Skip to main content

View Diary: Why the "morals vote" didn't cost us the election. (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fair enough, if that's the case (none)
    but it's not always. I have certainly read things telling me that we must understand or reach out and work on communicating in their terms with the religous right who elected Bush. My response is that why aren't they being asked to understand my viewpoint?

    For that matter, the entire world has a fairly cohesive viewpoint about our administration right now, all things considered, at least in terms of its foreign policy. Why aren't the right wing voters being asked to learn a little bit about what THAT is? To find out why there is so much not just dissaproval but hatred, disgust, with this country and its actions? I assure you it's even more extreme than most in the US think, even liberals. You have to live or at least visit elsewhere to fully get it, in my opionon.

    But we never hear that call. I wonder for example how many people posting on right-wing sites are pleading with the highly religous and telling them how important it is to reach out and speak the language of the secular voters. Not many I bet.

    If you're not telling me that then good, I appreciate it. But "No one is asking me to" - sorry, not true.

    •  Let's be clear: (none)
      No one here is asking you to do that.  Outside the board, well, I can't speak to that.
      •  That's the problem (none)
        You personally are committed to converting atheists and nonjudeochristians in particular and to evangelizing your faith. And yet you want me to believe that your call for Democrats to speak the language of Jesus is not threatening and marginalizing and exclusionary to me and nearly 15% of the population who are not religious, and many others who are not Judeo-Christian? It's not politically correct for you to go after Jews these days, it's just us heathens that are fair game.)

        You have stated you would never have an atheist speak to your congregation. You clearly can't believe that I can be as moral and complete a human being as you, because what would be the justification for your evangelism, if people were just as good, just as fulfilled, just as moral without your god-practice?

        If you were content to minister to your flock, that would be one thing. but you have published an "Evangelical Primer" ( , which you are proud has been picked up by the Methodist Church for dissemination, and you have talked on your own blog about the fact that churches can't rely any longer on stealing members from each other's congregations when the total number of practicing Christians is decreasing, and how that increases the need to convert nonchristians.

        That is the crux of the problem, pastordan. You may be a very nice person, and you may hold  progressive political beliefs, but you are in the business of making my peer-group extinct. Being an unrepresented, ignored minority apparently is not good enough.

        So forgive me for not endorsing your faith-based politics. It leaves no room for me, and it comes from a fundamentally prejudicial world view.

        "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

        by galiel on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 09:38:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Totally, utterly wrong. (none)
        Here are statements I found here on this board, by looking for literally one minute just now. I'm sure  I could find much more if I took a lot of time.

        Exactly! Religious fundamentalists (I was raised one) assume that Dems do not respect them. All too frequently they are right. But if we learn to listen to them and frame social issues in Christian terms that they can identify
        what I'm trying to say is that we need to frame the debate in such a way as will reach out to those who right now see liberals as godless commies
        is why so many people think that because so much of the country is religious that this is inherently a bad thing.  It makes no sense to me to espouse pure securalism since this is really what the those who are really religious fear the most.  Instead wouldn't it be a better idea to sit down with the bible for a while and try to construct an argument using the bible that supports liberal causes.  This is not hard.
        don't slam the door - invite them in, but only after you have educated yourself on the issues that are of concern to them (evolution, the role and


        These are being addressed to "dems" and "liberals" and so on. Not one of them prefaced with "if you're Christian".

        I'm not telling anyone not to be religious. I'm being told however, by some, that being non-religuous isn't good enough.

        That's what what my post was addressing, and what you objected to. And your objections are not holding water.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site