Skip to main content

I'm posting this diary because a couple of earlier ones (by aj2k and RSA TX) were posted but seem to have gotten little attention. I'm now putting up this diary in the hope that it gets some more attention and stays up a bit longer. (So my apologies if this looks repetitive).

A website has been put up by the Reverend Kirbyjon Caldwell (Bush's pastor): Please go to this site and sign it!!!

I think that it should be positively responded to, particularly but not exclusively for progressives of Christian faith who are fed up with the James Dobsons of this world - to use his own words - "dragging [Christianity] through the gutter".

So please show the site your support, and help spread it as far and wide as possible to start countering what will undoubtedly be a non-stop effort to blacken [no pun intended] Barack Obama from now until Election Day on matters religious (not to say anything about all other efforts to demonise him on all other subjects).

Update: at least the AP is carrying the story now with the link in it on major news sites, which should help give it much needed additional publicity.

Originally posted to mierts on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:10 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I signed! (0+ / 0-)

    James Dobson definitely doesn't speak for me.

    Obama: "Because We Won... We Have to Win." 6/6/08

    by Drdemocrat on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:18:44 AM PDT

  •  You may be right, (1+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    Christian Dem in NC, ManhattanMan

    but my attitude is f*ck Dobson.  You will never change the minds of the religious right.  If they were open minded about anything, they might have discovered by now that the bible isn't real.

    Republicans don't have 60 votes, and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit.

    by dkmich on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:18:49 AM PDT

    •  This is precisely the attitude that supports (9+ / 0-)

      the idea that Democrats are anti-religion--an idea that loses for us the votes of many concerned, committed Christians.  I'm on this site, I would never listen to a word Dobson says, and I am offended by your last sentence.  It is a completely unnecessary ad hominem attack.

      •  That is completely right (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, PsychoSavannah, ancblu

        And it is something that Obama recognised and spoke of back in 2006 in his Call to Renewal Speech. This kind of dismissive notion that anything religious is not rooted in reality is grossly insulting to all those whose faith leads them to share the same values as you do except from a different point of departure.

        Let me quote myself from my post above:

        Solidarity. Charity. Humility. Forgiveness.

        These are the same values that secular progressives believe in, except framed in a theocentric rather than a humanistic way.

        I forgot to add Tolerance, but perhaps that isn't the exclusive preserve of progressives. Not, in any case, if it's based on comments like dkmich's above.

        "You want tact? You call a tactician"

        by mierts on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:03:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  On who? religious people? (0+ / 0-)

        Well let's talk about ad hominen attacks by religious people against others?  "You are sinning.  You are immoral.  You are disappointing god. You will go to hell."
        The two HRs are perfect examples of the intolerance religious people can harbor, while claiming to be pious.  

        If you don't agree or like something, you want it gone.  You and your religious beliefs can't be challenged, but pagans, atheists - well "those people"__(fill in the blank).   Just so happens I find religion offensive, but I have to put up with it because people like you keep displaying it.  There are many people at this site that are atheists, and there are Democrats who are opposed to religion.  Marx said, "opiate of the people", and he is right.

        Republicans don't have 60 votes, and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit.

        by dkmich on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:03:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure how to respond to this. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You have every right to whatever you believe or don't believe. And while I believe that the message of the Gospel is true, I have no need for you to agree with that statement, nor would I ever use a board whose purpose is to elect Democrats as an appropriate forum for evangelism, nor would I ever anywhere evangelism in the manner you describe.

          But this is a board whose purpose is to elect Democrats. That purpose is not served by insulting potential groups of voters.

          You have made some very personal attacks against me here. You might want to limit those sorts of attacks to persons whom you know to have engaged in the behavior you describe.

          As a Minister of the Word and Sacrament, I apologize to you for the actions of the Christians you have encountered which have led you to such strong feelings.  I am more than aware that they are out there, and I don't think that their actions are particularly Christian, or moral, any more than you do.

    •  "the bible isn't real" doesn't convey much to me (0+ / 0-)

      Are you saying that the bible isn't literally true, every single word of it, including the ones that say that Moses recorded his own death? Surprise!!! Most Christians agree with you.

      Are you saying that it isn't a core foundational document, one that needs to be taken into consideration when trying to understand European history? You won't find many backers for that one.

      Are you saying that it has no meaningful content? You would need to listen with an open mind before you really knew what it means and meant to many Christians in order to say that, and the tone of your comment suggests to me that you have a small data set to work with.

      •  I am saying that the bible, like the weatherman, (0+ / 0-)

        has to be right sometime.   I'm saying the bible is NOT the word of God. I'm saying I don't believe in God, religion, or church.

        "tone of your comment suggests to me that you have a small data set to work with" - which side has the smallest data set is debatable.  

        If I stumbled into and disrupted some sort of a religious service, I'm sorry.  I thought this was an open diary on dailykos.

        Republicans don't have 60 votes, and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit.

        by dkmich on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:07:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This isn't a religious service. I just get tired (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          sometimes of tirades by atheists who know less than they think they do about the things they denounce.

        •  As Wee Mama said, (0+ / 0-)

          this is not some kind of religious service.

          If you go back to the purpose of the diary, it is to encourage people to go to a site and register their disapproval of the kind of hectoring, sermonising, vilifying behaviour that James Dobson resorts to in the name of Christianity. It is our purpose to distance ourselves from that, by saying that he doesn't speak for ALL Christians. That he DOESN'T act in a way that we believe to be commensurate with the values of the Gospel. And that being a Christian and a Democrat are not mutually exclusive.

          If that is so insulting to you, then I don't know what could be defined as not being insulting.

          "You want tact? You call a tactician"

          by mierts on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:46:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  MDPOE (0+ / 0-)

    The internet is great!  

    Coverage of Hagee, Dobson and others teaches us that devoutly religious people are the most dangerous people on earth.  They are not the people they should be.  The problem is that they believe things.  Their beliefs enable them to justify whatever they wish.

    The internet helps to publicize their activities.  If the internet, as we know it today, was around fifty years ago we would know who killed J.F.K.

    •  I respectfully disagree. (9+ / 0-)

      Being devoutly religious does not by itself make you dangerous. While my shortcomings make me merely religious rather than "devoutly" religious, if I look at my wife and many of our friends, I can positively describe them as devoutly religious. And to me that is a good thing, because they live out their Christian faith in such a positive way that, I believe, tries to answer the challenges contained in the Gospel:

      Solidarity. Charity. Humility. Forgiveness.

      These are the same values that secular progressives believe in, except framed in a theocentric rather than a humanistic way.

      What I find dangerous about demagogues like James Dobson et al. is two-fold: a) that I personally do not see much of the message of the Gospel in their pronouncements and behaviour to the "least of these" and combined with that, b) their abuse of their power in the political realm.

      I do not feel threatened by their faith. What I do feel threatened by how they choose to interpret and apply that faith in such a divisive and negative manner.

      "You want tact? You call a tactician"

      by mierts on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:56:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, the devout aren't the most dangerous. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mierts, Wee Mama, PsychoSavannah

      The devoutly religious people are probably working next to you and you never really know about their faith, except that you admire their concern for others.   The devoutly religious just keep on going about their lives, working to support the dignity of all people, quietly setting up food pantries, running community meals and helping others.  They run the gamut of the political spectrum, but the basis for their political decisions isn't a desire to control others, but a desire for a society that functions well and works for the best.  

      Dobson, Hagee and other so called "religious" leaders of the far Christian right have been shown time and time again to be zealots or opportunists who see advancement in the religion game as a way to power and money.  Many of them actually aren't very spiritual or even religious on a personal level.  They USE religion.

      I am sick and tired of my faith being hijacked by those impostors.  But I also wish that people of faith weren't being driven away from politically liberal sites by sneers at religious belief.  

    •  The Most Dangerous People on Earth? (0+ / 0-)

      Let's run some numbers. Check out the body counts for the last century:

      Atheist Communists: 50-100 million dead
      Atheist Facists: 50-100 million dead
      Atheist Corporations: Don't get me started...environmental damage, murder-by-spreadsheet, you name it.

      Lately it has become fashionable for the anti-religious crowd to blame religion for many of the world's problems.  The flaw in their logic is that even in the absence of religion people still do bad things.

      Religion is an easy target because it is usually telling you not to do something fun (like drinking or sex).  But instead of targeting religion as something to be against, I would challenge these atheist kids to tell me what, exactly, they are for.

      •  Just a history check here - (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Spoc42, Indexer, deMemedeMedia

        which of the fascists are you counting as atheists? Franco and Mussolini continued to be Roman Catholic, as far as I recall, and Hitler had his own very weird messianic (but arguably religious) world view.

        As to the corporations, a very few have explicitly religious boards, but most are not explicitly atheistic or religious - just profit oriented.

        •  I'm counting... (0+ / 0-)

          ...all the facists as atheist.

          The bad things they did were not done in the name of religion nor were they driven by a religious fact much of their evil was targeted against religious people.

          The anti-religion crowd has especially tried to disown Hitler because he had a weird worldview.  This is just equate "weird stuff" with Religion.

          Non-religious people believe Weird Stuff too.  Many of them believe (for instance) that "The Free Market is the Best Way to Allocate Earth's Resources".  Other non-religious people subscribe to the Weird Belief that "Global Warming Does Not Exist".

          Just because many Religious people are whackos does not justify labeling all whackos as Religious.  The most dangerous Whackos are those whose beliefs and actions are not grounded in the major religions.

          I think that instead of saying "Atheist", I should have said "Non-Religious".  That would have been clearer.

          Non-Religious people are every bit as dumb and dangerous as other humans.  And, in the 20th century, they have racked up (by far) the biggest, bloodiest, body-counts.

          •  I don't think this should be a pissing contest (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Spoc42, Indexer

            about who is or is not the most dangerous.

            It's an insult to the many "non-religious" here to say the following:

            The most dangerous Whackos are those whose beliefs and actions are not grounded in the major religions

            I think it can be settled that the most dangerous people are fundamentalists of any stripe or shade. Unyielding, dogmatic and fanatical adherence to any religion, ideology, you name it, is a danger to us all. And no one has a monopoly on that.

            "You want tact? You call a tactician"

            by mierts on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:21:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My quote... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wee Mama

              "...The most dangerous Whackos are those whose beliefs and actions are not grounded in the major religions"

     based on actual body-counts from the 20th century.  

              The 21st century is still in play...but I am betting that Global Warming and US Healthcare Policy will give "Souless Corporations" the edge over "Fundamentalists-Who-Refuse-Medical-Treatment".

              And while I understand the sentiment that "...most dangerous people are fundamentalists of any stripe or shade", I really think that we need to take a hard look at it.

              Many fundamentalists are not dangerous. The most obvious examples are Amish, Pacifists, etc.

              I say that if you have a man who believes strongly in "something" and a man who belives in "nothing", there is no way to tell which man is more likely to do hurt or harm.

              •  Interesting what you are avoiding (0+ / 0-)

                You limited yourself to the 20th century, which allowed you to ignore the untold millions who died as a result of such things as:

                1. The Spanish Inquisition
                1. Witch hunts (the real ones!)
                1. Crusades
                1. Deliberate supression of competing religions and sects (Cathars, Gnostics, etc.)

                I'm sure I've missed millions more.

                These deaths were all in the name of religion!

                The Prince of Peace has been usurped by the God of War.

                by Spoc42 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:58:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are right (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama

                  of course, and I wanted to point this out to ManhattanMan as well, but what this fails to take into account is the industrial scale of death which was possible during the 20th century which made the numbers simply so much bigger than in the past.

                  Not that this distintion really matters, though. Most deaths have occurred "in the name of" something or other.

                  What I would prefer to stick to is to looking forward. Rather than go over the past and recount how horrible religious conflict has been, let us at least look forward and see how the progressive Christian movement can best contribute to progressive and Democratic victories in the upcoming elections.

                  "You want tact? You call a tactician"

                  by mierts on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I used the 20th century... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama

                  ...for three reasons.  First, we have reliable numbers and we have a lot of the action on video.  Second, it wasn't until the last couple of centuries that "non-religious" people could even be identified.  Prior to the 20th century, they had to stay hidden or face persecution.

                  Third, I want to be forward-looking.  We need to concentrate on the issues and dangers that are relavant today.  The 20th century is closer to home...and many of the players then are still on the stage now.

                  I think that too many Progressives today have a fearful and hostile attitude towards religion. They seem to fear that we will all die of Smallpox because Creationists can't learn to manufacture vaccines.  Some act like the biggest danger we face is HIV...because many Christians insist on abstenince-only pervention.

                  I say that treating religion as some kind of darkness against which a candle must be lit is wrong-headed and blinds us to the real dangers.  The biggest threats facing modern humans are Dictators, Corporations, and Criminals...not Religions.

                  Lastly, from a practical political persepctive, anyone who wants to win US elections had better be comfortable with talking about how Progressive Policies will support and align with the goals of the major religions.  In instances where we do not align, we must learn to be sensitive and tolerant.

          •  It would probably be more accurate and (0+ / 0-)

            relevant to say that their fascism was not dependent upon their Christianity (for Franco and Mussolini) while Stalin's and Mao's atheism was integral to their perspective on communism. That said, I agree with the commenter who said it is fundamentalism in its many forms that is the greatest threat.

      •  I don't know . . . (0+ / 0-)

        I think that Religion is an easy target, because the behaviour of so many of its most vocal proponents open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy.

        I believe that that is the reason why so many in this community and others have such a problem with religion, and in particular Christianity as practiced and/or espoused by the leaders of the religious Right in the USA. It is the sermonising, the finger-pointing, the holier-than-thou attitudes, the spitefulness, the intolerance that makes "religion" such a turn-off for so many.

        Religion, or more specifically Christianity, is of course more than a list of precepts and rules to abide by. It is more than simply living by not doing certain things. It is positively, absolutely about being for something: and that is the hardest part, because when you truly look at what it demands of you, you realise how life-changing its demands are.

        "You want tact? You call a tactician"

        by mierts on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:59:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "devoutly religious people are the most dangerous (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ManhattanMan, Spoc42

      on earth"?

      I'm sure that would be a very comforting thought to the victims of Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot. Honestly, religious people do not have a monopoly on doing bad things, and honest atheists don't claim that.

  •  I linked this in an update of my diary below (3+ / 0-)

    any help they need chewing up Dobson needs to be encouraged.

  •  Dobson speaks for fewer every day (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mierts, Wee Mama

    There was an article on Huffpo the other day arguing that Dobson's attack on Obama may actually drive more evangelical voters to Obama.
    The reasoning is that Dobson has been burning bridges in the last few years with his warmongering support of Bush and his working against younger pastors who are trying to bring more attention to issues like poverty and the environment.
    He still has a large radio audience, but his influence is declining rapidly and he is widely disliked within the community.
    Having no connections to this movement myself, I really can't evaluate the claim, but it is an interesting view.

  •  The statement on the website is excellent (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mierts, Wee Mama, CcVenussPromise

    He doesn't speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to divide;

    He doesn't speak for me when he speaks as the final arbiter on the meaning of the Bible;

    James Dobson doesn't speak for me when he uses the beliefs of others as a line of attack;

    He doesn't speak for me when he denigrates his neighbor's views when they don't line up with his;

    He doesn't speak for me when he seeks to confine the values of my faith to two or three issues alone;

    Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by DWG on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:28:01 AM PDT

  •  Progressive Christians??!! (0+ / 0-)

    Where are you? And why have you allowed the right wing conservative Christians to grow powerful and dominant? Why have you not supported your own, stood for justice, and fought like hell against the misrepresentation of your faith?

    It's probably too late now. Dobson et. al., have won the loyalty of the majority of evangelicals.

    •  It's never too late (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And here are some links to different progressive Christian movements:

      Matthew 25 Network
      Street Prophets

      I don't think it's ever too late. But perhaps it is only now, through having witnessed the utter bankruptcy of the excesses of the last few years of Republican rule, that those Christians who were afraid to speak out in their communities are finally finding the strength to do so. And I for one believe that there are many more of them than the Republicans could ever imagine in the wildest nightmares. It is incumbent upon the Democratic Party and progressives everywhere to welcome these progressive Christians with open arms, even where differences may arise. There is much more that brings us together than we have to divide us.

      "You want tact? You call a tactician"

      by mierts on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:36:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sojourners (0+ / 0-)

      Progressive Christians have been around for a long, long time -- Martin Luther King, anyone?  

      It has just that over the past 25-30 years they have been shut out of the debate for years by a corporate media more interested in controlling the discussion on their own terms than in having one representing differing view points.  It has taken a lot of time and effort but their demands to be a part of the discussion are finally being heard.  We can thank the Rev. Jim Wallis for a good portion of this work.

      Check out his group and magazine:

  •  James Dobson is such a... (0+ / 0-)

    ...cry baby.

  •  Done! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How did a child psychologist ever end up with this kind of power?  Isn't psychology, like, way too scientific for this crowd?

    -7.62, -7.28 "We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace." - Walter Mondale

    by luckylizard on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:39:44 AM PDT

    •  Maybe not (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ManhattanMan, luckylizard

      There are many scientists who look on psychology as another of the Voodoo Sciences, i.e., science wanabes that have no real scientific basis.

      I'm not saying I agree or disagree, having no experience with it.

      The Prince of Peace has been usurped by the God of War.

      by Spoc42 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:02:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site