WASHINGTON, June 28 — Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans... "If we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway." By David Espo (Associated Press)

Article (MSNBC) Is this the doctrine of "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em"? Shrewd politics or sectarian craziness? I think he just lost my vote...

...actually he said evangelicals and religious people.

I don't understand how what he said is offensive, but I guess we could just let religious people vote for Republicans again and see if the red state/blue state breakdown just magically goes the Democrat direction.

There is no doubt that Republicans have created the political divide down religious lines but somehow it's wrong for Democrats to try and address the situation... it's beneath them or something?

The more I see of Obama, the more I like his chances in 2008, I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the religious majority of the voting public as if they were a monolithic, single-issue population. Most of the church attending people I'm acquainted with have contempt for the Falwells and Dobsons, and some even believe, deep down, in the separation of church and state, pro choice, and secular government.

Regardless of where you stand politically, you have to appreciate something else he said.

"Obama coupled his advice with a warning. "Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith: the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps -- off rhythm -- to the gospel choir." " - CNN

That comment brings to mind George Wallace, during a presidential campaign speech to a largely black audience.

"Sure, I look like a white man. But my heart is as black as anyone's here."

But the Republicans' Rovian courting of the fundagelicals may not be working in the long run.

In the first place, religious nuts are absolutists, and so they are disatisfied with what Bush has actually achieved for them so far. They wouldn't be happy until he imposed a theocracy, banned scientific enquiry, forbade condom use, and so on. Democrats could try to string them along the same way Bush & Co. have done, but would it work?

The current Atlantic Monthly points out that the "interior West", traditionally Republican, is reacting against Bush-ite policies designed to attract 'faith-based' votes in the South. The Westerners, it seems, are old-fashioned small-government conservatives who don't see what business the government has, for example, in defining people's marriages or deciding cases like Terri Schiavo's.

Is Obama maybe jumping on a bandwagon that is grinding to a halt?

Because "evangelical Christians and other religious Americans" clearly means "fundagelicals... religious nuts... absolutists..."

Well, he seems to be talking about competing in a field of religious discourse where "Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway". I'm guessing that's not about fighting for the votes of Unitarian Universalists.

when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends. In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's will continue to hold sway.

Is there some problem with the Democrats telling evangelicals and other religious Americans what they stand for? Perhaps it is naive of Obama to think that many will be swayed, but I don't see what the surprise is, and I certainly don't see where the bandwagon comes in. Isn't he the one who said "we worship an awesome God in the blue states"?

His point regarding Falwell and Robertson, I think, is that they are the ones speaking to evangelicals. Again, perhaps it is naive of him, but he seems to think that actually talking to them might just win them over, or at least might be more likely to do so than ignoring them (except, perhaps, to demonize them with their worst members).

What percentage of the electorate signifies itself as aligned with the Jerry Falwells of this world? And are they of true significance e.g. that they are more likely to vote than the rest ?
From this distance this sounds like practical common sense. Few of, say , our Labour voters are happy, 'when push comes to shove', to be thought of as supporters of the old true left any more than our Muslims are happy to be associated with the outer edge of the muslim community or Catholic voters are to be associated with the stricter views of the Catholics. In the end all these people may pay lip-service but few are more influenced by their ostensible beliefs than they are by economics or perception of what is best for them and their families. Most people are happy to vote away from what is perceived as the beyond the centre though they may claim otherwise.

"90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians,"

This is the audience that Obama is targetting, warning that, if the Democrats won't address them, Falwells and Robertsons will fill the vacuum.



If DG can post the part he liked, I can post the part I liked :

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Obama may be on to something. It is a huge mistake to think that all evangelical Christians are conservative republicans. There is nothing about being Republican that has anything to do with claiming Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Saviour.

Democrats are also perilously close to losing one of its most loyal and politically important voting blocs - black Christians - if the atheists among them continue to discriminate against their religion and patronize them from the podium. Do you think words such as "fundagelical" help or hurt the Democrats retain evangelical black Christians? The party of Abraham Lincoln has a button right next to the "D" button at the polls.

quote:

Democrats are also perilously close to losing one of its most loyal and politically important voting blocs - black Christians

Really? To whom? What about that poll showing Bush's support among African Americans as maybe zero?

Polls done around the 2004 election did, it seems, show support from 'self-styled conservative Christian blacks and blacks making more than $60,000 a year' for Bush's gay-bashing, and his channeling welfare through churches rather than government agencies. I can't find more recent polls that elicited the views of African-American Christians specifically, but here's an interesting one:

'Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 74% of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 47% of those 31-49, 49% of those 50-64, and 40% of those over 65. 55% of women favored impeachment, compared to 49% of men. Among African Americans, 75% favored impeachment, as did 56% of Hispanics and 47% of whites. Majorities of Catholics, Jews, and Others favored impeachment, while 44% of Protestants and 38% of Born Again Christians did so.' Zogby, January 2006

So what does Obama mean, when he talks about fighting for the votes of religious Americans? Does he mean pointing out how his party, for example (if it does, in fact), aims to support the poor and disadvantaged, as many religious doctrines demand of their followers? Or does he mean paying lip-service to, for example, a ban on gay marriage, as Bush & Co have done?

How far should a secular and multi-faith political party go in seeking 'the religious vote'? Surely the limit would be in demonstrating how the party's (rationally argued) platform coincides with some widely acceptable religous ideals. I guess that's roughly what Obama was saying in that last quote posted by Methos. If the homophobes aren't turned on by that, then they're something of a lost cause for the Democrats, aren't they?

"So what does Obama mean, when he talks about fighting for the votes of religious Americans?"
~nnn

"reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for"
~Obama

"change what we stand for to court fundagelicals, religious nuts, and absolutists"
~?

-------

Reading the speech would seem the best way to understand what he's saying, here are some relevant excerpts:

...we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible... We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won't have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.

...

I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change... the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.

...

Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another

...

the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms.

...

Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.

...

Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.

...

we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

...

Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.

And, of course, there's the context. The speech was to a faith-based organization fighting poverty. Obama's reference to the "larger project of American renewal" is directly to the group (Call to Renewal) and it's goal of overcoming poverty.

It may be worth pointing out that, although MSNBC concentrated on the courting of evangelicals, a large chunk of the speech is a discussion on the importance of separation of church and state.

---

DG has already posted a shorter version of this, but I thought I'd post the lines around it:

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.