« News You're Not Seeing | Main | Amazing Feats Of Eating »

Why Democrats Still Don't Get The Religious

This morning I'm going to experiment with "Do-it-yourself" blogging. I'm way to busy to write it up at length, but two stories in today's NY Times present a rather interesting juxtaposition.

In this story, we hear the Democrats are making great strides to pander to the the religious people of the country after they got their hats handed to them in November. -but from the same issue- We get this story about how even though Bush mentions religion less than Clinton, the Democrats hate him for it.

Then consider the number of Democrats who believe that telling children to think is some sort of religious doctrine and you have the problem the Democrats face.

They want to pander to the religious like they do the gays, the unions and assorted minorities but the religious can not be bought off with election cycle platitudes. When the Democrats are "religious hostile" in everything they do and say, it makes it real hard for them to get votes from the religious folks come election time.

Read the two stories, you'll see their dilemma.

Note: I'm not overtly religious but I do have enough commonsense to understand that if you spend three years insulting people for their beliefs, then a year asking for their vote based on their beliefs, you probably are not going to get it. Apparently nobody in the entirety of the Democrat party has figured that out.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Democrats Still Don't Get The Religious:

» Secure Liberty linked with Religion And Politics

» cut on the bias linked with Teddy Kennedy, A Man of Faith

Comments (45)

What is more insulting than... (Below threshold)

What is more insulting than being called names for our faith or ridiculed as some sort of inbred, ignorant hillbilly - is being pandered to by the left, but yet to have them arrogantly proclaim their own lack of need or interest in God. People of faith can tolerate differences of opionion in the area of faith. However, pride and arrogance are contrary to everything the Bible proclaims. Real humility would go a long way in making democrats more appealing to the right.

The reason that the lefties... (Below threshold)
Michael:

The reason that the lefties continuously bash religion really boils down to their own lack of confidence, if you will. For instance, you don't really hear about orthodox Jews complaining about a nativity scene or Christmas tree. Because the sight of it doesn't shake them up. They have confidence in their own faith, therefore symbols of other faiths in the public setting don't bother them. But, almost every time you hear about a lefty complaining about such a religious scene and claiming that they don't want to see it because they are Jewish, it is coming from someone who hasn't seen the inside of a synagogue since their Bar/Bas Mitzvah (assuming they had one).

Though I see the lefts' point in a lot of issues, I can't agree with them entirely. They used to perform a pretty good service as a check-and-balance from the opposite end, just as the right-end of the spectrum performs against the left. But, in their current state, the left is a stinking mess.

BTW, I'm someone who has and currently do live in the most liberal of places in America: San Francisco and currently Ann Arbor, MI. I used to consider myself liberal until I was kicked out by the nut cases and informed that I'm actually a conservative partisan, hate-mongering, religious nut. The only thing is, not one of my opinions about anything has changed, just the lefties. Therefore, I was one of the 6% in my precinct who voted for Bush...may his name be blessed. :-)

We get this story about ... (Below threshold)

We get this story about how even though Bush mentions religion less than Clinton, the Democrats hate him for it.

The reason for this phenomenon is obvious. They knew Clinton didn't mean it, and they know Bush does. So Bush could never mention religion at all and he would still be pilloried as a Jesus nut.

Gee, I wonder what the left... (Below threshold)
julie:

Gee, I wonder what the left would say about Martin Luther King, today, since he was always invoking the name of God and quoting from the Bible

I think you are exactly rig... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I think you are exactly right on this. The religious, as much as the anti religiuos left would like to think of us as sheeple who can't think for themselves, recognize pure pandering when we see it.

Also, the lefties pander to other groups, but they are not generally hostile to those groups during the off election years, while they are generally hostile to religion.

I think Bush absolutely scares them, because Bush does seem to mean what he says, when he talks about his faith.

Sometimes it seems like the left is full of people who are too easily offended, and who seem to be scared of anything remotely religious-or at least Christian.

The far left still doesn't ... (Below threshold)

The far left still doesn't get it, do they? One doesn't have to be Christian to subscribe to many of the same values as Christians. One doesn't have to be Republican to be Christian. Religion is not what has my knickers in a knot about the Left. I'm no so against all Democrats. I'm against the far left that hijacked the party. While I voted FOR Bush, I was also voting AGAINST a few things:

1) I voted against the constant badgering of political correctness. I'm tired of it. It's goes beyond reasonable and has become totally ridiculous. As a matter of fact, let me make it known right now that I wish no longer to be referred to as "freckled". I want to be referred to as "one with skin clusters". There. Take that.

2) I voted against allowing one disgruntled parent to make policy for an entire school district because someone said the word "God" while on campus.

3) I voted against those who would strip us of our parental rights to know when our child seeks an abortion but insist we're notified when they want a piercing.

4) I voted against those who shout "free speech!" and wish to silence those who simply say "Aw, shutup!"

To only name a few.

Calling the Democrats relig... (Below threshold)
Adam:

Calling the Democrats religiously-hostile is too specific. The problem is actually, IMO, one of moral hostility [e.g., Kos]. I realize to a certain extent morals (where morals and ethics are different) are not _necessarily_ present without religion, but for the sake of argument, given that many's worldview does not necessarily coalesce with logic, let's assume morals can be present without it. Combining the problems we often see on conservative blogs (academic leftism, inappropriate modes of teaching, general closemindedness, ad nauseum), we find not so much the desire of the left to keep people from thinking, but moreso to keep people from _feeling,_ to keep people from going with their intuition. Intuition which, of course, would ironically be one of our best judgments of reality vis-a-vis natural selection/evolution.

The problem with evolution is not here some great overriding task. Democrats are not afraid for your children to think about something other than merely evolution. In fact, I'm willing to wager that the majority genuinely don't care what you believe about the process by which humans came to be. They do care about your willingness to accept any hypothesis (scientifically valid or not) which permits for the establishment of moral poles of right and wrong. Only when those poles are demolished (or never presented in the first place) can the left systematically present its own bizarre ethos as, ahem, gospel. Why must they do this? Because it holds up to reason no more than religion does -- i.e. it starts from a sort of Arendtian paradigmatic assumption which, in demolishing all grounds of judgment, proposes that all things become equal (I state it this way because it isn't precisely relativism). Except those things which promote the idea that _all_ things are not always equal -- these are deficient and deserve to be attacked. [If you doubt this, do a brief scan of Dem vitriole over the last decade; there's an interesting correlation between any _judgment_ (whether ethical or moral) and the distances which their hackles rise from their skin.]

Anyway, I have a bad habit of typing too much, so I'll cut this short. I've probably worded this badly enough as to be incoherent (re: not sufficiently drawn out why I think it's moral/not religious), but I've still not finished my second cup of coffee, so I might come back and try later.

Adam I think I get what you... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Adam I think I get what you are arguing.

Probably the better word would be they are hostile to moral absolutes. Religions for the most part deal in moral aboslutes-where certain things are always wrong.

The non religious or even religious liberals don't want to deal with moral absolutes. They have morals and beliefs, but they want to decide which morals and beliefs are important, and they are hostile to any group that would say differently.

I know some very moral and non religious people-but they are hostile to the idea that anything is an absolute.

Adam, quit using such big w... (Below threshold)

Adam, quit using such big words! I feel intimidated. ;-)

Well, I agree with what Ada... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Well, I agree with what Adam and JustMe wrote...

It IS an issue of moral absoluteness that drives people to and among liberalism and liberals (Democrats, the Green Party) and continues their hate and animosities for religious people and especially Republicans, which has become the safest party for most who are Christians based upon this quagmire of moral absolutes or lack thereof.

Generalizing, I realize -- some who say they are Christians remain identified as liberals and Democrats but then again, it's a question of thier recognition of moral absolutes as affiliated with Christianity, or lack thereof because in my experience, people who self label as Christians are also intolerant of Christianity's morality and, ahem, moral absolutism and so rationalize either their politics or their faith label or both -- but to agree with this point here, if you are estranged from accepting both the concept of moral absolutism and your own beliefs as being morally absolute, for WHATever reason, you are repelled by those who do believe in moral absolutism and live their lives in acceptance of that.

The country provides freedom of religion but to the perspective of those who disdain moral absolutism, that means that there 'should be' a freedom from religion, that that means that their environment 'should be' free from religious references to....moral absolutes that others support and believe in.

The country and our Constitution is a living thing, it's a representation of our human society. People escaped intolerance for and about moral absolutes to found the United States and that's what the Constitution ensures, or supposedly does.

However, those who are actually pushing their own form of religious intolerance also motivate their own form of "religious" fervor that is based in intolerance of religious absolutes and those who believe in them, freely I might add.

You can't have human conditions and relationships without individuals. Education, public places, all of those are an aspect of human relaitionships. The left seems to only want their form of human relationships allowed and included and about the rest, they are intolerant.

Just Me: Perhaps. I was me... (Below threshold)
Adam:

Just Me: Perhaps. I was meaning to imply moral absolutes with the use of the word poles, since usually there is some sense of dualistic poles in any given morality. I actually would have to question you though on whether people with the assumptions of which I was originally speaking have any morals whatsoever. I would claim they do not. This does not mean they are guideless; they most certainly have ethics. I think the distinction is important, but the two are more or less conflated in most discussion. I mediated much of my original commenting given I was in a rush at the moment and also didn't want to start a flame war (not that many liberals inhabit these realms).

The point I was trying to get across is that those on the far left (I don't speak of Democrats in general; I know many Democrats who share very little with these people) want standards in general to be removed on the basis that no one has the _right_ to judge. Evolution, all the bit with the teachers, etc. -- I think these things are all subsumed under that one, singular idea(l). I also think the distinction between _thinking_ and _feeling_ is a huge part of this. And keep in mind by feeling I mean intuition and gut urge, not the more primal type of hedonistic revelry so prevalent in circles of people my own age. Anyway, I'm probably just singing to the choir, so I'll not go any further.

Oyster: My apologies on the big word bit, if you were serious. :) When I'm going quickly I forget which words are most commonly used and default to the language I'd use in, say, my journal. I really dislike when people use big words for absolutely no good reason since the point of communication is to get your idea across and you can't do that if everyone can't understand you. That response is only if you were not joking, otherwise, ignore my blather :)

TYPO: I wrote earlier and ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

TYPO: I wrote earlier and dropped some copy and that changed my entire line of thought expressed earlier comments. Sorry.

I wrote this:
"...some who say they are Christians remain identified as liberals and Democrats but then again, it's a question of thier recognition of moral absolutes as affiliated with Christianity, or lack thereof because in my experience, people who self label as Christians are also intolerant of Christianity's morality and, ahem, moral absolutism and so rationalize either their politics or their faith label or both..."

WHAT I MEANT TO WRITE IS THIS:
"...some EXIST who say they are Christians WHO ALIGN WITH THE DNC/VOTE AS DEMOCRATS AND REMAIN IDENTIFIED AS liberals and Democrats but then again, it's a question of thier recognition of moral absolutes as affiliated with Christianity, or lack thereof because in my experience, people who self label as Christians are also intolerant of Christianity's morality and, ahem, moral absolutism and so rationalize either their politics or their faith label or both..."

Singing to the choir.... Go... (Below threshold)
Adam:

Singing to the choir.... God....

I should probably also mention just to be straightforward and honest that I am:

1) Not a conservative (though I'm often accused of such by liberals who don't wish to hear my reason for disagreeing with them).
2) Not in any way religious.
3) Think Creationism (Creationism _proper,_ not necessarily the idea that a god could have created everything) is a crock and that evolution is almost certainly the best explanation for how we came to be.
4) Intolerant of intolerant people.... and the Dutch. :P

-S-,Some people ha... (Below threshold)
Adam:

-S-,

Some people have no understanding of their own stated belief systems. I give little credence to what most people proclaim themselves to be. It somewhat upsets me in general when one claims a particular religion or party affiliation and knows most literally _nothing,_ about it. I'd wager this is the majority of people, especially in this country. But that's an entirely different topic.

Perhaps if a middleground between complete ignorance and demogoguery could be established everything would run a lot smoother.

Gotta get some more work done. Will check back later.

"The reason for this phenom... (Below threshold)

"The reason for this phenomenon is obvious. They knew Clinton didn't mean it, and they know Bush does. So Bush could never mention religion at all and he would still be pilloried as a Jesus nut."
Posted by: McGehee at January 17, 2005 09:13 AM

"Gee, I wonder what the left would say about Martin Luther King, today, since he was always invoking the name of God and quoting from the Bible"
Posted by: julie at January 17, 2005 10:04 AM

Two of the best points so far.

The left is perfectly okay with people being Christians... as long as Christians reject everything in the Bible that disagrees with the leftists' beliefs and agenda.

Argh...busy this morning, s... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Argh...busy this morning, sorry, must focus on typing here:

For instance and as good example of this issue, John Kerry in this last election (and throughout his lifetime, from what I've read) is someone who claims a self label of "Catholic" and yet he continues on to then promote the counter of what the Church teaches, instructs and what Christianity requires. He denigrates moral absolutism and then promotes many contrary, even openly defiant tenets among the very moral tenets that Christianity explains as required morality, and yet continues to promote himself as "a Catholic, a Christian" who disdains the very requirements for that identity.

And, that's Kerry and the references there/here, in his case, were/are to those practices of faith and yet with liberals it is the same dismissal of tenets regarding the religious absolutism involved (Kerry was the candidate, Lieberman wasn't, is my point)...Pelosi and others similar, Kennedy and all, same thing as with Kerry: they espose themselves as people of a labelled religous practice and yet continue on to defy those very moral absolutes that their avowed faith requires. Meaning, they appear utterly profane in their references to faith in that process.

Which is what drives most among religious individuals to the Republican Party, where, at least, you can believe in moral absolutes and a consistency with your faith principles and not be called one of many pejoratives for the process and commitments.

It's interesting, as an example here, that Kerry attends a Paulist parish that has stricken from their ceremony the very heart of the Catholic faith and celebration of Mass, and that is the Profession of Faith. Sticken...meaning, those who attend there aren't asked to recite the Professin of Faith which includes a recap of the moral absolutes of the faith. It's a convenient avoidance that makes for a comforting environment, perhaps -- I can't speak for the Bishop in that particular area here -- it's a feel good, comforting non challenging celebration that makes no requirements of anyone attending to actually declare anything.

Meaning, that particular pr... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Meaning, that particular procedure avoids declaring moral absolutes and reinforces the human experience by not challenging the human experience, meaning, it's a humanist 'celebration'. Humanism. Not Catholicism.

Adam: whether you are pres... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Adam: whether you are present or not I'll try to respond/comment upon a few of the points you raised here.

And share that I am a Catholic, a Christian, who supports, accepts and believes in the moral absolutes of my faith, in practice and ideology.

Morality and ethics are not the same thing.

Religious beliefs incorporate both morality and ethics but they are not the motivating method, but the byproduct, the result of, religious belief.

And, belief requires a reliance on the religious concepts and principles (which is what "faith" is in a religous sense) and not a reliance on one's human persuasions, whatever they may be.

You can have a very 'ethical' person, someone of great 'morality' in an ethical sense (says what he'll/she'll do, then does it, moralizes standards of expectations, etc.) who is entirely devoid of religous faith and recognitions and so have we found many times over in our human world.
These are not at all the same issues, is what I mean, and it is quite possible and has taken place many times in our human population whereby quite 'moral' and 'ethical' people are responsible for waging quite hideous acts against others and themselves by attempting to compensate for their actions (make them 'right') by relying on a humanistic reference (the "I am moral and ethical and therefore I can do this/that becuase of my position as a moral and/or ethical person" -- same line of reason I believe used by persons such as Usama bin Laden) (who also is, as did Kerry, defying the religious principles/moral absolutes of the faith he says he affiliates with, and yet justifies actions based upon 'morality' and such without regard to religioius, moral absolutes).

And, the majority of people, I can speak about Americans here, are religious. It's a fallacy of leftism to perpetuate the "most people aren't religous" line of rationalization because it's not so. Most people have a sense of religious absolutes and respect them and thus, a great deal of compromise in human personality about those absolutes.

But, the driving motivation by those in the left in our world today is based upon the abandonment of moral absolutes and the assumption, wrongly, that "most people" can't recognize the differences and/or abandon moral absolutes.

Most people don't, is what I mean, but to what extent they include a religious dedication to a set of principles otherwise, that's the question.

-S-, any chance you could p... (Below threshold)
Adam:

-S-, any chance you could post a link in regards to Kerry's church? I don't really take politicians' religious affiliation or attendance seriously, but if what you say is correct in regards to the elision of the Profession of Faith, I _have_ to have a link to that for banter with some friends. I've long said that no matter my opinion of Bush, I'd rather have voted for a wombat than John Kerry given what I knew about him and his "stances." I often encountered the "Kerry's a Catholic!" argument, and while it was ridiculously easy to destroy that one, it would be interesting to go back to the same people and be able to show them the information about Kerry's actual church.

Since I don't have time to Google at the moment.... You said a Paulist church. Do they all do the same? I've a pretty good grasp on almost all denominations of Christianity, but I'd not heard of a Catholic church division that had eliminated a quarter of the purpose of the Mass.

And, my reference here and ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, my reference here and the context that includes to and about John Kerry as example of these points is not about Kerry's religious beliefs but about his character. A person asking to be President needs to be examined more closely as to character and ideology and how those two areas mesh in that one person than do others.

It wasn't that Kerry was one religion or another but that his promotions toward the polar opposites of issues that the religious he claimed to support, his promotions and endorsement of those polar opposites reveals a character issue of concern to many.

Same thing applied to Clinton in the Presidency.

However, with George Bush, he says what he believes and appears to believe in consistently the requirements of the faith that he adheres to. Big difference.

Let's see...Catholic Kerry ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Let's see...Catholic Kerry Watch is a good place to start.

You can't easily criticise the principles of faith of a religion, however, without first interacting to a finer point about those principles. Such that, it's impossible to get into any meaningful, specific discussion with anyone on a comment section of someone else's blog (here). But, Catholic Kerry Watch is a site that is created and maintained by Catholics and for a specific reason, provides most ready references that many non affiliated can understand.

There's a portion of the celebration of Mass in the Catholic Church that requires that those attending, participating (you have to be a Catholic to receive Communion, while you can attend the ceremony if you are not, you just can't receive Communion) (and this is way beyond in topic this thread, this blog so I think I'd prefer not to digress into the specifics of what Catholicism requires in relationship to those who participate and those who do not -- I used Kerry as prime example earlier, as I did other in American politics who promte themselvse as one faith, Catholic, while they persevere in promoting and protecting many behaviors that is contrary to what their supposed faith instructs and that's the point).

Anyway, there is a Paulist parish in Boston that Kerry is a member of (and attends) that has stricken the Declaration of Faith from their Celebration of Mass. I don't understand how that's been possible and /or if it's even sanctioned or allowed in an official Diocese capacity, just that I read that it's done there, and that means that the very heart of the Celebration of Mass as to individual participation (in the "faith") has been removed as requirement for receiving Holy Communion there. Or even participating in the ceremony.

No one who attends is compelled to recite the Declaration of Faith, but you are if you are a Catholic. It's a part of the process...declaring it out loud among your peers.

Here, and then I'm gonna tu... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Here, and then I'm gonna turn ya' lose on this issue of Kerry and Catholicism:

Catholic Kerry Watch.

One of the things that both... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

One of the things that bothered me during the election was that every time Kerry would be asked a question about moral political issues (abortion, stem cell research etc) he would always start out by saying "I'm a Catholic . . ." then proceed to take a position that was not at all in line with church teaching. I would rather him just answer the question, and not go into his "I'm a Catholic" spiel. The line came across as pandering-as if it would really matter more that he was a Catholic than the actual position he took on the moral issue.

I also realize that these issues are controversial, and that lots of Christians do not agree on them, but when Bush was asked questions about these issues, he didn't start out by saying "I'm a Methodist . . ." He just answered the question.

Which takes up back to hositility towards religion-maybe because the Left more than the religious right understands that Kerry was pandering and therefore no real "threat."

I can't believe how black a... (Below threshold)
Joser:

I can't believe how black and white you make this stuff. I am not a republican, but I am deeply spiritual. I can't believe you people would even make an issue of who is more devout, republicans or democrats. That's the kind of thinking that leads to vanity and is a one-way road to hell. Now, for my position on religion and politics is solely that it is not necessary. Why do you need under god in your pledge of allegiance? Why do you need a nativity scene in every department store you go to? Is it show you can show your moral superiority. And with Bush in particular, the only problem I have with him touting religion is that one of his defenses for invading Iraq is something that God personally gave credence for him to do. You know who else says God speaks to them? Serial killers, rapists, and madmen. I know I'm really being general, but with how you people generalize liberals as a matter of practice, I don't feel I have to justify myself.

If you all are so high and mighty, why do you even have to steep so low as to streamline other people for not having the same values that you hold. We live in a political system that does not need one religious belief dictating what is right. I'm telling you, if I hear another right-wing Christian or any other religiou zealot say that gays are bad, immoral, and selfish hedonist just because of their religious and moral beliefs (and I'm still not sure where in the bible that it says gays are going to hell) I'm going to snap.

To sum it all up from a religious, stuck up position, I will agree that liberals are very much more accommodating to ALL religions and cultures. We focus our attention on the people that the Bible says to focus on: the poor, the hungry, the sick, and the decrepit. We don't put labels on others like unpatriotic, silly, and stupid for opposing parties stonewalling us. Too bad the higher ups in the Republican Party can't say that. The majority of us don't see Catholics as red necks and what not, but there are democrats and liberals that will do so. You've heard about the DNC trying to be more republican light. Well, there you go. You’re pretty much insulting people that are just one step away from being just like you. Then, you will accept them with open arms once they've crossed that threshold.

Republicans on the other hand will insult anybody that has a different view under any merits. You are elitist in nature I believe and could care less about the poor and sick. So when you get all holly-rollerly (I think I invented a new word) and feel the holy spirit warm you as Bush says that God is on our side for needlessly killing others in a war that has not only turned a whole country into a terrorist training ground, but also greatly jeopardize or safety in the US unnecessarily, I will be praying for the safety and wellness not only of our troops, but for all those innocents we like to call insurgents whom some of our soldiers are torturing and killing. Have you seen Three Kings, this war now makes it look like child's play.

So, if you can't stop insulting people for seeing things different than yourself, please don't bring and religious, elitist mumbo jumbo into it. You don't dictate what God's law is. If you would do me a favor and actually live by the standards written in the Bible and other religious texts, maybe you would see that republicans and many other people alike are really doing God a disservice by making it an issue of politics. There never should have been this touting of God for political purposes to begin with.

-S-Interesting about... (Below threshold)

-S-
Interesting about Kerry's church. I have never heard such a thing, but I can assure you, as I am sure you know, an indiviual Catholic Church cannot just "dispose" of a part of the Mass.

Adam, you know that it IS possible, and even believed by many that evolution (up to certain points) is the WAY in which God created the universe? I certainly believe that.
I am a devout Catholic and I think it is so much fun that I am making Jay argue the point from my point of view. (I am thinking he is looking at these articles in order to blog on the point of Religious conservatives vs southpark conservatives that I suggested when he asked for the blogging ideas paid for by giving to the Tsunami victims.

Joser it is always fun to s... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Joser it is always fun to see somebody come along to castigate one group for making gross generalizations, but then makes their own while they are doing it.

Ever heard that little saying about the pot and the kettle?

And for the record it isn't about who is better, it is about who is more hostile to religious belief.

"I will agree that libe... (Below threshold)

"I will agree that liberals are very much more accommodating to ALL religions and cultures. We focus our attention on the people that the Bible says to focus on: the poor, the hungry, the sick, and the decrepit. We don't put labels on others like unpatriotic, silly, and stupid for opposing parties stonewalling us." from Joser

Joser, you can't be living in the real world if you believe that. Liberals are accommodating to all religions??? What a joke. Sure if you don't try to espouse or live by the tenets of those religions.

You focus on the poor??? How?? By govt programs that end up leaving them in a vicious cycle of poverty? I think the Bible tells us to take care of people OURSELVES, Christ never said the governtment should do it. A safety net is one thing we can agree on, a free for all and billion dollar fraud machine is quite another. And what about the most vulnerable of our society-the unborn? No compassion there. In fact your major supporter is the advocacy of abortion. So please don't give me that. Try and get in the liberal door with a pro-life sticker on your shirt. Oh yeah, they are tolerant...right.

Thanks for pointing out wha... (Below threshold)
Joser:

Thanks for pointing out what I already stated. I'm allowed to generalize. My point was that we're not hostile about religion. We're hostile about how supposedly holier-than-thou politicians abuse it to suit their needs.

Rightwingsparkle makes a go... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Rightwingsparkle makes a good point. The DNC is far less tolerant of desent than the RNC. After all Bush campaigned with Arnold and Guliani-two outspoken pro choice GOPers. How many pro life dems are there in office? How many did Kerry campaign with during the election?

As for the poor-it isn't that somehow republicans or the religious are for poverty and want people to be poor, we disagree on how it is best dealt with. To say "because the GOP doesn't agree that the government should be the solution to all poverty they don't care about poor people" is wrong.

Liberals seem to believe in forced charity-they think the government should take everyone's money through taxes and redistribute it to those they deem deserving. Conservatives would prefer to take their money and give it to programs/charities that reach out to the poor.

Rightwingsparkle: ... (Below threshold)
Adam:

Rightwingsparkle:

You are confusing a few issues there, but I know they all get jumbled together no matter who discusses them.

First things first, evolution has nothing to do with the way God created the universe. I read in a previous thread people claiming that was _abiogenesis,_ but that's still incorrect.

Cosmogony is the study and/or theorizing about the origins of the universe. This has nothing to do with life or the means by which it came to be at present.

Abiogenesis, of course, is about how life _started,_ but that still is not the same as evolution.

The distinctions are important, and they are a large reason you are correct in your statement that a lot of people can believe both simultaneously. I do not think believing in evolution and God are mutually exclusive. If I am to tackle the topic of God (here meaning the Judeo-Christian God, per capitalization amongst mostly American interlocutors), I have no need to discuss evolution in the slightest. And vice versa.

I'm quite aware there are many religions and denominations that do not feel evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. That is why I said _Creationism Proper_ in my original post. Creationism Proper most definitely claims one cannot hold both ideas because evolution is either:

A) Flawed
B) Wrong based on the inerrancy of the Bible (irony: the same Arendtian assumption Democrats make. I.E. "This is true without reason, therefore all that follows must be in line with my base assumption. The Bible cannot be wrong, therefore Evolution is wrong. Or: We cannot judge, therefore nothing is wrong."
C) An intentional lie
D) An intentional lie created by Satan to turn people from the glory of God.

I made no comment about those who feel God created the universe/earth/life and concomitantly hold a view about evolution.

I was brought up Catholic. I know a vast amount about Catholicism given it was and remains a lifelong interest of mine (and no, I'm not a Catholic hater -- while I am no longer Catholic, I actually _like_ the Church). But I also know that for most people to hold the view you have they _have_ to reject some of the things they hold to be true. That's not to say that an educated Catholic can't hold both, but it is to say that many Catholics will hold both views not knowing they are believing two contrary things. e.g. A family member's believing still Genesis is a _literal_ account of Creation (no word games, that it means what it means), while simultaneously believing evolution is how we came to be. It's not that the person is dishonest, it just shows she's never put too much thought into the consequences of both views together.

Anyway, I'd be happy to discuss this with you some more if you want, but I have to head out again for a bit.

Joser: then whytheheck are... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Joser: then whytheheck are Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy and JohnFKerry representatives of the Democratic Party?! Talk about hypocrisy, man, just look at your own party.

That is, if you are a Democrat. I realize that there's no political party called "liberal" and/or "progressive."

Humanism lauds and is motivated by one area of awareness, while religions (I can only speak about mine, which is Christianity) trump humanism. Which, again, is the issue of faith, or lack of faith. Humanism often demeans the practice of faith because it defies humanism. As do most Democrats demean practices of faith and the tenets of those, because they defy humanism as a religion. Which it is, actually, in social practice among liberals, carried as far as "we don't need a church to believe what we believe..."

It's still humanism and it is still a method of behavior that is based upon the assumption that if you figure it out, whatever it is, and it makes you happy (or, to feel good, or, you receive some pleasure from it, whatever it is) then it's alright for you and should be alright to anyone else.

Generally, again, but that is generalized humanism and liberalism.

Joser still doesn't get it,... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Joser still doesn't get it, even after someone already explained it in the first few comments.

He projects the motivations of Clinton onto Bush, i.e. the politician in question is not serious about his religion, but is cynically using it as a political ploy. It never occurs to Joser that Bush might actually be sincere about his faith. The problem might be that Joser, like so many of his fellow leftists, believes the Marxist tripe of religion being the "opiate of the masses," so only stupid or manipulative people could praise religion.

Adam.Well a family m... (Below threshold)

Adam.
Well a family member may believe in the literal translation, but believing in both evolution and that God created us does not go against Catholic faith as you must know if you know Catholism.
How can you say evolution has nothing to do with God creating the universe? Because the theory says that? The idea that life evolved and the world and animals evolved cannot be the "way" in which God made the world?
I know that you are saying that one is a belief in how it began (The big bang theory) and one is a belief in how we evolved. But I believe in the evolving process (with a few exceptions) as how it did happen. Mainly because it makes sense. As they say, God's time is not our time. A moment to God could be a million years to us.
I don't think we are in disagreement. And I also think you are way too smart for me...;-) I am a simple woman with a simple faith. I just wanted to make sure those reading this understood that there is a belief in both God creating us and evolution.

The divide over caring for ... (Below threshold)

The divide over caring for the poor is not at all about anyone not wanting to help them, it's entirely about HOW to help them. Democrats, in general, believe government handouts are the answer, Republicans, in general, think private handouts and help out of poverty are the answer.

It's the old "give a man a fish" thing. Democrats, again in general, want to give a man a fish, then stop there, keeping the man dependent on the giver of fish. Republicans, again in general, believe in giving the fish, then teaching him to fish, then expecting him from now on to actually catch his own fish, not sit around waiting for someone to give it to him.

Rightwingsparkle,E... (Below threshold)
Adam:

Rightwingsparkle,

Evolution only occurs with pre-existing lifeforms.
The beginning of the universe has nothing to do with life forms (even in Genesis, life comes _after_ the universe is created).
Thus, evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.
That is why I said evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

I don't necessarily think you are missing my point, I just wanted to try to be a little clearer.

I don't know if I've smarter than you, nor if it really matters. It's just if you have the same arguments enough times, you usually end up sounding as if you know what you're talking about, if you pay attention anyway :P) Anyways, looks like the thread is turning into a minor flame war with Joser and everyone responding to him for some odd reason, so I'll prolly bow out now :)


I never said that Bush wasn... (Below threshold)
Joser:

I never said that Bush wasn't sincere about his feelings. I also don't know about this comparison between Clinton and Bush that I made. For one thing, Clinton actually goes to church from what I hear. My feeling that the God that Bush talks to is his inner selfish desires pergodified. Don't you think that if God was having a personal chat with Bush, that he would have passed along the information that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that they had no intentions of attacking the US? That is my problem with right wing religious zealots. They don't realize that when they are praying to God, and they get a response in their head, that it's probably their own personal dialogue. Just hearing Pat Robertson saying that God told him that he would be president, it's hard to see who's more of a narcissist. I like people who spread the Word, but don't try to give it credibility by lying about having a VIP pass to the God communication hotline. You know, people like Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King (who had a dream, not a UFO God sighting), and Bill Clinton to name a few.

I don't know about Clinton ... (Below threshold)

I don't know about Clinton going to Church now, but I do know how he spent one Easter Sunday. He did go to church, but then...well we all know what he did then. Hypocrisy personified.

Joser, please do not try to discuss something you obviously know nothing about. People with faith in God do not have "conversations with Him" like we do with our mothers on the telephone. And it is not a "voice in our head" either. It isn't like that and I don't think trying to explain to you what it is like is going to help.

Just because someone like Robertson describes things a certain way does not mean that is how it is with most Christians.

And Please do not insult King (especially today) by lumping him in with people like Jackson and Clinton. (Spreading the word, indeed..please!)
It is offensive to me and to King's memory.

Joser illustrates exactly w... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Joser illustrates exactly why the Democrats, as long as they are controlled by the radical New Left, will keep losing elections for the foreseeable future: blind, stubborn, willful ignorance.

He has confirmed exactly what I posted earlier, that he believes people who profess to be religious are either stupid or dishonest.

Keep the faith, Joser.

I didn't know King would be... (Below threshold)
Joser:

I didn't know King would be insulted by someone who got a BJ and someone who stands for equal rights. I sure do know that Martin Luther King stood up for equal rights and that I hope he got quite a few BJs in his day. Lord knows he deserved them. I'm sorry your too sensitive to Dr. King to appreciate my comparison to those 2 others. My governor Arnold has a word for you sensitive types. He usually saves it for Democrats, but it seems to fit you nicely. I was just using poetic my poetic liscense with reference to Bush and Patterson's conversations with God, but I believe that the idea I was trying to convey was blatant enough for you to understand. if not, here it is in simpler terms. Whoever Patterson and Bush spiritually align themselves with, be it God or whatever, and totes around like a nice little American flag lied to both of them and did them wrong. Make sense?

Also, as I've mentioned bef... (Below threshold)
Joser:

Also, as I've mentioned before, I'm very religious, so if I was going to say ALL Christians, which I haven't, I'd have to point at myself first. Thanks for getting what you wanted out of what I said and putting words in my mouth in order to justify what you wanted to get out of what I said.

For somebody who is very re... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

For somebody who is very religious, you seem to have some misconceptions of what it is Christians do when they pray.

Also, I am not sure what Clinton's church attendance has to do with this topic. Anyone can go to church-being a Christian is what is in the heart, not what you do on Sunday morning.

Joser, I don't buy that you... (Below threshold)

Joser, I don't buy that you are very religious if you think King would be fine with the President of the US using an intern while married to someone else. Heck, you don't even have to be religious to be offended by that. Just common decency would be enough. give it a rest Joser. you just lost all credibility with me.

Just Me & RWS: Earli... (Below threshold)
julie:

Just Me & RWS:
Earlier he described himself as "spiritual." And we all know what that means. ;-)

Julie, exactly. "Being Spir... (Below threshold)

Julie, exactly. "Being Spirtual" means that one prays or meditates and believes in all that is good and wonderful. But there is no right and there is no wrong on a personal level. There is no sin and there is no hell. There is only the calmness of be ing at peace at whatever the hell the you want to do.....;-)

"Gee, I wonder what the ... (Below threshold)

"Gee, I wonder what the left would say about Martin Luther King, today, since he was always invoking the name of God and quoting from the Bible"

I don't know... why don’t you compare democracy now's covarage of MLK birthday with that of mainstream media.

You don't see that kind of unmediated reproduction of MLK pov on the corporate news channels.

It’s quite tragic that the “left” has been represented so poorly in the collective mental environment, for its people like MLK which are its foundation. Please check out that episode of democracy now its selection of MLK speeches are very relevant for contemporary politics.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy