Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. Charley – this is the conclusion of an article I wrote in December of 2004 –

    <

    p>
    “What do the blues have in common? The inability to genuinely believe that sincere and thoughtful people could possibly disagree with them. In the Trilobyte Magazine, David Keller writes, “The Truths of Liberalism are self-evident, and thereby above debate. Anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and immoral; any competing system of ethics is wrong and immoral; any opposition to them is wrong and immoral. The Truths of Liberalism are Perfect.” Like all satire, this has a grain of truth to it. For many years, I’ve said that Activists talk to Authorities who talk to Advocates who talk to Activists, and they all cite one another as Experts. Few venture outside this Charmed Circle and the results are sometimes a source of consternation.

    <

    p>
    The Charmed Few are beginning down the wrong path again as they review the election results. The Big Three Networks have announced that ‘morality’ was a major issue in voters’ minds and the Blues are hearkening back to the old political adage, “Sincerity – once you can fake that, everything else is easy”. They are announcing that morality isn’t what those Red People say it is – it’s about the environment, health care, union wages, inclusiveness – that’s what morality really is! Dismissive of those who do not already hold their beliefs, they refuse to acknowledge that millions of people have a different concept of morality, and that it is important to them. The Red voters are demonized as ignorant zombies, and the genuine pain caused by the harsh enforcement of their austere intellectual tenets is ignored. They simply don’t want to acknowledge the unbending secularism that has banned Nativity scenes from town greens, that has taken athletes to court for saying voluntary prayers, the sneering and disparagement towards all forms of organized religion save Wicca. They are unable to understand that they cannot paint the inside of their echo chamber red and announce that they are now the party of morality.

    <

    p>
    Most voters found John Kerry to be a condescending and unreliable politician, ready and willing to change his stance and his explanation of his stances with every poll. It may be apocryphal, but the charge that the first thing Kerry did when the Bin Laden videotape was played on al-Jazeera was to commission a poll to find out how to respond rang true. Most voters didn’t like George Bush’s ideas on abortion or stem call research, if national statistics on what voters think on these issues are accurate, but they did think he would answer questions honestly. You may not like where he stood, but at least you knew where he stood. They interpreted that honesty as being indicative of morality, and they voted for him, while disagreeing with him on some issues. This phenomenon isn’t relegated to the so-called Blue states. Here in the Cape and Islands Senate District, in seemingly bright Blue Massachusetts, ‘Favorite Son’ Kerry got 57,477 votes to Bush’s 41,505 – a 58% – 42% split. Bush did equally well in the Plymouth & Barnstable Senate District. So right here on Cape Cod, four out of ten people voted for George Bush, and the other six don’t want to believe they exist, preferring to blame wild-eyed right wing radicals in some strange place like Kansas. Not their own next door neighbor.”

    <

    p>
    Obama is late to the party, my friend.

    • Peter, exactly who are these Blues with an inability to “genuinely believe that sincere and thoughtful people could possibly disagree with them?”

      <

      p>
      Republican Right leader Pat Robertson?

      <

      p>
      Surely you’ve heard of him –he’s the bloke who calls Methodists, Episcopalians and Presbyterians “the Antichrist” because they believe differently from him.

      <

      p>
      And do right-wing Republicans like the not-so-good Rev. think gay Americans can be “sincere, thoughtful people who disagree?” Nope, he said on 1/21/03 that, “Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals–the two things seem to go together.”

      <

      p>
      Or maybe you’re thinking of Rev. Jerry Falwell? Surely such a prominent red-state Republican leader would believe that thoughtful people of goodwill might legitimately disgree with him?

      <

      p>
      Wrong again!

      <

      p>
      Falwell squarely blamed 9/11 not on the religious terrorists who attacked our country, but on fellow Americans:

      <

      p>

      The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this … I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.

      <

      p>
      Not only does Falwell consider people who disagree with him terrorists, he took it one step further, becoming the only prominent American to assert that America “deserved what it got” on 9/11.

      <

      p>
      Then again, Peter, you might be referring to Rev. Bob Jones, Jr. who banned inter-racial dating at his “university” and called Catholicism and the Mormon Church “cults” (not “sincere and thoughtful people who believe differently from me”).

      <

      p>
      Or maybe you mean Ann Coulter, whose latest collection of plagiarized passages attacks 9/11 widows who dared criticize Bush as “enjoying their husbands deaths.” It all appears under a rubric asserting that all “liberals” are “Godless” (calling them traitors wasn’t enough for Coulter).

      <

      p>
      Perhaps you’re thinking of Michael Savage who Stalinistically calls liberalism a mental disorder, and liberals the enemy within.

      <

      p>
      Do you support the mission of the United Nations? Religious Right Conservatives call it a satanic plot to establish a New World Order.

      <

      p>
      Do you believe pedophile priests and their abettors should be publicly scrutinized and prosecuted for their crimes? Religious Right Conservatives call you “anti-Catholic.”

      <

      p>
      Do you support stem cell research because Parkinson’s Disease runs in your family? Religious Right Conservatives say you support murder.

      <

      p>
      Do you want to honor your wife’s desire for a dignified death when she’s unable to recover from a permanent vegetative state? Don’t worry –the Religious Right elites know better what’s good for you and your wife because they’re smarter, cleaner, and more morallly pure than the Unwashed Masses… and they’ll convene Congress to do it if they can get away with it…

      <

      p>
      This brand of moral relativism is the hallmark of today’s Republican Right. It’s just more rhetorical gobbledeygook and sophistry masquerading as morality.

      <

      p>
      BTW — take a look at the Texas vote results and you’ll find plenty of districts where the “Favorite Son” actually lost. Those are the areas that Right-Wing Republicans consider “satanic” and “the enemy within.”

      • The essence of the regressive Republican position is that government should tell people what to do: with their bodies (abortion), with their families (marriage), with learning (stem cells), with their lives (end of life). Progressive Democrats are the freedom fighters: choice, equality, knowledge and dignity, respectively. More to the point, Ms. Porcupine probably didn’t cite any leading Blues who “genuinely believe that sincere and thoughtful people could possibly disagree with them?” because she made them up, like her puppet-master Ms. Coulter and the propagandists at Fox News.

        • In the Conservative v. Liberal argument it’s the same and always has been:  Conservatives think Liberals are stupid and Liberals think Conservatives are mean.

          <

          p>
          This will never change, particularly with fiscal issues.

          <

          p>
          The only nuance in the past decade and now is with the gay thing, and the abortion thing. It’s the introduction of the Christian Coalition who was befriended by the Republicans. 

          <

          p>
          The Democrats could have just as easily brought them into the party but the Republican did it first.

          <

          p>
          There’s no reason (other than religious reason) that a true conservative would have any political interest whatsoever in Roe v. Wade, or gay marriage or keep veg-ed death women alive or stem-cells.

          <

          p>
          Any conservative who goes to the mat for these social issues is probably just pandering to the various religious zealous who’ve taken over the Republican Party.

            • When it’s a traditional Liberal meddling (i.e. raise taxes; raise minimum wage; increased wealth redistribution) it’s in character, but stupid.

              <

              p>
              When it’s Conservative meddling, interferring with stem-cell research, gay marriage, anti-abortion, it’s equally stupid, but not Conservative.  It’s religious.

              • The Terri Schaivo situation was the ultimate in conservative meddling.

                <

                p>
                Although, I have to say, this makes the Porcupine sound like the vanquished villain at the end of a Scooby Doo episode — “And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for you meddling liberals!”

        • Who take on Fluff? Who mandate that new mothers should no longer be given formula in hospitals because they might not want or be able to breast feed? Who kept contraception uncovered as a medication while covering Viagra? (Bodies)  Who stipulate how and when children should be educated about sex?  (mariage)  Who constantly put off accountability in public schools, and try to stamp out charter schools? (learning)  Who passed Section 139 of the State budget to surreptitiosly change Medicaid requirements for nursing homes without legislation or public comment until the whole thing blew up in their faces like Melanie’s Law? (end of life).

          <

          p>
          If you read what I wrote, Bob, I noted that it was just the conclusion of an article written earlier.  Some blues mentioned were Steve Lynch, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.  Some other blues inferred were Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and Michael Moore.  I only took the two paragraphs that seemed most relevant to what Charley was writing – about religion and belief – there was no intent to mislead.

      • Personally, I would call Buchanan, Robertson and coulter red.

        <

        p>
        But, if you want to lay claim to them, you’re welcome to cart them away.  They have one thing in common – they are all rude.

        • They all have another thing in common –as wealthy pointy-headed elitists they regard anyone who thinks or believes differently from them as evil, treasonous, and anti-God.

          <

          p>
          Time to catch-up on your summer reading, summer of 1982 that is…

          • …”Peter, exactly who are these Blues with an inability to “genuinely believe that sincere and thoughtful people could possibly disagree with them?”

            <

            p>
            You then went on to list Reds.  And as I said, they are rude, and you are welcome to them.  Please note, however, that Robertson left the GOP at the invitation of George W. bush, and said he would take his Evangelical supporters with him.  All 9 of them left, and they now have the Constitution Party to fulminate from.

            <

            p>
            Happy birthday, Mr. President!

            • Yes, PP, that’s the point.

              <

              p>
              You claimed in your article that so-called “blues” are unable “to genuinely believe that sincere and thoughtful people could possibly disagree with them.”

              <

              p>
              So I listed people who fit that description and, low-and-behold, they’re all Red State Republicans…. (Get it?)

              <

              p>
              BTW –was that a rooster I heard crowing when you disavowed Republican Rev. Pat Robertson? Come, come now, Peter –he and Jerry Falwell are not only Republican Party Kingmakers (along with Dobson, Moon, Schlafly, Bob Jones, etc.) his protege Ralph Reed is running for Lt. Gov. of Georgia.

              <

              p>
              La plus ca change indeed…

      • Naturally, anyone for whom religion plays a central role in their life simply MUST be the equivalent of the lunatic fringe of the right.

        <

        p>
        Democrats, particularly self-styled “progressives” routinely demonstrate as you did above that they hold religious Americans– that is, the vast majority of Americans– in utter contempt.  Then, on election day, many of these people react to this contempt by–surprise– voting for someone else. Lather, rinse, repeat.

        <

        p>
        Any time there are arguments or comments that originate from without the echo chamber there is the “Rove Talking Points!  Right-wing gobbledy gook!” response, as if these epithets somehow discount the contrarian view.  This winds up convincing no one except those who already agree with you, and in case you hadn’t noticed, there aren’t enough of those people anymore.

  2. and as a member of what could be called the religious left, i pray to god that we won’t have to listen to Hillary for two years trying to sell her jesus cred.
    oh my, is it painful to listen to. a veritable seminar for dems on how to sound forced, phony, and pandering.

  3. After all, religious belief has played a central part in America’s progressive tradition. Abolitionism was fueled by religious feeling, as was the civil rights movement. The religious strand of liberalism has provided an essentialist view of justice that runs counter to the evidence of the free market — that all human beings have dignity. This has been a moral partner to the more materialist strand of liberalism, which has stressed a quality-of-life agenda, such as the labor movement, the New Deal and Great Society programs.

    I am not saying that secular people are somehow excluded from recognizing such morality: Nonsense. But religion is the means in which many, if not most people have come to understand justice and morality. Ignoring that would seem to be folly.

    <

    p>
    Part of this was referenced by ralph whitehead, jr. but I hadn’t read your post, so I was clueless about the reference.

    <

    p>
    Now that I’ve read your post in full, I can comment with more comprehension. I will ignore the comment by PP which I find to be pretty off topic, although he makes a few good points.

    <

    p>
    I’m not sure I agree with your first-cited para, though your conclusion is right on the money.

    <

    p>
    There were huge shifts in thinking about morality from the days of our founding (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”) and the days of the Emancipation Proclamation (“…a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”) [note the absence of any reference to a divine authority] to the days of the Civil Rights Movement (inspired as much by Gandhi’s successful use of nonviolent resistance against the British as by the teachings of Jesus, though not to diminish their influence, which were consistent with Gandhi’s principles).

    <

    p>
    I don’t have time to go back and review The Metaphysical Club but I think one of the themes Menand addresses is the interplay of religion (in the organized sense) and morality borne of the Enlightenment. Emerson’s Transcendentalism, for example, was a form of mysticism that was a reaction (at least in part) to the doctrinaire religions of the day.

    <

    p>
    My great-great-grandfather was a physician in Otis (Mass) and was active in the Berkshire Abolitionist movement. I’m very proud of that, though I know very little about it.

    <

    p>
    Anyway, Charley, thanks for stretching my brain — I’ve been so involved in politics the past few months that I haven’t taken the time to have fun thinking about topics like this. Memo to self: take some time to smell the metaphysics…

  4. I couldn’t disagree more with the premise of your piece, and I know, as one of many who were (and are) highly critical of Obama’s speech, that we’re not going to see eye-to-eye on this.  Indeed, for every person, I suppose, Obama picks up with this sort of thing, he loses one. 

    <

    p>
    Sorry, Barack, you’re validating the right-wing frame by suggesting that Democrats or liberals or atheists or non-particularly-religious people need to do a better job articulating their (religious/moral) values.  This is fuel for right-wing fodder.  Indeed,  that “values voter” canard was put out to pasture after the frenzy of the 2004 election.  The fact that we’re still countenancing this thing speaks only to the fact that Democrats continue to suffer from a chronic and debilitating form of low self-esteem paradoxically fueled by their insatiable desire to cure said disorder by being more like those other guys.  QED.

    <

    p>
    This nation, with its religious fetishism, is in the grips of a hysteria.  All the intellectualizing, ruminating, and umbilically-focused analyzing is not going to make an iota’s worth of difference in this intractable problem as long as the Democrats continue to fuel their own neurosis by trying to craft an identity based on the trendy kids. 

    <

    p>

  5. Obama’s remarks and the related commentary all take place in a deceptive, distorted Religious Right frame that presents progressive faith as false and only conservative faith as legitimate.

    <

    p>
    Democrats already engage and reach out to people of faith in America. In fact, Democrats have been the leaders of religious inclusion and champions of religious pluralism for decades:

    <

    p>
    The first born-again Christian US president was Jimmy Carter; JFK was the first Catholic president; Vermont’s Madeline Kunin the first female Jewish governor; Joe Lieberman, the first Orthodox Jew on a Presidential ticket; former Virginia governor John Warner was a Christian missionary; Rep. John Louis is an ordained Baptist minister who worked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the civil rights era; Keith Ellison in Minnesota is poised to become the first Mulsim ever to serve in Congress, and if Democrats win the Senate, Harry Reid will become the first Mormon Senate Majority Leader.

    <

    p>
    Instead of addressing a convention of religious activists with this inspiring legacy, Obama read straight from the Republican Right’s talking points, repeating apologetically that Democrats don’t “acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people.” (For heavens sake, Senator, Billy Graham is a proud Democrat!).

    <

    p>
    Obama’s cluelessness shows just how intellectually lazy the Seante has made him, and how successful the Right has been at framing the issue of religion in America to their political advantage. It is the result of Newt Gingrich’s successful campaign with the Religious Right to, as he called it, “make Democrats into the enemy of normal Americans.”

    <

    p>
    Their main propaganda tactic is to claim that any given right-wing political view is “religious” but that any progressive politcal view is not –even when both are advanced by avowed believers.

    <

    p>
    Thus, The Right and their corporate media enablers call evangelicals “religious” when they oppose stem cell research (because it destroys innocent life), but Catholics who heed the Pope’s opposition to the Iraq invasion (because it destroys innocent lives) are called “anti-war.”

    <

    p>
    When conservative fundamentalist Christians lobby for mandatory Christian prayer in public schools, they’re labelled “religious,” but when progressive Jews lobby against their kids being forced to recite Christian prayers in school, they’re called “anti-faith.”

    <

    p>
    We see this double standard on issue after issue: death penalty opponents who pray outside executions –even nuns and priests– are not described as “religiously motivated,” but oppponents of gay marriage are; Republicans who opposed pro-choice Clinton judicial nominees are called “religiously-motivated,” but opponents of Bush’s anti-choice nominees are accused of launching a “filibuster against faith” at a bizarre “Justice Sunday” event.

    <

    p>
    At the same time, progressive ministers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are treated like pariahs in the press and regularly attacked as the hypocritical representatives of anything associated with Democrats, while Sun Myong Moon, Fred Phelphs, and Bob Jones, Jr. are rarely described as liabilities for religious conservatives and Republicans.

    <

    p>
    Similarly, Democrat John Kerry is singled out as a “fake” Catholic for supporting progressive political views on women’s rights, gay rights and stem cell research –to the point where some Bishops said they would deny him Holy Communion– while Republican Catholics like Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and George Pataki faced no such criticism.

    <

    p>
    Unfortunately, Obama failed to use his credibility and platofrm to set the record straight and challenge the Religious Supremacists on their dishonest marketing of politics and faith in America.

    <

    p>
    In a subsequent post, I’ll lay out the key points we must make to set the record straight and debunk this bogus “issue.”

    • TP, if you’ll notice, I called Obama’s approach “clumsy”. My thesis (perhaps unclearly stated) is that Obama’s perception of the problem is at least partly true, and that his solution — more God talk — is flawed. A lot of religious people who are sympathetic to left-ish causes are saying that the Democrats as an institution lack “cultural competency” and a general level of literacy and sophistication when it comes to religion. I mean, you can ignore that all you want, but it seems to me that it would be more productive to listen and take notes.

      <

      p>
      And contrary to what you say, I do think that Pat Robertson, Falwell, Bob Jones et al. would indeed be liabilities for the right if the Dems bothered to make them so — and they should. I mean, you make a different point about the media narrative and how it’s skewed against progressives … yeah, some of that is true. But that doesn’t mean that the Dems shouldn’t work to get their approach right, too — in public.

      <

      p>
      And going forward … I am not going to refrain from pointing out flaws in a Democratic candidate or position simply to avoid “repeating GOP talking points.” When we Democrats get our politics and policy right, we’ll win. If we’re not getting it right, then honest, constructive criticism is in order. I am going to call it like I see it. I expect as much from anyone else.

      • I don’t at all think Obama’s perception of “the problem” is partly true; the problem is that he perceives a problem where there is none.

        <

        p>
        Obama’s speech is premised upon addressing an problem that simply doesn’t exist –the Religious Right fabrication that Democrats and progressives have a “religion problem” becuase they are atheistic “secularists” who don’t respect religion, and who don’t want to connect with religious voters.

        <

        p>
        This is nonsense.

        <

        p>
        As I mentioned above, Democrats have long been the champions of religious pluralism in America, and include among them exceptional leaders who were the first of Americans of their particular faith to serve our country.

        <

        p>
        The singular Dem mistake regarding religion and politics –and it’s been a big one– has been their to failure to stand-up to the Religious Right’s misrepresentation of religion and their caricature of Democrats’ religious beliefs.

        <

        p>
        The very first time and every subsequent time a right-wing Republican took to the airwaves or print to proclaim that they alone represent the One True Faith, and that they alone can decide for America whose political views count as “religiously-motivated,” the Democrats and progressives should have pummeled them mercilessly until they apologized. Dem’s should have tarred and feathered them as the Religious Supremacists they are and shamed them from our national discourse.

        <

        p>
        But since Dem’s did not (and do not) do this, the Religious Right continues to the point of saturating the media and carpet-bombing the public with the same false frame and distortions that Obama now finds himself unwittingly repeating.

        <

        p>
        Obama’s blind acceptance of the Republican Right frame for religion & politics –to engage in self-criticism of Democrats as well as discussion of political issues– is exhibit A in establishment Dem’s cultural incompetence. Obama (and progressive Dem’s) can only lose the public debate and set the cause of religious pluralism backwards when we start talking within this false framework.

        <

        p>
        First and foremost, Dem’s must be accurate when using the word “secular” or “secularist.” It refers to any Americans who support a religion-neutral government out of respect the Establishment Clause —religious and humanist Americans.

        <

        p>
        In his speech, Obama specifically refers to “secularists” on the one hand, and “religious poeple” on the other. But most secualrists are religious people –religious people who want a secualr government because they know it protects their own personal religious freedom and religious pluralism in America.

        <

        p>
        Obama also singles out for mention, one instance in which “secularists” apparantly went to far: challenging the constitutionality of “under God” in the Pledge. This of course, was from a suit brought by an avowed atheist, and by citing it instead of, say, the recent evangelical hazing Jewish cadets at the Air Force Academy, Obama promotes the Republican Right canard that secularists are all atheists seeking to ban God, and not people of faith who wish to protect religious freedom (Obama also forgot to mention that the “under God” decision was written by a Republican judge, not a Democrat –oops!).

        <

        p>
        Only by explicitly rejecting these frames and asserting our longstanding leadership on religious pluralism in America can progressives effectively combat conservative misinformation and Republican Right stereotypes of Democrats.

        <

        p>
        Why not start here? 

        <

        p>
        Sure, you can criticize Dem’s flaws if you’d like –I’m doing so myself– but by arguing within this distorted Right Wing frame using the same inaccurate language, you’ll only end up with irrelevant answers.

        <

        p>
        All Dem’s like Obama need to do is state who they are along with pride in their party’s unmatched record of championing religious pluralism. They also should call these bogus right-wing stereotypes what they are: bigoted nonsense. This is somehting that will surely resonate with a strong majority of Americans –regardless of their particular faith.

        • I was about to dive in and attempt to further explain some of the thinking behind my post earlier on this thread, but I find there is no need, really, after reading what you’ve written–and I haven’t even read all of the comments.  You’re exactly right.  Bravo/a!

        • TP, I hear you loud and clear on a strong rebuke of the right’s bigotry. Some religious groups are doing that now, most notably the UCC. And maybe Obama missed an opportunity — although Nathan Newman points out that he took his shots at the right.

          <

          p>
          But I think you’re wrong when you state that there’s no problem. If you think that the right has been effective in driving a wedge between Dems and religious folks — as I do — then that needs to be confronted one way or another. We agree that Obama’s approach needs work, but you can’t just ignore the problem. It requires a two-pronged approach: 1. How Dems address right-wing bigotry, and 2. How Dems approach religious folks caught in the middle of the “culture war.” Saying that they need to do 1. does not mean that 2. takes care of itself.

          <

          p>
          By the way, here’s Ed Kilgore’s reaction. I like Ed.

          • In the 1980’s when homeless became a hot social-political issue, advocates and politicians began by raising and then debating serious questions about poverty, housing, substance abuse, veterans services, the wisdom of earlier decisions to close publicly-funded mental health hospitals, etc.

            <

            p>
            A favorite tactic of right-wing ideologues –who oppose any and all taxpayer assistance for the poor– was to ask whether or not a person should give spare change to a homeless bloke panhandling on a street corner.

            <

            p>
            They appeared on panels on Oprah, opined on the editorial pages of major dailies, and yammered on talk radio that it actually hurts a homeless person to give them money –especially since they’ll most likely spend in on drugs or alcohol– and a lot of these folks are just deadbeats who prefer not to work and are addicted to government handouts…

            <

            p>
            There were vigorous debates all over the place on this singular question –whether or not to give a quarter to a homeless beggar– and people on all sides argued their pet theories, sentiments, and anecdotes.

            <

            p>
            Lost in all this, of course, was the reality about homelessness in America, it’s root causes, shortfalls in our healthcare system, housing and employment needs, and the fact that most homeless people were children.

            <

            p>
            This suited The Right just fine; they were happy to debate whether or not 40 year old, black, male ex-offender alcoholics begging at intersections and on subway cars deserved sympathy or not (Rush used to do a whole “Homeless Update” back then, replete with its own mocking theme song).

            <

            p>
            This is exactly the same thing the Religious Right is doing to Democrats & progressives regarding religion. For Sen. Obama to waste time deconstructing an imaginary Democratic inability to “acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people,” is equally a complete waste of time (not to mention absurd on its face given all the ordained ministers and followers of various faiths who are elected Democrats).

            <

            p>
            Analysis within bogus frames can only mislead and misinform. Democrats only problem has been their failure to aggressively challenge this right-wing BS and reaffirm to the American people who they really are.

            <

            p>
            Calling BS on the Republican spin, reframing the debate by explaining how a secular government protects religious freedom, and describing Democrats’ unmatched tradition of religious pluralism is how you continue to engage religious folks caught in the culture war.

            • I keep saying this, but you haven’t addressed it: there are many folks on the religious left who are saying the Dems have a religious problem: Michael Lerner, Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and others. You keep saying it’s a right-wing generated problem, and maybe it is — but we don’t do ourselves any favors when we ignore people who are trying to help.

              • I’m not advocating “ignoring” people who are trying to help. On the contraray, I’m recommending a course of action by these same people that will succeed, and there is no way that the Obama response –apologizing for a problem that does not exist– will do anything but reinforce Religious Right BS.

                <

                p>
                Any honest analysis of the Religious Right’s 20-plus year PR campaign will show it has been based upon mass-marketing false sterotypes of progressives: that they are atheistic secularists who don’t appreciate the role of faith in peoples’ lives, and who seek to deny Americans right to worship accoring to their conscience.

                <

                p>
                Dem’s longstanding unwillingness to challenge these steretypes, and thereby give them currency, has been their only failure.

                <

                p>
                When Obama (and others) begin public speeches with the equivalent of, “yes, I know we progressives have a religion problem, but…” or “yes, I know Dem’s are weak on national security but…” it’s game over –they’ve entirely conceded the debate to the Right by acceoting its false premise.

                <

                p>
                You’ll notice that, by contrast, Republicans never start similar speeches with, “I know Republicans have a problem with religious bigotry, but…” or “I know Republicans have a problem with fiscal discipline, but…” even though these problems have a basis in reality.

                <

                p>
                Progressives need to stop apologizing every time the Right attacks us for phony problems and start asserting the truth of who we are: the longstanding champions of religious pluralism and inclusion in America.

                <

                p>
                BTW — if you haven’t, check out the writings and arguments of Rev. Barry Lynn at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He is probably the most media-savvy progressive spokesperson on these issues.

Archives