On Hardball, Time's Duffy said Dems have alienated religious voters for the last 25 years
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy asserted that "for the last 25 years, Democrats have done everything they can to alienate religious voters, faith-minded voters" and that "[t]hey did it to woo a secular left that they thought didn't want to have anything to do with that." But given that some 90 percent of Americans say that they believe in God (according to polling, which has been consistent over many years), and given that in the last 25 years, Americans have elected a Democrat to two presidential terms, and a second won the popular vote, a substantial number of religious voters must be voting for Democrats.
On the August 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during a discussion of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s (D-DE) recent comment that past Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry "let themselves be portrayed as anti-God," host Chris Matthews characterized Biden as saying that Gore and Kerry "created an image that they were somehow ... not really religious people. They don't share your evangelical views and your deeply religious views. They're too secular." In response, Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy asserted that "for the last 25 years, Democrats have done everything they can to alienate religious voters, faith-minded voters" and that "it seemed to be part of the program. They did it to woo a secular left that they thought didn't want to have anything to do with that." But given that some 90 percent of Americans say they believe in God (according to polling, which has been consistent over many years), and given that in the last 25 years, Americans have elected a Democrat to two presidential terms, and a second won the popular vote, a substantial number of religious voters must be voting for Democrats.
Moreover, while white Protestants have voted for Republicans in greater numbers in recent elections, Americans of other religions have supported Democrats. According to national exit-polling data on CNN.com, in the 2006 midterm elections, 61 percent of white Protestants voted Republican, while 37 percent voted Democratic. But according to the polling, 55 percent of Catholic voters and 87 percent of Jewish voters voted for Democrats in 2006. In the 2004 presidential election, national exit polling found that 47 percent of Catholic voters and 74 percent of Jewish voters voted for Democrats; exit polling in 2000 found that 50 percent of Catholic voters and 79 percent of Jewish voters voted for Gore. In 1996, 53 percent of Catholic voters and 78 percent of Jewish voters voted for Bill Clinton. Among black Protestants, 91 percent of black Protestant voters voted for Democrats in 2006, according to exit polls cited by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Pew also reported that in 2006, 71 percent of voters from faiths other than Protestantism, Catholicism, or Judaism, voted Democratic. Moreover, according to Pew, Democratic support among white Protestants has increased in the last two election cycles: from 30 percent in 2002 to 34 percent in 2004 to 37 percent in 2006.
From the August 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Well, under the "equal whack for both parties" rule of this show, let's go to the Democrats. Joe Biden, who tends to be very honest -- whatever you think of him as the next president, although I think he's a fine guy -- he very clearly said the other day, yesterday, that the people like Al Gore and John Kerry, the last two Democratic candidates for president, said -- created an image that they were somehow -- we're looking at it right now -- that if they were -- as he put it, when they're sitting next to the pew, that maybe he really doesn't respect your view. In other words, they're not really religious people. They don't share your evangelical views and your deeply religious views. They're too secular.
DUFFY: Yeah. Well, I think, for the last 25 years, Democrats have done everything they can to alienate religious voters, faith-minded voters, and the --
MATTHEWS: Not a smart move politically.
DUFFY: Oh, no. And it seemed to be part of the program. They did it to woo a secular left that they thought didn't want to have anything to do with that.
MATTHEWS: Was turned off by the religious people, yeah.
DUFFY: Starting with Jimmy Carter and the --
MATTHEWS: I hear it. I've heard --
DUFFY: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: -- years of people --
DUFFY: Right. Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: -- making fun of Jimmy -- [the Rev.] Jerry Falwell and people like that, but you knew it was a broader brush than that.
DUFFY: Of course.
MATTHEWS: They were really making fun of the people in the churches, in the tents, in the megachurches.
DUFFY: Right. It was a really stupid thing to do -- and they have begun to realize that.
MATTHEWS: Elitism doesn't really work in politics, does it?
Yeah, starting with Jimmy Carter, that avowed atheist.
What a load of bunk, and shame on Matthews for backing him up.
Exactly, Jimmy Carter one of the most religious Presidents we ever had. Nothing wrong with that and the difference is he did not try and push his beliefs on us.
1. MM: "Moreover, while white Protestants have voted for Republicans in greater numbers in recent elections ..."
Uhhh. White Protestants are the largest voting block (by religion) in the U.S.!
2. MM: "Pew also reported that in 2006, 71 percent of voters from faiths other than Protestantism, Catholicism, or Judaism, voted Democratic."
"Faiths other than Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism." Hmmm. What small percentage of the population does that leave? (10-15 percent? Guessing.)
I think you missed the point. MMFA is pointing out that the Democrats don't have a problem amongst all religious voters, but a significant subset of that group - white protestants. Therefore such a generality is not accurate.
Exactly the claim that was misinformation was that Democrats were alienating RELIGIOUS voters not Protestant voters.
I think we need another subset: white, right-wing, Protestants.
They are not as organized or as vocal, but there are still many people who consider themselves part of the Religious LEFT.
It does leave one to wonder, though, where the more generalized statistic of voters who consider themselves religious would break down.
I think that is a good point. "Religious Voters" can be defined in several ways. MMFA chose a fairly expansive definition of belief in God. Another way to do it would be to ask people to describe whether they believe they are religious or not. I think that kind of polling data would serve to better support the argument being made above considering my memory of the data I have seen in that regard. I think it is a good argument that MMFA is being a bit more expansive of their definition of "religious" voters as opposed to what may be indeed being discussed above.
I agree Casey...
Honestly who gives about how religious a person or political party is? In fact when you think about it, maybe it is good that the Dems are staying away from the religious right... Morality is not in anyway dependant upon your faith; it is in your character...
What's the standard of that morality within your character, if I can ask?
Schmitty, is that your favorite question? I think you asked me the same thing a while back.
Technically, Jimmy Carter ceased being president on the morning of January 20, 1981. That's 26 and one-half years ago. The statement the guy made was that Democrats have been alientating religious people for 25 years. So technically, for that time span, the presidential candidate you'd be starting with would be Mondale. Of course, he was the son of a minister, so...
Maybe.
But technicalities or no, it doesn't change the fact that Matthews and Duffy are lying about liberals. Republicans have so corrupted the meaning of religion that only a narrow subset of conservative Christians fit their definition of religious voters.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Mike Duffy is not a objective journalist as he would promote, but a overtly political operative in the position of a political bureau boss of a number of news organizations that pander to a corporate media agenda!
A propagandist that is stil "flogging the log" of Neo-Con/Rovian political strategy; DIVIDE AND CONQUER!!!
If this guy is your source of political analysis, then know that he has distorted reporting of, and promoted the SURRENDER OF OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!
Duffy was complicate with the Neo-Cons when reporting the Republican slant about the War in Iraq, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and the Domestic Spying of Americans, as well as the dissent into Fascism of our sacrid democracy!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Nothing about MSM's efforts to identify liberals with satanism?
Mathews last statement is nearly correct. If you are labelled an elitist it can be the kiss of an ugly political death.
"Well, I think, for the last 25 years, Democrats have done everything they can to alienate religious voters, faith-minded voters, and the --"
No proof, no rationale. I think, therefore it is so.
Pishaw.
"Well, I think, for the last 2500 years, scientists have done everything they can to alienate religious voters, fantasy-minded voters, and the --"
" --and the more ideological knowledge-phobic voters." ?
It's a bytch being the party of reality and knowledge instead of just faith, isn't it? Hard to match your critical thinkers against those who simply "believe". Pander away, dems. But if after 8 years of evidence for their last brilliant exercise in faith they aren't yet believing that judging human nature isn't their strong suit, they ain't gonna be converted.
Wait a damned minute!
My president told me that he can look into a person's eyes and see his soul.
Are you trying to say he can't?
Well, he honestly thought he could see Putins soul. Turned out to be just Putin's contact lens that the prez mistook to be evidence of his own awesome supernatural powers of observation.
lol Neon....
Good point you make. Even though I agree sometimes with some Republican views I would NEVER join them...Their narrow mindedness makes me think half of them are mentally deranged...
So, correct me if I am wrong, but Matthews and Duffy think that in our lame 2 party system BOTH parties should embrace Christianity as the ONLY possibe religious view?
I am a proud atheist and would never cast a vote for someone who claims:
a: God speaks to them
b: everyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe will be tortured and burned for eternity by their God
c: believes in armageddon, demons, or a pointy tail devil cast out of heaven (thougt that place was perfect) during a "war" and that he now roams the earth hiding dinosaur bones to test their faith of the 6000 year old earth proclamation
Is my thinking "Elite"? Perhaps if elite means having an ounce of sense.
Amen to that AIA lol...
I totally 100% agree!!!!!!! I would prefer a politician who would use their brain...not some book...to make decisions...
please, all politicians go out of their way to pander to religion. how far would any atheist, otherwise well qualified, get in a presidential race. just because the democrats are less willing to cater to the creationist crowd doesn't mean they don't pay plenty of attention.
We've already had an atheist president. Can again.
Yeah, we were singing along with Neal Diamond to the tune of "Brother love's traveling salvation show" as we pointed and laughed. James Baker, Jerry Falwell, and all the other right wing nut jobs who broke their vows as they skewered our values had nothing to do with that...
Good point, Snoop.
I think that because religion and abortion are closely linked and Democrats are overwhelmingly pro-choice compared to Republicans, that Democrats don't play the religion card with the same authority that Republicans do.
To put it another way, I don't think Democrats have deliberately tried to alienate religious voters like Michael Duffy claimed, I just don't think they fought for those votes as strongly as they should have.
Bruce, I find myself in agreement with you. I don't know what else to say!
Snoopy, I agree some, however religion closely linked to abortion and homosexuality have been the standard test for Republicans. Since so much importance has been placed on this issue by Republicans over the years, the Dems appear lacking. I think however the Democratic party does not place good/evil stickers on people based on their religious beliefs. If you have a certain religious belief then fine and if you don‘t that does not mean that you cannot be a member of the party. You don’t have to hold your “I believe in God” card in order to have a seat at the table unlike Republican party.
Amen, sister. And I am puzzled as to what religion the fundamentalists with their obsession with gays & abortion are following. It certainly isn't Christianity.
Good point, Pearl. I do also agree that the republicans of today have an anti-gay test they must pass if they are to be a representative. How they can call themselves the big tent party when they work so hard to exclude everyone not like them is beyond me.
"as strongly as they should have"
Sorry but I disagree that ANY party should do anything to pander to religious zealots. Lots of Christians are pro-choice, those that aren't are in the MINORITY, so what is there to pander?
This is more right-wing nonsense only to try and stir up the EXTREME religious wing of their party.
I think that is a good point as well. That is probably the biggest single factor.
It also seems that many hardcore Christian preachers believe that Christianity deserves a good deal more consideration by the government or that essentially Christians should have more rights than everyone else - often in the guise of a majoritarian-style argument. Republicans have been much more quick to pander to that idiocy. Some Christians have mistaken such ideas as "pro-religion" instead of simply being a self-promoting and self-serving pro-Christian point of view, which is what it really is.
That is not to be mistaken for a criticism of Christianity itself, but more of a criticism of some of its professed followers, who seem genuinely unaware of their self-serving position and how they have been politically manipulated.
Many good Christians do not agree that they need special priveledges and rights, however, they seem to be in the minority.
Could you provide specific examples of Christians wanting special rights? Thanks.
How about enjoying tax-free status and then engaging in partisan politics i.e. Falwell/Robertston.
Does demanding that homosexuals not be allowed any rights count?
Snoop,
To use Fred Phelps, an extremist lunatic, as an example of anything remotely connected with sanity, is ridiculous. Would it be fair of me to put the 9/11 hijackers up as examples of Muslims?
I agree that Phelps is an extreme example, nonetheless Snoopy's main point is still correct. There are countless examples of more mainstream religious conservatives that demonstrate the point just as well.
Would you consider all the frontrunning Democratic candidates for President among them, as they are opposed to giving homosexuals the same marriage rights as heterosexuals? So, they would be "mainstream religious conservatives" in your book, by your definition.
"Would you consider all the frontrunning Democratic candidates for President among them" --tommy
I don't know why I wouldn't, but their positions do seem like progress as opposed to the current situation. I would find it more reprehensible to be for the status quo or taking steps backwards I suppose (especially with regards to judicial appointment philosophy). I am also pragmatic enough to know that such a position like mine would probably keep an otherwise good candidate from being elected - so I can understand their position even if I don't agree with it. I would say the same about the conservatives, but I am less confident about their individual policies regarding judicial appointees.
Perhaps.
But I find it disconcerting that Democratic candidates are so quick to espouse their religious Christian faith openly, so as not to offend or alienate most voters - yet they are not so worried about denying gays their basic marriage civil rights by pandering and placating them with a wink and a nod, for their financial and electoral support.
Well stated. I think the whole thing is pretty sad.
If people aren't ready for it, then the best course of action is to take it in steps. That's the most beneficial thing for the gay community in the long run, as opposed to people losing elections to right-wingers because they stood up for a principle most people don't agree with. I would love to see more politicians argue for gay marriage, but I would also love to see an electorate that was more open to that stance.
"I will say then that I am not, nor have I ever been in the favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I... am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race ... I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position that the negroe should be deprived everything." - Lincoln, 1858
Now, did the great emancipator really believe that black people were inferior? Or did he think that they were equal, but for some strange reason didn't want to argue that they should be socially and politically treated as such?
"He stated that the inferior races were equal in their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but he also knew that it was impossible to produce a perfect social and political equality between black and white races."
Lincoln could have just come out and said that not only should there be no slavery, but black people should have equal rights. That may have been political suicide, in which case the progress he made may have taken much longer. Likewise, it's impossible to produce an equality between gay and straight people in our current climate. You take the progress you can get, and play for the future, instead of sacrificing it on the altar of principle.
Gee, Tommy, you conveniently forgot to find it disconcerting that Republican candidates are [also] so quick to espouse their religious Christian faith openly, so as not to offend or alienate most voters…but you habitually do that, at times with an oft-put covert invective being your dismissive mea culpa. You are transparent
I thought it fair considering open's point was about minorities of christian groups wanting special favors.
Just off of the top of my head, Roy Moore wanting to put a 5300lb. monument to the ten commandments and disallow any other displays of other religions' or non-religions in his courthouse in Alabama.
Having crosses on public land such as in San Diego, but not allowing similar expressions of other faiths to have equal footing. Christian displays at Christmas time without other groups allowed to put up their displays.
Relegating homosexuals to second class citizens with regards to basic civil rights like marriage and privacy because they do not share certain beliefs.
Arguing the Christian creation myth should be taught as "science" in school as the absolute word of God and evolution should not be taught.
Arguing that sectarian prayers at government meetings is okay.
Arguing for (Christian) prayer in school against the rights of atheist parents to raise their children as they wish.
Arguing that the words "under God" belong in the Pledge of Allegiance despite atheists' supposed equal right to freedom of religion.
Not allowing anyone to buy alcohol from the liquor store or grocery on Sunday in many states including all the ones I've lived in.
In each of those few examples, Christians have argued that their religious beliefs supercede other secular or non-Christian rights and/or priveledges.
I'm aware of some of those things and not others. Me may disagree on whether or not some of that is considered "special rights".
Are you equally against the muslim faith asking for special considerations regarding their religion as well? I.E. special prayer areas, not processing certain items at checkout counters, not transporting passengers in taxis that are carrying alcohol, that kind of thing.
I wouldn't have a problem with special prayer areas, but the other things you mentioned have already been struck down by the courts. Reasonable is the key. It's reasonable to make allowances for their prayer and washing needs both on religious and sanitary (the washing) grounds. The other stuff was unreasonable.
"Are you equally against the muslim faith asking for special considerations regarding their religion as well? I.E. special prayer areas, not processing certain items at checkout counters, not transporting passengers in taxis that are carrying alcohol, that kind of thing."--bruce
Actually I think you hit the nail on the head. One of the reasons I oppose special rights and priveledges for Christians (often disguised as pure majoritarian arguments) is that as a Christian myself, I don't want a new majority of a different faith locally or nationally to use such preferential rights for themselves at my expense if/when they become a majority.
So no. I do not want special rights for muslims. However, I do expect the government to make similar accommodations to Muslims that they already do for Christians and for secular reasons such as basic safety or health concerns.
Your other examples regard the private sector and should probably be settled between employees and employer without government interference. I am not a lawyer and I am only aware of a similar case involving Christian pharmacists who refuse to give out prescriptions for birth control and/or "the morning after pill". I don't know how that turned out, but I would expect the same principles to apply to Muslims insofar as the cases are similar.
Yeah, that whole checkout counter thing cuts both ways. Where I live, if you buy beer at the grocery store, and the cashier is under 21, you have to stand there and wait while someone over 21 comes and waves the beer over the scanner. The minor can stock the beer on the shelves, collect the money for the beer, put the beer in the bag and put the beer in your car, but they can't scan it. I think that is the height of stupidity. Where did such a law come from? My guess is that it was a concession to the troglodytes so that they would approve beer sales in grocery stores.
I also used the analogy between a Muslim checker and a Christian pharmacist. That analogy may be even too weak considering that there are far fewer pharmacists in locations than there are checkers. Suppose a checker won't scan your beer, you would just call a manager, another checker or whatever to do it, right? If your pharmacist won't give you your prescriptions, there is a much greater chance you won't get your medicine at all depending if there is another non-Christian fundamentalist pharmacist somewhere nearby or not.
I would think the Christian pharmacist's refusal would be much worse in that comparison.
"Me may disagree on whether or not some of that is considered "special rights".--bruce
Actually, if you read my post you replied to, I mentioned "special rights and priveledges". I chose to include a few examples of priveledges as that was my original contention.
I realize the list wasn't exhaustive either. I am sure I have missed many examples that are even more obvious. I don't have a lot of time today for research.
The right to hold their religious study groups in our public school buildings...when they have churches on every corner with ample seating. The right to post their Ten Commandments on every school room and court room in the land, even though 7 of the 10 violate the Constitution. The right to discriminate against anyone not professing faith to an old Jewish war god.
Ever talk to a hardcore Dominionist? They wants a Bible-based psycho state with re-education camps for all non-"Christians". They got a political group, the Council for National Policy, Helms, Falwell and Robertsons members. It's First Amendment versus First Commandment. They are incompatable. It's freedom of religion over dominance by one god.
Amzing how much falls into the Law of Opposites. Lao Tzu was surely right.
Your claptrap biliousness redking, festooned with a yokel’s invective, soils Lao Tzu’s words. And just where do you get off with, “an old Jewish war god” and “their [Christian-versioned] Ten Commandments”? You’ll, of course, deny any anti-Semitic underpinnings. And your hackneyed editorial closing belies Loa Tzu’s, “To realize that you do not understand is a virtue; Not to realize that you do not understand is a defect.”
I'm honestly not sure what you find so offensive about that post.
For starters, “an old Jewish war god” then redking’s fallacious, “It's First Amendment versus First Commandment. They are incompatable [sic]. It's freedom of religion over dominance by one god.” I realize I’ve had my head handed back to me by individuals here. Whether by other liberals, some congested with blind indignation, or by attempts from those smarmy, foul smelling trolls, who wheedle their slop anew while grimacing Gollum-like. Nevertheless, his non sequitur tirade was a moot point, albeit hackneyed, leaving nothing…only besmearing Lao Tzu.
That didn't exactly clarify anything. I'm not sure "old jewish war god" is wholly inaccurate, as far as the origins of God as portrayed in the Old Testament. If it is, say so. As far as "First amendment vs. first commandment", there's nothing fallacious about that. I believe the comment was in response to a question about special rights for Christians, and he's talking about people who are trying to impose their beliefs on everyone. It's not a non sequitur, and it's not a commentary on the nature of all Christians, as far as I can see.
But which of the two parties seems more concerned with "The Sermon on The Mount"?
Again, while MM paints this interview as a slam against the Dems, if you listen to the entire segment, Matthew paints President Bush as a some sort of nutty, Christian "Crusader" who thinks he's "messianic." (Get a better picture of the interview here.)
A misleading post by MM, IMHO. Matthews totally went after President Bush and his Christianity.
What is misleading? Is MMFA not allowed to point out what they consider to be conservative misinformation in one part of the show because Matthews said something bad about the president on some other part of the show?
That doesn't make any sense. The remarks about Bush have nothing to do with the remarks in question here. Any "painting" of the situation by MMFA appears to simply be you jumping to false conclusions and blaming MMFA for your mistake.
You clearly don't understand the point of this posting. It has nothing to do with what bush has or hasn't done.
No it isnt misleading. It is completely irrelevant what he said about Bush. What he said about Democrats was pure BS and flat out misinformation. He could follow that up by saying the GOP worships the Sun and it would STILL be irrelevant to the misinformation about Dems.
Only religious lunatics
The subject being the place of religious belief in American politics; more specifically, the question of just how much religious belief might influence an American's vote, for president (or whomever)...
The inclusion that "given that some 90 percent of Americans say that they believe in God"...
...is worse than unbelievable (and unsubstantiated), it is HORSESHIT.
Are you kidding me?
You are trying to assert that 9 out of 10 American respondents answer the question of "Do you believe in God?"
...9 out of 10 say "Yes"?
That assertion is so flawed and unsubstantiated, as to make every word that follows it, just the more reason for being "delegated to other duties" or "re-assigned in mind of skills" or "asked to perform reception duties" or whatever flowery way editors today put knuckleheads out of the way...
"We are 90% GOD's faithful?"
...even GOD was never so stupid, as to say such a thing.
Polls are always flawed when they don't give the answers you think they should.
But to be clear, a "belief in God" is not synonymous with being a Churchgoing person or a Christian or even a decent human being.
I'm frankly surprised at your response, given that polling is scientific and the answer to this polling question has been consistent for a long time. Isn't scientific evidence accepted around here? I thought it was.
Which god? There's sooooo many.
The country club Republicans realized some time ago that they had an easily-manipulated voter block in Fundamentalist Christians. Overall, these people tend to be black and white thinkers who are willing to vote against their own best interest to further a "Godly agenda". After all, they think the world will end soon anyway. The Republicans have become very adept at using emotional social issues to get these people to the polls. Add to that the further alienation of Southern Conservatives by the Civil Rights Act, and the GOP had a reliable base of ignorant reactionaries on which to build their majority.
As a part of their manipulation, the Republican Dittobots have fostered the myth that Democrats hate God and all things religious. The truth is that most Democrats are religious to some extent, but don't feel the need to force their religion on others, or seek state sponsorship for their beliefs. Democrats are more in tune with the true spirit of Religious freedom as it was invisioned by the authors of the Constitution. This has left them vulnerable to this kind of bogus attack.
"Overall, these people tend to be black and white thinkers who are willing to vote against their own best interest to further a "Godly agenda". "
I disagree with that. Their own best interest is paramount among these people, but it's their flawed perception of what IS their own best interest that is the impetus for their actions.
When your view of the world is based on an intervening supreme being capable of ending your life and sending you to hell for eternity, your best interest would be appeasing said supreme being, whatever it takes, and at anyone elses expense.
The contrast between the democrats being reluctant to concede to this group and the republicans who shamelessly pander to them is a good indicator of the values and morals of each party. And the chasm between the two will contrinue to grow as our scientific knowledge progresses even while others still cling to their traditional beliefs.
Neon awesome post!
Good point made...although I care little about either party...We need a society free of fear and injustice...unfortunately the religious zealots stand in our way... I have always wondered...why do people believe in religion. What sort of phenomenon would cause people to follow something so improbable and irrational. I don't mean to sound offensive but I would like an honest answer. Why do people believe in religion?
That question probably has a very complicated answer. I think many people today blindly accept religious teachings passed on to them by their parents. They grow up with it, it's comfortable, so they never let go of it. Some find themselves in crisis and turn to God out of desperation. God will tell you whatever your subconscious wants Him to...He's the ultimate psychological placebo. I'm sure there are some who arrive at their religious devotion by logical deduction, but I doubt there are very many of these. Logical thought is the enemy of religious dogma.
A lot of people find that religion gives their life meaning and purpose.
BGC origins of religon, probably a book shelf full of thoughts on this.
Imagine yourself way way back when, turning away from instinct, observing the world arround you and trying to make sense of the world you inhabit, and finding so much that you don't understand. Enter religon to fill the gap.
And, let's not forget that religion has been used throughout history to maintain control over the masses. The Republicans find it useful for this purpose even today. In fact, William F. Buckley admitted as much a few years back. If I can find the quote, I'll post a link to it.
Barry,
Anything can be corrupted and religion is no different, I think the entanglement of religion and politics and this trend of prosperity ministries (Jesus didn't have money and didn't talk about money) has left a sour taste in a lot of us and that includes myself, but that doesn’t change the fact that many religious people have had positive effect on US society. The abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement were spearheaded by religious people. Now I know your question was why do people need Religion and I think no one person can answer because there is no one answer. I enjoy my faith, I was raised in the traditional Baptist faith, Sunday school, bible study the whole nine yards and I remember most of it fondly. As I grew up and began to use the mind that God blessed me with I became far more spiritual than I am an adherent to religious rituals if you will, although I still take communion and I enjoy some of the church traditions including gospel music. Nevertheless I questioned things and to the dismay of some of my bible study teachers I had real questions. I concluded that the bible was written by well intentioned but flawed human beings from an ancient society and they introduced the flaws of their society and their lack of understanding of the world around them into that book. It’s ridiculous to look back at the bible and look for answers about stem cells and even abortion although many have extrapolated certain bible passages to support their opinions on these issues. And the Gay thing well the people of that time had a tendency to lump anything that they didn’t understand as somehow being attributed to Satan. Yet my faith gives me comfort and peace and it calms me and makes me reflective. I’m not perfect by any means, none of us are but I believe my faith makes me more conscious on how my actions will impact others particularly with the big stuff and I honestly think Jesus is a great example to emulate whether you’re a Christian are not so WWJD is very real for me. Religion and faith is a very personal thing and I like you don’t understand people who think they have a right to impose their personal beliefs on others and that society is obligated to be structured based on your personal religious beliefs. I’m not one of those types of Christians. BTW my apologies for the length of the post.Dont appologize it was a great post. Very thoughtful with many good points. We seem to have a lot in common.
Country club Republicans are fundamentalist "Christians". They are theo-nazis on Crusade against the infidel for Jerusalem. America must join with Israel in destroying the moslem races and Jesus will return and turn the lands into lakes of gore! Then the white races will rule again. How dare those savages rule us by owning all the oil?
This be our enemy. Racism is the core of their beings, sociopathy their lifes-blood. They're insane. Literally. They'll be crucifying Jesus for millenia more to come, I fear.
If the Democrats have refused to pander to irrational magical thinkers, more power to'em. Enough Ooga-Booga in our secular republic.
The disdain showed by many Democrats here for the religious views of others tends to lend credibility to the comments by Matthews and Duffy.
Is there not equal disdain among Fundamentalists for the religious views of others? Read some of their literature. You'll find scathing attacks on Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism...anything which varies from their own narrow-minded interpretation of the Biblical fairy tales.
I don't read fundamentalist religious literature so I'll take your word for it.
Even if that is so, it doesn't take away from the point I made.
Your apples & oranges” statement cannot begin to camouflage the [seething] contempt you have.
Most Democrats do not show disdain for the beliefs of others, unless those beliefs are being imposed on us.
Whatever you're feelings are about homosexuals, abortion, Terri Schiavo, etc. Most of us respect your views.
As long as they're not codified into law.
That's the meat of it, Worrierking. The not-too-subtle difference between posters here voicing their opinions, and others trying to impose their opinions.
As many times as I've seen it explained very clearly here, the hypersensitive religious types continue to see their statements of belief as a guaranteed right in this country (and they're correct), but see those who post opposing views as "disdainful".
I agree with you about "most" Democrats.
However your second statement about codifying into law gives you away and separates you from "most". By segueing into a polite rant regarding that beliefs should not be codified into law, tells me that it okay as long as it is your beliefs that are codified.
After all, are not laws codifications of someone's beliefs?
Do you disdain all Judeo-Christian beliefs codified into law? It seems to me that if that is the case you need to rethink your position.
I should have prefaced my reply to tell readers it was for Worrier. Sorry for the confusion.
"After all, are not laws codifications of someone's beliefs?"
Are they? It's not that people "believe" murder is wrong, it's that it's obvious you can't let people do it without consequences. Your logic allows the idea that since all laws are based on someone's beliefs, you might as well go with the religious ones. Beliefs are beliefs, there's no objective criteria to discriminate between them.
"Do you disdain all Judeo-Christian beliefs codified into law? It seems to me that if that is the case you need to rethink your position."
Law is not based on religious beliefs. The fact that "thou shalt not kill" corresponds to laws against murder is a matter of coincidence, not causation. To demonstrate, variations of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are found in many other religions, because more than one group of people came up with the same basic tenet of humanity.
Exactly. Some of our laws do correspond to certain religious beliefs, but few remain which are based only on Religion. There are still many places which don't allow beer sales on Sunday, as one example. Such laws are clearly unconstitutional, but they are gradually disappearing.
As you point out, laws against murder, theft, etc. find their justification in common human logic, and are not dependent on revelation from any God.
It's unconstitutional to not be able to buy beer on Sunday?
Of course. What common-sense societal explanation is there for it? None. If it's based on a religious premise, then it's government establishment of one faith over another.
Why not ban beer sales on Saturday? That's the Shabbat, after all.
Doesn't Shabbat start on Friday at sundown and end when the 3 stars appear in the sky on Saturday? So much for that Judeo-Christian solidarity.
Besides, how can anyone argue that Muslim cashiers should ring up alcohol against their beliefs any day of the week when the government does the exact same thing on a much bigger scale on Sunday?
"Why not ban beer sales on Saturday? That's the Shabbat, after all."
Unfortunately, Brabantio, you belie any understanding and discredit others rather brusquely.
As well does OpenMind, with a careless & dismissive tone, “So much for that Judeo-Christian solidarity. The italics was rather bitchy. Yet, that remark about “Muslim cashiers” demonstrates lack forethought, somewhat worthy of a barfly.
So what do each of you condone…after removing the respective hypocrisies?
Hmm. I don't think I was really rude at all here, just answering Bruce's question. Generally I think he's one of the best conservative posters here, and I'm on record saying so, so I wasn't trying to "discredit" him.
"Judeo" was in italics because I mentioned the Shabbat. I think that was pretty clear. And I brought up the Shabbat because it underscores the unfairness of the law we were talking about. Beer sales are not allowed on Sunday because it's the Christian day of rest, which is what makes it unconstitutional. If beer sales were banned during the period of the Shabbat, that would be the government favoring that religious interest instead.
As far as the Muslim check-out comment, that's a valid point. It's hard to criticize someone for refusing to handle liquor if you think people shouldn't do so on Sunday for your own personal religious reasons.
You seem to have a strange hypersensitivity to any mention of anything religious at all today. I have no idea what hypocrisies you think you were pointing out, because you don't make any effort to actually explain the issues you have with the comments. Although if we're talking about hypocrisy, it seems odd that you chastise me for a lack of understanding and trying to discredit Open_Mind for saying something "worthy of a barfly". It's pretty clear you are misunderstanding something here, and being brusque in your responses.
As far as what I condone, I think any law which arbitrarily designates Sunday as a day of exception is unconstitutional. Regarding someone who refuses to scan beer because they're Muslim, I would honestly say they are in the wrong job and shouldn't be afforded any protection because of it. Ultimately, one's religion is one's own choice. You can't expect employers or customers to conform to that. If that was really acceptable, I would become a scientologist pharmacist (I'm stealing that from someone), and get paid for doing nothing.
Does any of that help to clarify things for you?
Just pointing out that there is no legitimate secular reason to ban alcohol sales for religious reasons. I don't quite see what your point is, to be perfectly honest.
There is no apparent reasonable basis for such a law. It appears to be based solely on religious considerations and serves no real secular purpose. It is not much different than those Muslims who refused to ring up your beer/liquor. Just an extension of people pushing their own beliefs on you as far as I am concerned, but even worse, by the force of government.
It probably isn't Constitutional unless you can come up with a legitimate secular reason why Beer cannot be sold in a store after 12am Sunday morning through 11:59pm Sunday evening. You might be able to come up with a secular reason for not selling beer/liquor period, but why just on those particular hours? Curious.
No it doesnt nothing said by anyone here short of Howard Dean making an appearance has anything to do with their statement which was the DEMOCRATS were alienating religious voters which is demonstrably false as well as just plain dumb.
Not to argue too fine of a point, but there is a HUGE difference between Biden saying Kerry and Gore "let themselves be protrayed as anti-God" and Tweety saying that Kerry and Gore "created an image that they were somehow...not really religious people."
Is Mattews really that stupid? Biden was saying that others were portraying Kerry and Gore in a certain way and their fault was that they allowed it, implying that it wasn't true.
Tweety swallowed the bait (and the hook) and declared as fact that what others said about the two actually was TRUE of the them. All in the name of "equal whack for both parties." Thanks for the whack.
Funny how those guys tend to forget Jesus was a lot more into feeding the poor and helping to downtrodden and a lot less into gay marriage and school prayer.
I'm a Christian, and my faith compels me to be a Democrat. Matthews and Crew may look down from their lofty perch and say that Democrats don't favor the religious because we don't behave the way the faithful should. perhaps Matthews would do better to read the words of Jesus Christ and take the meaning of faith from them rather than from right wing blather.
Duffy makes a valid point - The Democrats (on balance) have been tilting to the secular left. Likewise, the Republicans have (on balance) been tilting to the religious right.
Is there really any disagreement that the Dems are more secular than the Reps?
The best evidence I can point to is this topic/thread. How many times have evangelical/fundamentalist beliefs and values been mocked and ridiculed? I lost count.
To the extent that secular leftists want to understand conservative Christians you might want to check out this web site: http://www.barna.org/
http://thehill.com/david-hill/polling-religions-role-in-04-2004-12-08.html
Barna estimated that although born-again Americans constitute only 38 percent of the population, they cast 53 percent of the votes and supported George Bush 62 percent to 38 percent. Barna said evangelicals are just 7 percent of the age-eligible electorate but cast 11 percent of the votes, choosing Bush by a 70-point margin. Barna’s full analysis (available at www.barna.org) concludes that born-again Christians were a significant factor in President Bush’s reelection. His conclusion seems more informed than Pew’s.
Dems have alienated the religious fanatics and American Taliban. That's a difference. Unfortunately Duffy has lost his touch with reality.