The Religious Left, Dean & the DNC, and our Republic.

Meanwhile, I didn't spend 3 hrs on this. Maybe I should have.

On proselyting:
Christ was rejected at Nazareth, and accepted it. He marveled at their unbelief, but he stopped while he was ahead. This is part of why I do not proselytize. Further, I do not appreciate when others proselytize to me. I do as I would have done to me. I engage in discussion, I exchange ideas. I feel I am carrying out the Great Commission.

The light of the world parable tells us not to hide our light. "Let men see your good works and glorify the Father." Christ told Simon Peter that God had revealed Christ's divinity to him (not flesh and blood). In this spirt I feel I am discharging the Commission in being as much an example of a good man as I am able, and discussing my faith when the opportunity arises. God will reveal to others as his plan dictates.

I do hope the Dems don't over play the religion card, however I strongly support that they are trying to break the perception of liberals being godless heathens that seems to be promulgated. A part of why I am a liberal is putting my faith into action. I recognize that if the conservatives ruled without check my taxes would go down, and I think I'm smart enough and skilled enough that I would do well in such a society. However, it is not a society I would want to live in. I want conservatives in my society too, but I continue to support liberal philosophies.

I think what I really want Teddy Roosevelt as president.

 

Paladin, Christ was rejected because of His preaching. I'll admit one can go too far in one's evangelistic efforts, but one can also fall short. Making sure your life is consistent with your faith is great, as are good works, but I think stopping there is not Biblical.

Jesus did not command us, "Go and be nice to everyone, and if someone asks why you're nice, tell him about me." He said, "Go and make disciples."

Actually, the command in Matthew 28:18-20 has four parts:

- Go
- Make disciples
- Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
- Teach them to obey everything He has commanded us

I think the Bible is quite clear about our duties as Christians.


To topics more germane to this thread...

Have you ever considered the possibility that the perception that liberals are against religion isn't entirely unjustified?

After all, I've asked you, an avowed liberal Christian, about a judge ruling that the Boy Scouts can't lease public land because of the religious element in the organization, and a principal who forbade the Declaration of Independence because from the classroom because it invokes the Creator.

Your response? Essentially, "that's just California, and those are state-by-state issues."

(I just noticed this, but that's not entirely true: a FEDERAL judge ruled against the Boy Scouts.)

If not even a liberal Christian can bring himself to condemn those absurdities, maybe the Democrats' reputation has been earned, to at least some degree.


And I object to the notion that liberals corner the market on putting faith into action. Conservative Christians believe the very same thing, just not government action all the time.

We believe that the government should remain as small and decentralized as possible, but we don't believe that those who cannot help themselves are without hope. We just believe that their hope lies primarily in private charity.

You can't honestly believe that conservatives believe that we should do nothing to alleviate poverty, do you?


In addition to keeping government small and decentralized, conservatives also believe that social programs that do exist (public and private) should measure success not by how many people are being helped, but by how many no longer need help or never needed help in the first place.

I saw somebody make this very astute observation in his signature:

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them become what they are capable of being."

Conservatives believe we should treat people as grown-up, responsible adults, and most of them will behave as such.


Finally, if I may tie the spiritual and the political together for a moment, I find your particular mix of beliefs to be a little odd.

You write, "I do not appreciate when others proselytize to me."

Well, a great number of Americans don't appreciate having 30% or more of their income confiscated to fund things like public social programs, all so liberals like you can feel better about putting your beliefs into action. Why doesn't that matter?

To put it another way, liberalism (as currently defined) is a very intrusive idealogy; it intrudes on one group of people, taking some of their money to give it to others. You support that, but you don't believe Christians should actively preach the good news, despite the Bible's clear message on that particular matter?

You have no problem imposing on people to make sure everyone's fed, but you have serious problems imposing to make sure everyone's heard the message of salvation?

It's an odd juxtaposition.

 

I think conservatives preach but practice very little.

I'll go back to JC's quote.

"My experience had been that the people who talk the loudest about morality are the people who possess the least amount of it. Am I mad about Newt Gingrich talking about the destruction of values and leaving his wife for a so-call choirgirl? Well, no, because to get mad at Republican hypocrisy is the same as getting mad at the air. It's just there, what can you do about it?"

 

Neo-Paladin has definitely carried some of my slack.

Bubba, when I made the claim, it was offhand. You pmmed me about responding, so I thought I would try. I realized when writing it that, as so many times before, my sophmoric knowledge of Christiani philosophy would trap me, so I thought I would let you get the ball rolling. Yet, Christian philosophy is clearly too vast to limit it to such a simplified statement. I realized this when reading your post.

What can I say, I would like to respond further, but I got nothing. What I said before about countermyth was also true, as I was analyzing why I made such an outrageous claim.

 

As I said, I belive I am following the great commission, but not in the same way you do. I will admit freely I've never baptized someone, though I would not pass up the chance (I'm not catholic).

I at no point did I mean to imply that I think liberals corner the market on putting faith into action. That would be an absurd notion and a stupid generalization. One conservative church I know is the best example I know of for putting faith in action at the street level. However, I object to the assertion that Liberals cannot be religious or are inherently unfriendly to religion.

I also was not aware that a Federal judge ruled on the Boy Scout case in CA. As I've mentioned before I could fill up a whole thread by its self on the BSA. To this issue, the Boy Scouts have excluded a segment of the population. The Supreme Court has supported this right that they argued for on religious grounds (they had a three point argument, homosexuality was inherently irreverent, unclean, and something else I've forgotten). The BSA has cast its self as a religious organization (yet another reason why the USA will never host a Scouting World Jamboree). If a civil body will not put up a religious monument on the grounds of church and state division, I suppose that same argument can be applied to a religious body. I don't like it, but the BSA can't have it both ways.
That's coming from an Eagle Scout (with three palms) no less.

I do think the example you held up of the constitution was beyond absurd. Is that enough condemnation on that example for you?

Even grown up responsible adults have hard times. Help them out, treat them with dignity, and help them over the rough patch, and I belive they will go on to contribute and fulfill their potential. Even Christ said we will always have the poor. We either take care of the poor as members of society, or in prison.
Quoting my sig was cute though. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was the man.

Welfare is in need of reform, no doubt. For many it becomes a prolonged means of support and a drain on society. Ways to abuse it must be stopped.

Private charity can be a wonderful thing, and I support it when I'm able. However, neither I nor my representer have oversight over a private charity I do not belong to. The position of a benefactor can be abused far too easily.

You still insist on casting the government as a private entity. It isn't. We are a democracy, and the government derives its power from all of us, even you. Taxation isn't some body (i.e. a crown) taking your money, it is in effect you putting your money towards the governance you profit from. The amount you put towards your governance is dictated to you, but that is the price we pay for society.

And as I mentioned before, if someone does not hear the message of salvation, I have to belive that a higher wisdom than my own has ordained it so. I try to teach by example and discussion.

 

McCartney, if you believe that something like "the Republicans are far more faithful to Christianity than are the Democrats" is a myth that needs debunking, you have options.

One option is to do what you did, which is to propagate a "countermyth."

The other is to be honest. You could say that you doubt that the Republicans have a monopoly on Christianity, but that your knowledge of Christianity is too limited to say which party -- if either -- is closer to what Christianity preaches.

I would recommend the latter, because Christianity is not a bludgeon to use against political opponents. It says what it says, and you should not make claims about it that you do not know or sincerely believe to be true.

It is the quickest way to infuriate a Christian.

We shouldn't always extrapolate from one individual the acts of an entire party, but let me take this opportunity to warn y'all: if the Democrats try what you did -- simple gainsaying to muddy the waters without any real knowledge or concern about what Christianity actually preaches -- there will be a backlash that will make your head spin.


Paladin, on the question of the Great Commission, it's good that the Bible includes a history of the very early Christian chuch: the book of Acts. The church in Acts didn't limit itself to teaching by example and discussion. I don't think we should either.


And as I mentioned before, if someone does not hear the message of salvation, I have to belive that a higher wisdom than my own has ordained it so.

It's one thing for a soldier to know that, if he fails, the general can marshall other forces. It's another thing for a soldier to let that knowledge excuse him from trying.

We have our standing orders: "go and tell."


I at no point did I mean to imply that I think liberals corner the market on putting faith into action. That would be an absurd notion and a stupid generalization. One conservative church I know is the best example I know of for putting faith in action at the street level. However, I object to the assertion that Liberals cannot be religious or are inherently unfriendly to religion.

You wrote, "A part of why I am a liberal is putting my faith into action." The implication was obvious, but I accept that it was unintended.

And I didn't suggest that liberals are "inherently" unfriendly to religion, but I do think political idealogies can be antagonistic toward religion. And I believe liberals' current position of radical secularism either encourages such antagonism or, for some, arises from it.

It must surely be clear to you that there are some liberals -- even liberals in this forum -- who abhor religion in general and Christianity specifically.


Private charity can be a wonderful thing, and I support it when I'm able. However, neither I nor my representer have oversight over a private charity I do not belong to. The position of a benefactor can be abused far too easily.

(I'm not quite sure I understand when you wrote, "neither I nor my representer have oversight over a private charity I do not belong to.")

Are you suggesting a public program isn't prone to abuse? I find that extraordinarily hard to believe.

At least with private charities, the total amount each benefactor could waste is limited, and once abuse is revealed, it's easy for donors to move subsequent funds to other, more reputable charities.


You still insist on casting the government as a private entity. It isn't. We are a democracy, and the government derives its power from all of us, even you. Taxation isn't some body (i.e. a crown) taking your money, it is in effect you putting your money towards the governance you profit from. The amount you put towards your governance is dictated to you, but that is the price we pay for society.

I don't think government is a private entity, obviously.

But if a private entity takes money from you and keeps it for itself, it's theft. And if it gives it to someone else, it's still theft. But if the

 

This is supposed to be a discussion about Mr. Dean and whether or not liberals of faith can reconnect with the mainstream of America. It has degenerated into a talk over which party betters fits subjective definitions of Christianity. Let's get this back on topic.

Can Mr. Dean succeed in bringing people of faith back into the democratic party? He talks about the important of community, and I think that this is a good place to start.

V-03

 

I think if you look at the article I posted by Maureen Dowd, it would get the ball rolling. She basically wrote a post exactly on topic for this thread.

 

Ikrit, you know I love you man, but you have to let it go.

Standard policy is that if you have a question about what a mod posted, PM him for clarification. Or, at the very least, bring it up in the "State of the Senate" thread.

We simply can't have people continuing to take threads off topic to discuss objections to policy.

 

Oh, you mean the topic of the thread....
Yeah, well like I said earlier, go Dean
He's popular enough with the core to energize them. He's savvy enough to know he needs to reach beyond the core. Can he do it?
It didn't work in 2004, but maybe he's learned from that. I can hope at least. He's a Unitarian which means he should like talking about his faith. Unfortunately that makes good dialogue, not sound bites. But I don't think it's necessary that he talks about his faith as DNC chair.

What is necessary is that the party welcomes and is inclusive of all faiths.
I don't think they should paint themselves as the party for blacks, or tree huggers, or women, or gays, or what ever disenfranchised group you are a part of or feel sympathy for. They must show themselves to be the party of the nation. That's everybody. I'm no poly-sci major, but I think the opportunity is there.

 

Forty-someodd years ago, the Civil Rights Movement was the crowning achievement of the religious left.

I think forty-someodd years ago, the civil rights movement was a crowning achievement because all sides worked together.

After all, George Wallace- Mr "segregation forever"-himself was a historic member of the religious left, although he didn't define it.

It's a bit inaccurate to credit any group over another.

 

As true as that may be Mr44, it was the Democrats who took responsibility to see the changes made, and have taken the majority of the political repercussions (good and bad).
It was LBJ who signed the Civil Rights Act, and he clearly knew what it would cost the party. He commented, "I'm afraid we've lost the South for a generation." Obviously, this isn't the only issue that has divided the Dems from the South, but it was the action that divorced the Dems from the south.

 

No, you are still greatly oversimplifying the issue, or perhaps engaging in a bit of stereotyping yourself.

It had very little to do with political party, and more to do with personal belief.

Charlton Heston, perhaps the poster child for conservativism, strongly supported MLK Jr's movement based on the universal principle of individual rights.

Ronald Reagan started off as a Democrat, but early on became fiscally conservative. As governor of CA, he supported the civil rights movement in purpose, he just didn't support the unruly protests that violated the law. Reagan new that equality brought economic strength to the people.

Here in IL in 1969, Gov. Ogilivie, a Republican flanked by demmies, again recognized the stability that civil rights brought forth.

Of course, in IL, civil rights have always been a conservative platform, so the idea wasn't seen as radical at all back then.

and so on.

For every Johnson, we had a Reagan, who were all working together.

 

I have to wonder whether or not Dean can come across as sincere.

Both his critics and his supporters seem about 50/50 split on the issue when it comes to matters of faith; I think the party should concentrate on community-based actions, as opposed to simply giving it lip-service.

That will come across as insincere.

Peace,

V-03

 

It's a bit inaccurate to credit any group over another.

That's totally ridiculous. I would never say Democrats deserve all the credit, no political party deserves all the credit, it was the people of AMerica that forced this change.

However, it is totally accurate to say that the Democrats should be given greater credit for civil rights legislation. It was the Democrats who forced it through and got it passed!

Nixon intentionally USED the anger over civil rights issues to break away southern voters from the Democratic Party!

 

However, it is totally accurate to say that the Democrats should be given greater credit for civil rights legislation. It was the Democrats who forced it through and got it passed!

It is? Totally accurate?

Let's take the 1964 Civil Rights Act: "Republicans supported the bill 27-6 in the Senate (82%) and 138-34 in the House (80%) while Democrats supported the bill 46-21 in the Senate (69%) and 152-96 in the House (61%). [link]"

Republican Support: 82% and 80%
Democratic Support: 69% and 61%

There is, of course, a caveat:

On the surface it would indeed appear that the Republicans, and not the Democrats as commonly assumed, were the champions of civil rights in the 1960s.

However, a slightly more careful analysis of the Civil Rights Act voting record shows a distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians. Among the southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), Senate Democrats voted 1-21 against the bill (5%) while Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). In the House, southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7%) while southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0%). Among the remaining states, Democrats voted 145-9 in favor of the bill (94%) while Republicans voted 138-24 for the bill (85%). In both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.

Democrats supported the act more if you split the analysis along geographical lines; Republicans supported it more if you don't.

In both cases, geography was the predictor of where the vote would lie, not party affiliation. For both parties, majorities from the north voted for the bill, and majorities from the south opposed it.

And I'm a Southerner, and I can admit this.

But let's say that "the Democrats should be given greater credit for civil rights legislation." Okay, and Republicans should be given greater credit for emanciptating the slaves, but so what?

How hollow is the Democratic party if they have to point to 40-year-old legislation to get the black vote?


Merkurian, I'm not sure that it's prudent to assume that the issues you invoke are obvious winners for the Democrats.

There is a case, for instance, that the elimination of racial quotas is the more moral position on the issue of race: something about not judging people by the color of their skin.

Even if it's true that the Left's position on the environment will actually do a better job at preserving nature -- and I'm not entirely sure that's true -- there is a cost: the Democrats' moral standing on the issue of poverty. The best way to help the poor (and everyone else) is a growing, prosperous economy, and things like Kyoto are sure-fire ways to derail an economy.

And on the issue of poverty specifically, the Democrats have a record of over 40 years, and it doesn't look good. I don't think the Left automatically cares more about the poor, but even if that were true, their programs don't work. Those who believe real results are more important than good intentions will not immediately be attracted to the Left.


Finally, Paladin, you wrote that Dean is "savvy enough to know he needs to reach beyond the core." I'm not sure that's true.

What is necessary is that the party welcomes and is inclusive of all faiths.
I don't think they should paint themselves as the party for blacks, or tree huggers, or women, or gays, or what ever disenfranchised group you are a part of or feel sympathy for. They must show themselves to be the party of the nation. That's everybody. I'm no poly-sci major, but I think the opportunity is there.

I wonder if you are aware of what Dean said in Lawrence, Kansas, at a fundraising rally that was apparently closed from the media.

"The issue is not

 

He calls conservatives evil -- EVIL -- and some of his supporters think he's not being divisive enough.

Could it be that instead of calling conservaties "evil", he's calling various practices "evil", or something like that?

 

I doubt it, because he said "we're the good." That "we are" implies that he's comparing people. "We are" the good implies that "they are" the evil.

But even if one could take that interpretation, what does it say about conservatives and/or Republicans? That we support an evil idealogy? That we are guilty of evil practices?

How does that unite the country?

Dean has also recently said, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." So this isn't an isolated comment.

I'm not offended, and my feelings are not wounded; politics is a "major-league" game that requires a certain amount of toughness. But if Paladin is right that the Dems need to unite the country -- and frankly, I think he IS right -- then Dean is driving the party off the cliff.

Even more fundamentally, he's leaving his party open to this very serious attack: "Democrats hate Republicans more than they hate terrorists. They have more vitriol -- more venom -- for conservative Christians who want to regulate stem-cell research than for radical Muslims who want to murder us by the thousands. They are more serious about reacquiring political power for their party than ensuring the security of this nation."

The Dems have criticized Bush for not being nuanced when calling terrorists evildoers. Then their recently elected party chairman turns around and uses the very same language to attack Republicans. If you want to attract funds and support from the MoveOn crowd, that's the way to do it.

But otherwise, and in terms of making gains outside the party, the strategy is suicidal.

 

Now do you connies see the problem with the "with us or against us" strategy? I blame GWB for that one. Dean's just exploiting it.

 

Even more fundamentally, he's leaving his party open to this very serious attack

Only from people who fail to recognize that the Democratic Party (and likewise for the Republican Party) is made up of a great many individuals. No one person can speak for everyone.

Something I see time and again here is one person's comments being taken as some sort of "Ah ha! Look what so and so said. As we see again, Democrats/Republicans believe this way".

 

KW, Dean was elected the chairman of the DNC just about a month ago. If any one individual can speak for the Democrats, it's Dean.

But let's say he shot his mouth off. He still leaves the party to open to that attack; by making such a boneheaded comment, he gives the Republicans the opportunity to ask Democrats the question, "Do you agree with Dean?"


Fire:

Now do you connies see the problem with the "with us or against us" strategy? I blame GWB for that one. Dean's just exploiting it.

First, are you saying that the DNC chairman is not responsible for his own words? Horsefeathers: he could have done as Paladin thinks correct and start positioning the party to unite the nation rather than divide it further.

But, at any rate, Bush's "with us or against us" talk was pitting the United States against terrorists and the states that harbor them. Not between the two parties.

Even if you don't see the difference, the voters do.

 

I'm not saying he's not responsible. I'm saying Bush started that false dichotomy crap within our politics. Which is why we have politicians' patriotism questioned on votes. Etc.

Division has always been a factor of politics as well; Republicans excel at it these days. So I don't get where you come off with this indignation over him saying there's a fight between good and evil. What if he really believes fundie moral thumping sexual practices are evil? If that's the case he's in the camp with GWB and believes what he says.

Try not to wear your indignation. Your party is guilty of the same practice, and worse in some cases. Karl Rove's bag of tricks being one of them.

 

KW, Dean was elected the chairman of the DNC just about a month ago. If any one individual can speak for the Democrats, it's Dean.

But any rational person should know better than to fall for that idea. He may speak "officially" in some capacity, and is the head of the leadership, but he no more speaks for every Democrat than the pope does for every Catholic. There's a tremendous amount of differing opinions, ranging from intelligent and worthwhile to forgettable and foolish.

 

"It was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation."

Newt Gingrich, upon taking the gavel as Speaker.

The following link has info on the Civil Rights Act: Civil Rights Act

Yes, many Democrats voted against it, but they were almost ALL Southernors (Dixiecrats more or less who eventually became Republican).


Reagan on Civil Rights

There are also tons of speeches by JFK, LBJ supporting civil rights. And it was Hubert Humphrey who said "To those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, I say this, that the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights."

Come off it Bubba, I was merely addressing a point made by Mr. 44, that regardless of what one thinks of today's politics, yesterdays democratic party CAN be given more credit than the GOP for getting Civil Rights reform in this country.