David Kuo: “For instance, they need to say whether they support federal funding of religious charities and whether they believe religious charities have the right to hire and fire based on faith.” I consider those mutually exclusive concessions. The government should not pay for religious discrimination. Interestingly, many religious charities and organizations don’t want federal funding because of the problems of mixing state with religious practice. “That it is huge news that Democratic candidates are talking faith mainly shows how devoid of faith the party had become…” I have to disagree. It is one thing to talk about faith and quite another have faith. The fact that Democratic candidates feel the need to wear their faith on their sleeves speaks volumes about the theological immaturity of the American electorate.

UR, I have to disagree with your disagreement. Or, qualify it, at least. Either you are right and the need for Dems to wear their faith on their sleeve says something about the American electorate or it demonstrates how out of touch the Dems are with the electorate. To a large extent I think Bush’ election was an example of people who feel powerless becoming powerful through him and thinking it was through Him. Calvinism, the branch of Christianity from which evangelicals spring has freedom of conscience as a central doctrine. It amazes me that Democrats don’t just say that. Of course you won’t win over the followers of Falwell and Robertson with that but does anyone need to?

All the nondenominational or secular charities that work directly with the poor I’ve worked for are full of wonderful, religiously committed but nonsectarian people. The best invariable choose to proclaim the Law of Love by their actions, not by assertions of their creed or hermeneutics or declaring those they disagree with as lepers. The “religious charities” you refer to, David, are more accurately termed “sectarian-run charities”- or “sectarianist charities” when they proselytize blatantly. I think you missed the point of the Democratic exercise. David. It’s not about telling people who spend their lives within the organizations and establishments of Organized Religion that they agree with their creeds and readings (or misreadings) of the Constitution. It’s about saying that the candidates share in the general experience of average American religious life and its (admittedly tangential and often kitshy) common features and pop culture. It’s about the more casual churchgoers who aren’t informed enough to know that yes, all the significant Democrats running are churchgoers, married once, are not the aliens or caricatures that fascinate talk radio and its afficionados. You may very fairly dispute the marks of authenticity they do and don’t offer up, David– but isn’t the only true mark of authenticity, the one Jesus and Paul insisted on, there: the life they actually live? “Your actions speak so loudly, I can’t hear a word you’re saying.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson Here’s some variously relevant polling info, including some about evangelicals, released today by Pew- http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=334

The “religious left” is never going to become part of the Christian community because it exists as part of the secular-progressve-humanism community. A parrot can utter sounds that sound like words, but it is not really speaking a language. It is always just making parrot noises because it is a parrot.Sojouners is a Liberal, secular promoting political action committee. A wing of the Democrat party. “God’s Politics?” Ever wonder why the ACLU, or the AU, or the ubiquitous atheist/freethinker/skeptic hordes are not wailing and ranting over the political-religious org of Jim Wallis?Kin.

How about “truth?” No matter what the Progressives are selling as religion, it isn’t the “Faith delivered only once to the saints.” Read Peter, Jude, John and James’ little letters. They denounce progressives far worse than I do.

Well, the front page of DailyKos does have an entry and thread on Jim Wallis tonight.

Geez, ya’ think? Sojouners is just a Democrat PAC.Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

Doug: “Calvinism, the branch of Christianity from which evangelicals spring has freedom of conscience as a central doctrine. It amazes me that Democrats don’t just say that.” I think both parties hold freedom of conscience as an important, core directive. They tend to disagree on when it’s paramount and what other factors can moderate expression. Perhaps it’s considered so basic and common that it’s assumed.

And at DailyKos, Wallis is not Liberal enough.Read the blog responses on the Wallis piece. Here’s one from some hedonist going by the name “choice joyce” from Canada (of course). She (or whatever) says that in Canada, Wallis’ views would get “crucified” in their press. He’s not leftie enough I guess. Imagine that. At least this Lib – unlike the American political version, doesn’t hide what a Progressive actually “is.”And anyone thinking that Liberals do not mean to ghettoize Christians, should read this response in the Wallis piece. Here’s how a liberal really thinks. (This response is way down almost to the end of 400+ responses: Wallis is an extremist, not a moderate (10+/0-) “Speaking as a Canadian, I am completely appalled at this guy’s extreme right-wing stance, coupled with his stature and acceptance amongst Democrat (ic) presidential candidates. If this guy was doing his thing in Canada, he’d be relegated to attending koffee klatches at homes of little old ladies to promote a fringe right-wing candidate who’d end up with 239 votes on election day. And if the media in Canada paid the slightest attention to him (Wallis), it would crucify him on his position on abortion. What’s happened to American ideals of freedom and democracy? Why has Ameerica become such a hotbed of religious fundamentalism, instead of becoming more liberal like virtually all other western countries? by choice joyce on Tuesday June 05, 2007 at 08:37 PMPDT That is what a Liberal is. No dissent is allowed unless you are living out of sight and hearing of the ruling Lib-Elite.

I think you have the wrong party. You are talking about the one in the WH. No dissent is allowed there. That has been evident.

The fact that Democratic candidates feel the need to wear their faith on their sleeves speaks volumes about the theological immaturity of the American electorate. I think this needs to be said again. The fact that Democratic candidates feel the need to wear their faith on their sleeves speaks volumes about the theological immaturity of the American electorate. …and again… The fact that Democratic candidates feel the need to wear their faith on their sleeves speaks volumes about the theological immaturity of the American electorate. And yet again until it sinks in.

UR, it’s funny but I don’t see freedom of conscience as a tenet in either party. I brought it up because I think social liberals can make peace with much of the evangelical movement on social issues by engaging the theology rather than by pandering, condescending or condemning. Giuliani may be an example if he can dodge the lightning.

TV – Doesn’t the possibility exist that the Democrat and Republican candidates who wear their faith on their sleeves are simply misinterpreting the desires of the American electorate? Why does this automatically have to say something about the electorate? Why does it not say something about the candidates themselves?

Geez, a lot of complex words on a simple issue. Its extremely simple actually: once a man/woman goes into politics of any kind god leaves the equation,power enters.

Let’s say that a Democratic presidential candidate addresses the abortion isue by stating that he/she is “morally opposed” to abortion but supports alternatives to criminalization, such as increasing incentives for adoption, promoting comprehensive sex ed, and so forth. How, exactly, is this dishonest? Is it simply because such a statement would be too passive (as opposed to “I’m pro-choice”)? And if that’s the case, when we consider that the overwhelming majority of politicians running for higher-level federal offices are doing so for reasons other than abortion (or GLBT issues), should we always expect them to have thirty-second answers to vexing, hot-button issues? Or does that reflect more poorly upon the “thirty-second answer” campaign format of our political culture?

The biggest mistake made by ALL the political candidates (except for Ron Paul) is that they believe that pandering to Christians ought to be part of their campaign. The founders of this nation put the establishment clause into First Amendment in for a reason. That reason was to make damn sure that the US didn’t become a theocracy. The correct response to all these Jesus questions is this: “My religious beliefs are my business and mine alone, just as yours are. You may practice whatever faith you choose and it’s nobody’s business, and if you elect me as your President I will do everything I can to preserve that right as I pledge to uphold our Constitution.” If somebody doesn’t come out of this fantasyland and start telling the plain truth, we’re never going to survive as a nation. We’ll just be another rotting carcass on History’s road. Wexler

Donny: hey, what’s the “…from Canada (of course).” supposed to mean? May the 49ers never win another game, my friend!! May Barry Bonds hit nothing but foul balls for the rest of his career! And I’m willing to lay money that “choyce joyce” lives in GTA (Greater Toronto area) where all the enlightened live. As I said on another thread – please leave us the Raptors and the Blue Jays, but please, please, take Toronto!

Doesn’t the possibility exist that the Democrat and Republican candidates who wear their faith on their sleeves are simply misinterpreting the desires of the American electorate? It’s a great question, and one I’m glad you asked. Though I am often more willing to think of politicians as money- and power- hungry, I really do believe most folks go into politics with the idea that they’re going to help make their locality, or city, or state, or country into a better place for themselves and for their constituents. Beyond the local level, I don’t think it’s feasible to gauge the public’s opinion in person so politicians have to rely on 1) the people they’ve hired to gauge the public’s needs and desires on their behalf, 2) polls, or 3) the voices of the rich and powerful who have enough cache to see these men and women in person.Poll data is a gimme – a significant enough portion of the populace claims to want this kind of public profession. Unfortunately for dems, that portion of the population tended to vote almost exclusively Republican in the last 20-ish years because fo deft handling and framing of certain messages that, while they run counter to common sense and the best interest of working people, pushed all the right faith buttons. The saddest part is that those same politicians that vocally cater to people who are genuinely fearful of what the culture has become and who need to hear those public profesions of faith are owned kit and caboodle by the same people who make a living selling the culture to the rest of the populace. So while these politicans are, ostensibly, in favor of a chaste and sedate, family-centered America, they will write laws and judge in favor of that enriches the purveyors of the very things the faithful despise. People talk about Hollywood as the center of the cultural decline, and point to liberal actors and studio executives as the proof that liberals are responsible for the decline of societal morals – so they turn around and vote for the conservatives.Except those studios are owned by mega conglomerates – the owners of which almost exclusively financially support the campaigns conservative politicians – why is that? So the bad guys are paying for the candidates to go around and talk about all those moral issues so good intentioned people will vote for them. In turn, the candidates vote how those bad guys want – making it easier and more profitable for them to continue to pump garbage unheeded into both the culture and the environment.Why does this automatically have to say something about the electorate? Because if they would just follow the money, they’d see they were being played for dupes by both sides. Where is the outrage? Where is the viable third-party candidate? Where is the voter revolution kicking these bought-and-paid-for shills on both sides of the fence out of office and replaceing them with people who truly represent their constituencies?

Doug: “UR, it’s funny but I don’t see freedom of conscience as a tenet in either party.” I would agree that each party has its preferred set of favorite freedoms. In principle, freedom on conscience is an important, guiding objective. In practice, there will be conflicts that sometimes must be resolved when peoples’ conscience have collisions. I do agree that it is important that group engage each other openly and honestly. I think some social liberals have made peace and tried working with evangelicals (e.g. working on poverty and environmental issues). Chris M.: “Let’s say that a Democratic presidential candidate addresses the abortion isue by stating that he/she is “morally opposed” to abortion but supports alternatives to criminalization, such as increasing incentives for adoption, promoting comprehensive sex ed, and so forth. How, exactly, is this dishonest?” That a perfect case of freedom of conscience.

UR: That a perfect case of freedom of conscience. One could also construe it as a case of moral realism (i.e. “Abortion is bad, but overturning Roe arguably makes it worse”). Regardless, I would find such a view coming from one of the candidates to be refreshing, because it would eschew the false dualism into which we’ve made the issue. This is why I’m interested to see David elaborate upon his comment.>

The separation of church and state has prove to be beneficial to religion. Just compare Europe to America. There is plently of ignorance about religion on all sides. I was recently asked if Jews still sacrifice animals by an evangelical Christian.>

We do in Texas – it’s called a BBQ! Mmmmm…sacrificial rib-eyes…>

You are judging, there is only one and only one rigtheous judge and that is God , the only one without blemish who is able tojudge righteously.
Miriam Dunn

We Americans are dumber than dumb if we don’t learn the lessons of history and look around the world at the mixing of politics and religion and the disasters that blending has strewn over the world. America was to have been a protection against the control of religion.

He learned about justice or rather injustice early in his life. Cesar grew up in Arizona; the small adobe home, where Cesar was born was swindled from them by dishonest Anglos. Cesar’s father agreed to clear eighty acres of land and in exchange he would receive the deed to forty acres of land that adjoined the home. The agreement was broken and the land sold to a man named Justus Jackson. Cesar’s dad went to a lawyer who advised him to borrow money and buy the land. Later when Cesar’s father could not pay the interest on the loan the lawyer bought back the land and sold it to the original owner. Cesar learned a lesson about injustice that he would never forget. Later, he would say, The love for justice that is in us is not only the best part of our being but it is also the most true to our nature.