The Dems and Faith - Three Mistakes and Three Ways to Win

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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!

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.

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.>

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

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.