There is a belief, widely shared in the Obama camp, that there is a plethora of voters out there who are dying to vote for a Democrat if they can just be convinced that he or she is truly religious. The storyline goes that there were folks who didn’t believe Al Gore or John Kerry were serious about their faith, so these voters cast ballots for Bush (presumably because he seemed more faith saturated). In this view, these men and women will join the ranks of Democratic voters this year if the Democratic nominee talks about God a lot, or at least talks about God as much as the Republican candidate.
As I mentioned a few weeks back on Keith Obermann’s show I can’t say with absolute certainty that such people don’t exist. However, neither at that time nor since have I seen any polling data to suggest that “evangelicals” are all of a sudden rushing to embrace the Democratic ticket. Sure, there are evangelicals like Steven Mansfield who just wrote The Faith of Barack Obama who are absolutely convinced that he is an authentic and honest Christian–but who told me on my radio show that he wouldn’t be voting for the Senator because Obama is “pro choice”. Why go after voters who will say, in the end, “nice fellow, true believer, not voting for him though”?
Now comes the merchandising add-on to this story: faith merchandise announcing, for example, that you are a “Catholic for Obama”. I’m not sure how far this will go. Will we see “Presbyterians for Obama”? Or, to dig deeper, “Left Handed Methodists for Obama”? Or maybe “United Church of Christ Members Who Don’t Agree With Jeremiah Wright For Obama”?
Seriously, I think one of the great strengths of the American political system has been that it has largely avoided setting up political parties along religious lines. Many countries have chosen to do otherwise and have suffered from it. It is not a healthy direction, in my opinion, to have political parties treat members of faith communities as just one more special interest group. Religious values often motivate people to act in ways that help their communities and even give a general direction to their voting patterns. But, shouldn’t candidates be most interested in finding people of every race, religion, and ethnicity who agree with them on the merits of their positions alone? Perhaps this is too much to ask.
And, by the way, back on those shirts and other paraphernalia–does
anyone really believe that if one Scientologist or one Mormon saw some
guy wearing a “Scientologist/Mormon for Obama” tee he or she would say:
“that’s the capper for me; I’m voting Democratic this time”. If you
find that person, have him or her call me, please.
-
posted September 17, 2008 at 5:39 am
I disagree with Barry Lynn. I think that in order to really get the word out regarding the Obama record and agenda to the faith communities, they need a broader range of bumper stickers. Since God-O-Meter reported earlier this week that the campaign has more such gear in the works, here are a few suggestions:
Another Believer for Barack
and Partial-Birth Abortion
Catholics Who Want Barack
and the Freedom of Choice Act
Tax-Funded Abortion
We Can Believe In:
Obama 2008
Re-legalize Partial-Birth Abortion –
Obama-Biden in 2008
Another Born-Again Believer
Against Born-Alive Infants Protection
Faith. Hope. Change.
Partial-birth abortion.
Obama 2008
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
legfederal–at–aol.com
posted September 17, 2008 at 8:53 am
Great idea Doug!
“Evangelicals for torture” – McCain/Palin
“Christians for unjust wars” – McCain/Palin
“Anti-abortionists for more lip service from the Republicans” – Restore Rove in ’08 committee
“Citizens for substituting rational discourse with frantic hyperbole” – courtesy the National Right to Life Committee.
posted September 17, 2008 at 8:12 pm
How about:
“Greed is Our Creed” McCain/Palin
“Pit Bulls for Jesus” McCain/Palin
“Wall Street Robbers support GOP”
or this is my favorite.
“EXXON is my God,
McCain is my Savior”
posted September 17, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Rev Barry –
The other day I was contemplating why Obama doesn’t have a 40-point lead and it suddenly came to me: There is a huge percentage of men and women in the USA that have suffered from abuse. And as every abuse counselor knows, the abuse victim will put up with virtually limitless abuse and in some cases will even develop Stockholm Syndrome — where the victim actually supports the abuser — because they would rather the abuse would continue (the security of what they know) than to take a risk and actually think about what is in their best interest (the fear of the unknown).
Many of us would not know what to do with ourselves if we didn’t live in constant fear of losing our jobs, losing our houses, losing all our savings, losing the war in Iraq, losing the value of the dollar, losing our status in the world. Rather than embrace a positive platform (the unknown) we will fall back on what we do know: that the Republicans (including John McCain and Sarah Palin) have chosen to flush us all down the toilet for the personal gain of the upper 5%. Since we know what the toilet smells like, if McCain/Palin win, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves for the stink. And we’ll have to start calling Stockholm Syndrome “USA Syndrome”…
posted September 17, 2008 at 11:51 pm
As a mormon supporting Obama, my son’s favorite saying is Choose the Right, vote left!
posted September 18, 2008 at 12:08 pm
How can people equate financial instability (high gas prices, low value of the American dollar, etc.) with the murder of innocence?
I am just as mad as anyone about the high prices and the housing market. I am a newlywed who lives in a very poor county and state, so I understand about financial hardships. My father-in-law’s back was broken in two places while working in a coal mine. He was denied disability. He raised 4 children on little to no income. My father worked in the construction industry that many times saw no income for several months. We know about being poor.
But I would rather be poor than to support someone who supports the merciless slaughter of innocent babies. Who gives a woman the right to kill, in order to save herself.
The American society is more worried about their wallet than they are their morals.
Let’s not vote based on race, political affiliation, or gender. But rather, let’s vote on what’s right.
posted September 18, 2008 at 7:46 pm
As a pro-life evangelical I have supported the Republican party with my votes and my money for over a quarter century, since Pat Robertson ran for President. His campaign was what brought me into the political world and the Republican Party.
In those 25 years I have consistently supported the pro-life platform of the Republicans, working in the precincts here in Iowa to mobilize fellow Republicans to elected godly men and women to office. When the Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate in 1994 we were ecstatic. The Human Life Amendment, long a dormant piece of the platform, would now be debated and, with God’s help passed to the states for the people to consider.
But nothing happened.
Representative Henry Hyde refused numerous calls to bring the amendment forward for committee debate. The reasoning…the Democrats would simply block it. We needed more Republicans.
So we worked hard again, and in 1996 elected more Republicans to office in Congress. We gained two seats in the Senate, and kept the majority in the House. And still, we were told that they could not bring up the amendment because they didn’t have enough GOP votes.
They brought up tax bill after tax bill, and changed welfare, passed NAFTA, and a whole host of other bills that affected business and their wealthier supporters. But no Human Life Amendment. They didn’t have the votes.
We held our ground in the Senate in 1998, and thank God they took on Clinton. But still no Human Life Amendment. I heard a lot of folks starting to complain about this.
In 2000 we lost the Senate, but held on to the House. In 2002 we took back the Senate, and we were told that this time we had a President who was one of us. Yes, we were in the middle of the war, but the pro-life issue was resonating.
But nothing happened with the Human Life Amendment. The one sure way to turn off this horrendous stream of death and butchering, and the Republicans would do nothing with it.
That was the last time I voted Republican. It became clear to me that they were using the deaths of each and every precious unborn child as a tool to get elected. They did not care about the lives of these poor babies. They did not care about saving any of them, and made no effort for the time they held power.
So please…spare me the rhetoric about the Republicans being pro-life. They are every bit as pro-death as the Democrats. God will judge them every bit as harshly as the Democratic death dealers. Perhaps even more harshly.
After all, the Republicans had the power to stop it, and instead chose not to.
posted September 18, 2008 at 7:54 pm
It does seem like the only time the GOP pays attention to the pro-life community is at election time. Jim makes some good points.
If the Republicans for almost 15 years have not done anything serious to stop the deaths of over 4000 children a day, why should we believe them when they come now and say that if we elect them they will stop abortions? We tried that…it didn’t work.
posted September 19, 2008 at 12:09 am
The comments above are startling in their vitriol and their ignorance. What exactly could the republicans have done that would have appeased you? Do you really think the republicans would have been able to avoid a democratic filabuster with any major piece of legislation on restricting abortion rights? This is still a democratic republic if I’m not mistaken. No serious argument can be mounted that the republican party has not made stong efforts to promote the lives of the unborn. The democratic party has made none.
The arguments above are hard to understand. You voted for the party who keeps the pro-life agenda as part of its platform and works to reduce abortion rights by numerous legislative acts. Of course in your opinion they haven’t done enough, so you’ll just vote for the part who believes and tries to enact the opposite.
The appointments of Alito and Roberts alone disprove your arguments.
So by all means go vote for a party and for candidates who actively campaign for abortion on demand without limit (Obama) and who have actually taken steps to make that happen. Do so in spite of the fact that you claim to be so fervently pro-life. Yeah, that really makes a lot of sense.
posted September 19, 2008 at 9:31 am
To reinforce what Jason said: President Clinton twice vetoed legislation banning partial birth abortion. It was not until President Bush took office that it was signed into law. The republicans do make some effort as opposed to none by the democrats.
posted September 21, 2008 at 12:12 am
“…President Clinton twice vetoed legislation banning partial birth abortion. It was not until President Bush took office that it was signed into law.”
Actually, the law only “half-banned” partial birth abortion, since, under the above-mentioned law, the women who have such abortions get away scott free with no punishment of any kind.
posted September 21, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before “quickening” were openly advertised and commonly performed.
The anti-choice fanatics try to insinuate that before Roe v Wade abortions were not done legally. This is part of their attempt to claim that it is only recently, when America supposedly became a secular nation and rejected God, that abortions were made legal. It’s just part of the campaign of lies and distortions that fundamentalist Christians use to promote their false and evil doctrines. Fortunately fundamentalist Christians have so marginalized themselves with their anti-social and anti-science propaganda and nonsense that blogs like this is the only place they can spout their lies and anyone pays any attention to them. The general public now recognizes that fundamentalist Christians are people who should just be ignored.
posted September 26, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“… dying to vote for a Democrat if they can just be convinced that he or she is truly religious.”
How odd. I’m dying to vote for whoever can convince me that he or she is NOT truly religious.
I’d rather have a leader that fully considers all decisions, rather than one who “simply knows,” which is to say, “has already been told,” which choice is better.
posted September 1, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Even though Pres. Barack purports to be a Christian, his true colors are showing now that he has become President. For example, in his speech in Cairo, he stated: “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith.” In fact, his speech was so pro-Islamic that had a president attempted the same thing except hailing Christianity, the press would have jumped all over the person. As Dr. Jay stated, it was almost as if he was apologizing to the same people of faith who killed thousands of people in the Twin Towers during 911. Moreover, he is so Pro-Islam that he goes against the grain of the U.S.’ history of backing Israel, so much so that he supports the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s effort to fly the Muslim flag over the city of Jerusalem. My question is: Which religion do you really uphold, Mr. President? Are you a Christian in name only just for political kicks? If not, why aren’t you taking a stand against abortion, the killing of innocent fetuses? When will the walk match the talk?