Democrats of Faith

Don D

I'm listening to political pundits and polsters on television this weekend saying "There are a lot of Democrats out there in America who are people of faith and they should not be ashamed to mention their faith and it's OK to have morals and faith and express it". What's up with that? Of course there are people of faith who happen to be Democrats. The pews in churches everywhere will be filled with both Democrats and Republicans Saturday and Sunday. What's with this insanity that to have morals and/or faith one must be a Republican and if you have either or both, you must vote Republican. That is INSANE!

There are literally/actually talking heads on all networks saying that Bush was elected to a second term by people who have religious principles and have morals and if you voted against him, you have neither and in order to 'work together' for the common good, one simply must adopt faith and morals. One even said 'Kerry was not comfortable discussing his faith and Democrats must now go to Bible School and must learn the value of having values'. And one who says Kerry was defeated by 'evangelical homophobes'. Who is believing this crap?


Who ARE these people whose agenda it is to divide us all into piles of secular and non-secular? I refuse to fit into someone else's notion of a pigeonhole. How about you?

ray a

Kerry and his handlers tried to make Iraq and the economy the driving issues. Turns out many who voted for Bush did so for ethical and moral reasons. Morality, as they understand it, trumped the ecomonic concerns and military concerns.

Everyone has faith. The question is, what is the foundation of that faith?

Whirlwind

Don, I've thought about your post off and on throughout the weekend, but was having trouble coming up with a clear and succinct response. This morning I read an editorial by Leonard Pitts, Jr., a Pulitzer winning journalist and syndicated columnist from the Miami Herald; also, in my opinion, a very intelligent and thoughtful man; liberal, yes, but he appeals to some conservatives as well -- says some good things about "traditional conservatives" in this piece, in fact. Anyway, I couldn't possibly express what I'm thinking about this issue half as well as he did, so if you're interested, here's the link:

[url]http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/10103571.htm[/url]

(Sometimes to read newspapers on line you have to establish an account, but it's free. I accessed this link once without an account, then the second time it made me sign up. If you want to read the piece but don't want to "join" the Miami Herald, let me know and I can email it to you.)

Thanks for raising a very important and thought-provoking issue.

Don D

Unless I totally misunderstand the rantings of the fellow whose column you referred me to, he is nothing more than just one more shallow-headed journalism major who has landed himself a $500 a month spot at the local, liberal rag.

I intended to read the whole article but stopped when I came to this sentence; "Morality is, of course, a code word for antipathy toward gay rights and abortion. Those who shared that antipathy voted overwhelmingly for President Bush."

I didn't intend this thread to be a pro or anti-gay or pro or anti-abortion commentary and won't help it go in that direction. Nor will I let an editorial writer define my morality with a hollow, five-word cliche'.

Whirlwind

You asked; I answered. Guess it was a rhetorical question. If you ever care to refer me to an editorial that expresses your response to a question I pose, I'll read the whole thing.

Have a good week. I'll be out of commission for awhile. Peace.

ritaanz

This morning's paper had an article about how the Dems have to re-evaluate their positions. I just scanned it quickly. If they come up with a different "image", will that change anything? I doubt it.

What's that expression....a leopard can't change his spots.

Dasher

STOP IT!

It is dangerous to continue talking about Democrats and Republicans as if we are enemies and fit into the molds of either party -- as defined by the media (print/visual/audio). I don't want the candidate I vote for to have an "image". I want a thinking, speaking, feeling human being who understands the real world.


I can live with a Republican president and I can live with a Democratic president, as long as they will examine issues, listen to concerns, and then act in the best interest of the United States of America -- as she/he inteprets it.

Please -- we really don't need to continue a Great Divide, do we?

ritaanz

Hey Dash, are you always so cheerful on Monday mornings? We are not trying to continue the Great Divide. Speaking for myself only, I made an observation of a newspaper article which quoted an AZ Dem. It left me with the impression that the party wants the people (me) to see them differently in the future.

There will always be a division between the parties. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

Don D

And my remarks were not to maintain a 'great divide', rather to question the media's insistence that one exists. Do you not see that I was jumping up and down to challenge the notion that Democrats have no morals, therefore, we cannot be that divided in the first place?

I am not simple minded enough to believe that a country is or will be divided by the two issues of homosexuality and abortion and cannot understand why the liberal media and left-headed people insist on that being true.

My attempt at examining this phenomenon was met by referencing a bigotted article shouting that only homophobes and anti-women's rights imbeciles could have possibly voted for Bush.

Whatever

Don, I agree with you to a point. I do not, however, believe that the divide is only caused by the media. There are people (in every religion) who believe that their way is the only way. On election day, there were people in the subway loudly proclaiming that if you didn't obey God's will and vote for Bush, as an immoral person you were going to hell. I wonder who I'll meet there. I do, however, strongly believe that the majority of Americans are not only religious but are understanding of people with differing opinion. The divide is caused by people on the far right and far left.

LarryC

Two things about religious zealots:

Sometimes those closest to the temple are actually the furthest from it.

And beware of those whose bibles are long on judgement and short on compassion.

zen

Many years ago, at eighteen, I decided to register to vote as a non-partisan citizen. It would probably have been easier to just either vote the party of my parents or the party of my buddies. I've had poll workers just about cuss me out when I ask for issues ballots during primary races - some of them don't seem to want to acknowledge that they even exist. To imply that one politcal party is either more or less moral, pious or corrupt than than the other is asinine.

The republicans won this time, maybe it was because people really want G. Bush, maybe it was those folks out there voting the party line, or voting against something else, or maybe they flipped a coin when the curtain closed. Whatever the reason - we have four more years of this administration that the American people have put into place. If you don't like the way the vote went - get involved and do some campaigning next time - make whatever difference you feel you must - just don't sit back and complain about it.

mwild31

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 11-09-04 AT 11:04AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Good point Zen. In all of the hoopla about voter turn out, there's a sad fact missing - just how many people that could vote, but didn't. I looked up the popular vote numbers:

Bush: 59,459,765
Kerry: 55,949,407
Nader: 400,706

That's a total of 115,809,878 votes. According to the 2000 census there is an estimated voting population of 205,815,000, so 90,005,122 people that could have voted, didn't. Those folks that didn't could either be Republican, Democrat, Independents, liberals, conservatives, atheists or evangelical Christians - we just don't know.

I agree with you Don. I think it's wrong for either party (Republican or Democrat) to say that if you voted for Bush you're obviously an evangelical, bible thumping Christian or if you voted for Kerry you're obviously a backsliding heathen. People of faith are in all parties; we just disagree on how our faith works in politics.

Dasher

Yeah, Rita, that's a good point. But you can eat chocolate one days and vanilla the next, without hating on either one.

Or you can love chocolate without hating vanilla.
Or you can love vanilla without thinking that chocolate is the worse.
Or you can just go get some strawberry or butter pecan.

Tuesday's are usually better for me. LOL

System

Don, I totally agree with your original post - this has been bothering me for quite a while. (I'm not bothered by the fact that I agree with you, but ... oh, you know what I mean.)

For years, conservative Republicans have done a masterful job of spinning and framing the debate on religious and moral issues while Democrats have fallen flat on their faces. Conservatives constantly hammer home the idea that their positions on gay marriage, abortion, or whatever are godly and moral, with the implication that anyone who disagrees with them are immoral heathens.

Democrats have done a horrible job making emotional, moral, and spiritual appeals to voters on issues like gay rights (love thy neighbor? x:-8 ), the war in Iraq, education, etc. In fact, the Dems really don't seem to excite people the way the Republicans do - my co-workers listen to conservative talk shows at work, but I don't even know of a liberal talk show around here.

Come to think of it, Kerry and Gore were automatons that couldn't rouse any emotional or spiritual response in people other than "Oh, God, please stop talking!" x:'(

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

Dasher

Yeah, Don, I did see that in your initial posting, but then you went and trashed the article and then lumped those who may not think like you into the same (negative) basket. It just is not so. I don't care who does it, calling names on either side may not be helpful.

I think you have one of the best H.R. minds around and I am in awe of it.

But your politics -- oh well! But we can still talk.

Dasher

Valid observations, IMHO.

A majority of the Democrats I know personally are warm and have strong and heartfelt opinions on human/moral issues. This has not been captured by our last two nominees, and it is problematic. You don't have to wear your faith on your sleeve to be a moral and righteous person. But 2008 will come, and we will have another chance.

(Of course some Democrats are too extreme, just as some Republicians can be too extreme in their opinions).

Don D

Dasher: I trashed the article because the article trashed me. I thought I was going to have an opportunity to read an insightful article but found an inciteful one instead. I think my original post was open and honest and not slanted one way or the other. Then when I'm told that the article represents how Whirlwind feels and it speaks for her (that's what she said) and I find that it only slings more sh*t at Bush voters, I'm wishing it was not even in this discussion. I have every right to reel against someone who calls me an idiot. But, when you really think about it, the article didn't become trashed when I spoke about it. It was already trash.

Dasher

Don, dare we go just a bit deeper (now stay with me here).

I had not read the article until your last post, mostly because I am more interested in what all of you on the forum think and say. I just read it in light of your latest post (which strikes me as very sincere even if it is in the Har de ha ha section). Your starting post was too, by the way.

The article Whirlwind recommended did not invoke the same level of angst in me that it did in you, but that is because we bring different points of view to the article. Whirlwind was sharing a point of view just as you are and there is nothing wrong with that. The writer of the article is doing the same (for considerably more money, to be sure). It does not make him a nincompoop or pud'n head? He just gave his point of view which you have every right to disagree with. I would not call it trash. If you do, that is your right. We both have equal rights to call it as we see it.

Don D

Just out of a sense of fairness, let me refer you to an article by a gentleman from the religious right who refers to those who voted for Kerry 'void of morals, mental midgets, baby killers who long for a return to Soddom and Gamorrah'. But, I cannot imagine telling you that that writer has a right to that opinion and is not a nicompoop or pud'n head and it's just his point of view and it's not trash. Of course that too is trash. In defense of you and most other Kerry voters, I disagree with all of those labels.

But, hell, this discussion is not about the bigoted Floridian who wrote the article. It's about the press and the right and left who do nothing but pigeon hole us and it's about our apparent acceptance of that practice and how those pigeon holer's sit back and smile while they watch us duke it out.

Leslie

Case in point...this thread.

Whirlwind

Don, I did totally get that your initial post was challenging the notion that Democrats have no morals. And while I also agree that the media is making hay with these exit polls and surveys that suggest that many who voted for Bush did so based on morality rather than on the war or the economy, I also feel that there’s a certain amount of truth in those polls. The article I referenced stated that pro-lifers and people who oppose gay rights overwhelmingly voted for Bush. That’s certainly true, and very, very different from saying that “only homophobes and anti-women's rights imbeciles could have possibly voted for Bush.” Most people who oppose abortion and gay marriage voted for Bush if they voted for anyone, and certainly some people who like Bush for other reasons voted for him too; but the point is, a lot of Bush-supporters think they have an exclusive and direct line to God, and the fact that neither you nor I agree with that doesn’t make it wrong for the media to report it and comment on it. As for the columnist, it’s fine with me if you don’t like him, or even if you hate his guts, but why engage in untruthful name-calling? He is not a “guy has landed himself a $500 a month spot at the local rag.” In fact, I read his syndicated column in my own city’s daily newspaper, which endorsed Bush. That’s what responsible newspapers do – decide and print their own editorial positions, and then also print a variety of op-ed columns with other positions. Thank God that’s the way the free press works in this wonderful country. And thank God that a lot of us don’t fit in pigeon holes, but unfortunately quite a few of us do and there’s no use in shooting the messenger.

Note to Dasher: Thanks for trying to bring some balance to this discussion. I’ve really appreciated your posts.

celeste

Don't you think, to a degree, that morals weren't the only factor with the anti Kerry campaign and all this discussion? I think some of the decisions to vote for Kerry were made because of the belief that the government should not be about moral issues.

ray a

But, morality is at the root of so many decisions government must make. Do we go to war or not? Do we continue to allow abortion or not? Do we allow gay marriage or not? Even taxation has moral implications. How we treat Muslims or Mexicans has moral implications. Whether it is Bush or Kerry, morality is an issue.

Whatever

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 11-10-04 AT 08:38AM (CST)[/font][br][br] I think some
>of the decisions to vote for Kerry were made
>because of the belief that the government should
>not be about moral issues.

I believe that the decisions to vote for Kerry (including mine) were because of moral issues. The fact that I am a liberal democrat has a lot to do with my religious beliefs. It would be impossible to separate the two. We are currently in a time when many issues that never existed before are being discussed (stem cell research, people who have children so they can have a donor for their child, removal of feeding tubes from people in comas etc,)and many issues that have been discussed for a long time (death penalty, a woman's right to choose, separation of church and state, etc. ) go to an individual's moral beliefs and religious convictions. And, obviously involve laws made by "secular" government.

ray a

"All this boils down to is that the religious right are not the moral people in this country."

Whatever, are you saying the religious right is immoral? Or did you mean that the religious right are not the *only* moral people?

Whatever

I thought I had eliminated that sentence. But you are correct, maybe. If I had not decided to eliminate that statement, I would have added the "only". Of course, maybe what I meant to say was that the intolerance of some people in the religious right is immoral. Or maybe, I should become an agnostic and get really confused.

ray a

There are moral and immoral people throughout the political spectrum.

Don D

Pardon me for indenting. 'You people' on both sides of this discussion need to grab a Webster's and look up the word moral. My book doesn't mention religion anywhere in the lengthy definition, nor is secular in the definition.

"Principles of right and wrong in behaviors, actions. Ethical. Expressing conceptions of right behaviors. Capable of right and wrong actions.

Nobody, no collection of bodies (government), no being can make decisions without at least a lightning quick snapshot of what is right or wrong and that requires having his or her own moral framework, unless of course that person incapable of forming a moral framework, which is to say, retarded, or developmentally delayed.

So, an immoral person acts without regard to right or wrong and an amoral person has no concept of right or wrong. You don't have to be Southern Baptist to be moral or even Baptist or even a Christian or even, in fact, have ever heard of any religion.

And Ray, I don't want to hear some fundamentalist, Bible thumping, Evangelical diatribe.

ray a

I don't see where religion was really a focal point in this discussion other than Whatever saying her religious beliefs guided her sense of morality - which is at is should be.

Do, you understand what a Fundamentalist really is? Do you have a clue what Evangelical means?

Don D

I think I do, but I'm sure you'll find a need to correct me. I know what a preachy zealot is and I know many people who hold with a strict, literal interpretation of The Bible (once they define which Bible they are interpreting). But at the end of the day, if you're one, you're the other as well. Perhaps you should have a thread on the subject if you feel we need to enroll in religion 202.

Much to your dismay, one need not be either a fundamentalist or an evangelical to be a moral person, and, as I have already said, I believe one need not even have a religion to have morals. And it is quite true that there are thousands of so called evangelicals and as many fundamentalists who are as immoral as "Hell" itself. Maybe a Jimmy Swaggart thread would be interesting. Or Jim Baaker. Those should cover the waterfront.