Skip to main content

View Diary: Ralph's Gift (380 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If I could give you a "5" (4.00)
    I would.

    You're exactly right.  The particular group of Christians that voted for Bush is a minority, but if we go on the attack, we risk offending mainline Christians (which includes me), and cementing the Republicans as the party of God.

    Once upon a time, the majority of Christians in this  country were convinced that the Democratic message was the message closest to their own beliefs.  It still is.  Where we have failed is in how we have worded and delivered our message.

    If the Republicans have been allowed to gain a foothold within religious groups, it's our fault.  We have not fought hard enough to keep our grip.  And to do so, I don't believe we have to bend one plank of our platform.  We just have to show them that our platform is the platform best suited to reach Christian goals.

    For those ready to write these groups off as an "American Taliban": You think these evangelicals don't care about the poor?  They do.  You think they like war?  They don't.  You think they're stupid?  They're not.

    However they are ignorant, ignorant of how the Democratic message and the Christian message are in tremendous harmony.  And there is no one to blame for that but the Democrats.

    •  i posted higher up in this thread (none)
      but will repeat here. it's important to differentiate christians who act in an unchristian fashion from christians who do their best to practice christian love and tolerance. let's please not assume all evangelicals and fundamentalists are the same. there are some who are driven more by bigotry and meanness than by the urge to live by jesus' injunction to "love they neighbor as thyself."

      just as we can say neo-con, moderate republican, libertarian, liberal democrat, moderate democrat, rightwing democrat (i don't know what else to call zell miller), we can differentiate between christians who embrace the doctrine of love and tolerance and "debased christians" who act as though they believe more in sadistic punishment than in redemption.

      cloaking oneself in the mantle of christianity does not mean other christians have to defend one. doesn't it say somewhere in the bible "by their acts shall ye judge them"? by their acts. not by what they call themselves or by the invocations behind which they try to hide. if your actions are base and you invoke christ to justify them, there's no question in my mind you deserve to be called a debased christian.

      nope, i'm not a christian of any sect. but i was taught that jesus set the bar pretty high for love and forgiveness. if that's not what you're aspiring to as a christian, maybe you took a wrong turn somewhere.

      We get a lot of advice. We tend to listen when somebody's won something. - Joe Lockhart

      by yankeedoodler on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 06:33:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  amen to that (none)
        It's important not to see religious people as a monolithic group, but rather to identify which segment of that group is unreachable, and adjust the way we present our values to the rest of the group.  This is not to say that we abandon our core principles as Democrats (this, of course, requires determining what those core principles actually are), and present them in a short, simply-worded way.  Oh, and it's important that we don't just start taking the message to the people 18 months before the election.  The message has to be pushed constantly, starting now.  Did Republicans stop pushing their message when they were completely out of power between '92 and '94?  No, they pushed it harder than ever.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site