country that just couldn't be broadcast for public consumption.

However, the truth is, a lot of these people served as spiritual and intellectual mentors for us, and their more extreme views served to challenge us. And we didn't just walk out in a temper-tantrum-induced huff because we disagreed.

Now, of course, I would have assumed that Dreher would have used his own experience here to provide some insight into Obama's situation-- most other people condemning Obama here strike me as either people who simply don't have very much spiritual experience and/or view their churches as places that should serve as a mouthpiece for our civic religion.

I find in amazing how willingly some of the commenters twist themselves into knots to excuse bigotry. Uou tell us "You have to understand the context." What nonsense. You're just making excuses. Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry. Wright is a bigot (if words have meaning, as Obama has insisted many times). Obama has now said he's comfortable with having willingly associated for many years with a bigot. Forgive some of us for our inability to contextualize this fact away.

cb, as an "ex" Catholic (if anyone can ever be an ex-Catholic) I'm reflecting on the idea that if I am a member of some church that means I necessarily buy into all the views expressed in public by leadership.

If Mr. Obama is to be tarred with all of Jeremiah Wright's opinions, does that mean the Mr. Dreher must be opposed to democracy altogether (as that opposition is publicly expressed by some of the leadership of his orthodox Church) or leave Orthodoxy? Does that mean that Roman Catholics really believe all the wacko political and economic BS put out by the leadership of the Catholic Church?

I think we're allowed to pick and choose among such opinions; if I allow that to Mr. Dreher and to all the Catholics I know, I have to allow that to Mr. Obama.

Actually, given that most working class whites were, well, working when the speech was being given, it wasn't a speech directed at them: it was a speech directed at the press and pundits as a means of attempting to grab back control of the media narrative, which he had lost control of due to the Wright kerfluffle.

Time will tell, of course, whether this will work, but it seems to have succeeded: the headlines are about the well-reviewed Obama speech and the McCain gaffe in Iraq. Clinton gets only a passing mention that Murtha has endorsed her.

My take for the Obama-haters: suck it up. You lost this round. Go in search of the next kerfluffle to promote to try to retake control of the media narrative. I dislike the fact that political campaigns have turned into "how do we control the message" and "how do we get our opponent off-message," but that's what it is. Since Obama retook control of the messaging, I have to say it's a success.

Interesting phenom on the weblogs, though: there are a lot of people appearing in comment sections whom I've never seen before to provide negative talking points about the speech. Perhaps a coordinated effort?

"Obama is the candidate of the rich-but-shallow, latte drinking "progressive" crowd than to his racial background."

What on earth does drinking latte, if indeed Obama does, have to do with the merits of a political candidacy? And what makes anyone think Obama is shallow? The only thing shallow about that remark is the idea that it means anything at all. Can we get back the meaningless epithets? Better yet, can we demand that even white working-class people be required to do so? Or do we want to hold them to a lower standard than the rest of us elites who can spot an ad hominem argument when we see it?

Instead of telling us what your brother-in-law -might think-. Why don't you send him an e-mail asking him what -he does think-.

I'm a white working class guy from the South and I think you're being condescending to your brother-in-law by putting words in his mouth.

But, aside from these two, I can't understand why people feel a need to justify and defend black bigotry.

Because until white people who have no intimate connection to the Black community are willing to model understanding about the complexity of racism and race, we aren't going anywhere.

Because until white people who have no intimate connection to the Black community are willing to model understanding about the complexity of racism and race, we aren't going anywhere.

I grew up on Sesame Street, shouldn't I get a pass?

Most churches, temples, mosques etc in the Western world are community churches. The person in the pulpit comes and goes but those in the seats are the constants.

My pastor occasionally says things few agree with; sometimes folks disagree strongly. There are private conversations, folks learn from each other.

That is what fellowship is all about. Fellowship is like marriage, a lot of work and maturely handling things we don't always like to deal with.

I heard that same sentiment from BHO's speech. There's nothing calculated about admitting fellowship is our one real calling and the hardest thing to be consistently good at.

Folks who burn down the house, sever all ties, demand "shows of principle" every time they hear something they don't like... these folks are missing the point of fellowship.

We're not here to be comfortable. We're not given a pass on our own tendency to tantrums.

We're here to get things done and sometimes that means we're not the pristine white snowflake we like to think we are.

Rohrshach candidate indeed...

If the bigot is black,
You cannot attack!

OJ, OJ, er, ah...

OH-BA-MA! OH-BA-MA!

Welcome to Obama-nation.

"That is what fellowship is all about. Fellowship is like marriage, a lot of work and maturely handling things we don't always like to deal with."

And the appropriate response to anybody who says "you have to choose between him [her, them, it] and me," is "goodbye."

I don't recall saying nothing is ever to be criticized.

Is there, somewhere out there, a self-identified Nazi (not an ex-Nazi) who wants fellowship with a Reform Jewish congregation? This is right up there with the question my husband asked in his Sunday School class--can God make a rock so big even God couldn't move it? (My husband, ever the wise guy, had his own answer--yes, and He could move it, too. But I digress.) This is the ultimate in hypothetical questions and I don't feel obliged to answer it until somebody comes up with a real live example.

A Catholic congregation accepting fellowship with an atheist? That seems a bit different to me, since even the most obnoxious atheists I've heard of don't advocate mass murder of Catholics. It would depend on what one means by "fellowship," I suppose. Shared activity on behalf of some good cause? Sure, why not? How is this a problem?

Is there any place I draw a line and say "this is unacceptable"? Sure, all the time, generally about behavior rather than individuals. But I try very hard not to do it in the political realm, which is what we were originally talking about here, because at least for me, that would make politics impossible. There just aren't that many people who share my particular constellation of opinions and commitments in its entirety.

For instance, I'm a pacifist who believes that, if we're going to have an army, its members should be honestly recruited, fairly paid, and decently treated. I oppose divorce and favor same-sex marriage. I think marijuana should be legal and tobacco should be illegal. I think the drinking age should be 18, the driving age should be 21, and the draft age, if we are to have a draft, should be 65. You get the idea. I will work with anybody, on a particular issue, who will work with me. Which is the only way I get anything done at all.

And I believe that many Americans, especially of the more politically active variety, hold oddly-assorted packages of beliefs, and therefore need to be willing to shack up with all kinds of strange bedfellows or stay out of politics entirely.