I have been wanting to wade into this territory for quite a long time, perhaps several years. It's not easy, this topic is perilous and prone to misinterpretation of those in the discussion and those standing outside looking for weakness. Regardless, this is the Democratic Party and our discussions appear in the open, not behind closed doors. Hopefully the good ideas rise from the chaff and strategy is born.
As many probably know, Barack Obama gave a speech at a conference on faith last week. It was reported by the Washington Post as "Democrats Must Court Evangelicals". The full transcript of this speech is available from Obama's website. This diary is in part about how the Post got it wrong, but also discusses some good points I think Obama made.
Before I get to Barack Obama, I just want to speak a bit about my own faith.
I was raised Mainstream Protestant. It's difficult to be more specific than that. My family background is a combination of Brethren, Methodist and Presbyterian. For most of my childhood we went to the Presbyterian church, and I guess in a sense then that's how I was raised. However in 1985, I stopped going. It was really more my parents decision than my own. I wasn't even aware of what was happening. But the church we had attended had become overrun by followers of Falwell. The church became a place to review movies done by James Dobson and his ilk. In my view now, I think you could say that the church had become a place for negativity and hatred, rather than an expression of the Love of God.
Our assistant Pastor said one day at Bible study that "the Church was a hospital for sinners, not a resthome for Saints", his lesson being that we must use our opportunties to continue to learn to be better human beings, that we were not born perfect and should not rest upon our laurels. My mother took this attitude somewhat to heart, as the change in the church began she declared that "They needed the church far more than I did", as she left in disgust.
It's not a unique story, if you look at some of the statistics available, you see that church membership as a percentage of the population declined from 1990 to 2000. The numbers are even worse, with the exception of Catholic, Assemblies of God, Southern Baptist, and Mormon, the majority of denominations lost membership. Particularly amongst old mainline Protestant churches such as Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal. However, when you look at attendance the numbers show declines across the board.
So while the Evangelical Right is trumpeting their success at rebranding Christianity, the numbers indicate that they are doing much more to drive people away from Christianity than to embrace it.
Now what does this have to do with Barack?
Last week he gave a speech at a conference put on by the group Call to Renewal. I don't know much about the group, although I like what I see from their website. The transcript of this speech is available from Obama's website.
Barack received a lot of criticism for what he said, I think largely because the first knowledge of this came from a WashPost article titled Democrats Must Court Evangelicals.
But if you read the speech, I don't think that is what Obama is saying. He's not telling Democrats that they must court Evangelicals. He's saying that Faith has a Positive message, and that the Brand of Christianity that the Right preaches avoids that message. He is arguing that our response to the Right has been not to advocate and argue our faith, but rather to shun religion all together.
Now bare with me, for I am faully aware of the corruption that the Right has sown in our culture with their ridiculous emphasis on Ten Commandments, Abortion, Gays, etc. Trying to shove their Brand down our throats by order of the Government. I'm also aware that there are many Liberal religious groups out there. We're talking about generalities here and stereotypes, concepts that are laden with rhetorical mind fields.
I think the point Obama was making was not to embrace the Right, but rather to counter what they are saying. The answer as to why is simple... Obama says this:
And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.
This point goes to my favorite moment in the movie The American President, the point where President Shepard finally realizes that he cannot ignore the attacks he must fight back.
LEWIS
They don't have a choice! Rob
Rumson's the only one doing the
talking. People want leadership.
And in the absence of genuine
leadership, they will listen to
anyone who steps up to the
microphone. They want leadership,
Mr. President. They're so thirsty
for it, they'll crawl through the
desert toward a mirage, and when
they discover there's no water,
they'll drink the sand.
SHEPHERD
(evenly)
Lewis, we've had Presidents who were
beloved, who couldn't find a coherent
sentence with two hands and a
flashlight. People don't drink the
sand, 'cause they're thirsty, Lewis.
They drink it 'cause they don't know
the difference.
Barack is simply saying, in the absence of alternative points of view, people will drink the sand not knowing what it is.
This should not be an argument that Democrats must push their own brand of Christianity down the throats of others, and it's clear from Obama's speech that is not what he is advocating for. He makes frequent references to members of all faiths and what they share in common.
Which is a good point, if you look at most modern religions and even some philosophies outside of religion, they try to teach how one should live their lives, and most of these teachings embody what we Christians call the Golden Rule as stated in Luke 6:31 "Do to others as you would have them do to you". This belief is shared by 21 world religions. That notion, shared by so many people is the central tenant of our law. We do not need a 10 Commandments display to remember that.
Why is this important?
Morality has a lot more to do with how you live your lives and how you treat others than gays and guns. As exemplified in the Golden Rule, it has to do with how you treat others. It also has to do with how we behave as a community towards one another. It has to do with how you behave as an individual in terms of greed and sharing.
When we abandoned the talk of morality to those who want only to discuss gays and guns, we abandoned many of our best arguments with regards to tax and budget policy. This appears to be the purpose of the Call to Renewal group from reading their website.
As a scientist of sorts, I think it's important to justify observations by way of seeing similar patterns in other contexts. Thus, I came to part of this realization while listening to NPR one day as they talked about a series of new problems facing China in the wake of their expanding economy. Simply put, many Chinese have become overwhelmed with this new wealth and are looking for teachings of how to behave. This gap exists because the Communist government has actively discouraged religion for the past 50 years. So a generation of Chinese has effectively grown up not having been taught a foundation of morality. So many Chinese today are seeking answers, and have turned again to religion, in particulary Buddhism but others as well.
The important point to realize is that when the people are looking for something, it is critical that you have something to offer them. Otherwise the charletons and pharisees will come along and take advantage of their demand with a overwhelmingly greedy purpose.
This diary could expand into a critique of the big-box churches and the Cadillac Pastors. But that's more of a personal annoyance on my part, and I probably shouldn't add that rant just yet.
Anyway, I've written enough for now. I'm typing this in the little dKos textbox which is near impossible to use for review thoughts once composed. As such this diary might be rather disjointed, and I'll likely go back and revisit it to create a better argument.
But the point I wanted to get across was I don't think Obama said we should be courting Evangelicals. What he is saying is that we should court Americans and make clear our own faith and morality. There's a need for leadership on these issues, and right now the people are drinking the sand because they don't know the difference.