Will the Religious Right have far less influence in the 2008 cycle than in recent history.


It appears so...

The religious right's candidate - The Carpetbagger Report (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12942.html)

Some leaders of the radical right are deserting some of the Republican hopefulls already. Dobson has just dumped Fred Thompson because he isn't working hard enough to be President and for the right wing moral agenda.

Also, some of the fundimEv ministers are backing traditional Christian issues such as fighting poverty and have added the protection of the environment to their agendas.

Decent citizens are wary of the religious right after all the shebangin's during the Bush Administration.

It seems to me that the radical religious right will have less influence in 08---they will be trumpeting their fear and hate toward the usual institutions and folks, though... decent people are tired of the hate.

Frankly, I don't think it matters whether the "religious right" backs a particular candidate or not. I'd be more concerned if I saw moderate conservatives and moderate liberals having the same sort of dilema. It is the middle-of-the-road voters that make or break an election. Right now, the moderates of both parties are staking out the ground. Once the parties have chosen their candidates, THEN the moderates will be poised to put their support behind one candidate or another. And THAT will be how the election is won or lost. The fact that the far right and far left are having problems supporting a particular candidate won't matter anymore... it'll be the moderates that determine the outcome of the election.

In my opinion, while the religious right as a voting block is important in determining the outcome of the party primary, they are less of a determinant with regard to the general election. In the general election, their importance is as a MONEY MACHINE, not as a voting block. Important, sure, but not the powerhouse that they are in the primaries.

And once a party candidate is determined in the primary, who are the religious right going to vote for? Even if they don't agree with Giulliani or Thompson or McCain, will they vote for Hillary or Obama? Of course not. They'll hold their noses and vote for the Republican candidate, because as far as they are concerned, anything would be better than Hillary or Obama. The religious rights' votes will still go to the Republican candidate.

So I am not all that worried that the religious right is having a hard time backing a particular candidate. Those votes won't be going to the Democrats no matter what happens.

Elliot

Elliot

I tend to agree with you; however, the point is that the Religious Right will not have an administration in their back pocket like they have enjoyed with Bush.

Will the Religious Right have far less influence in the 2008 cycle than in recent history.


It appears so...

The religious right's candidate - The Carpetbagger Report (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12942.html)

OK! I read the article. It's a subject that I brought up in post awhile back. I do think there is a more distinct possibility that in this election that the conservative voting religious minded contegnecy will be divided behind various candidates. But we will have to wait and see if when the Republican platform is finalized how the support goes. Both party's tend to get a rally of support beyond dissension, with exception of '92 election. BTW my convictions are more conservative when it comes to my faith, which is one reason that I have less and less choice finding representation to my liking in the Democratic camp. I understand when most forums and blogs speak of the "Religious Right," they mean, more-or-less the of people representing the Bible Belt, and conjure up thoughts of droves following televangilists across the nation. Personally I think that's a simpleton equation that gives no recognition to reasonable, intelligent choosing Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc... that may vote Republican. As a registered Democrat, non-liberal, what does the Religious Left represent to be true to their convictions? If you have a right than you have a left. If a Religious Left can be defined, would they clearly support the same candidate?





Bobby

Bobby

Good questions... when we compare the Right and the Left, the left's record has been one of great success while the Right's has been one of failures. The right has only been successful to the degree of holding the left at a standstill. Least we forgett, the left was behind ending slavery, promoting civil rights, Women's Suffrage, Unionization. While Abortion is still legal - at most, they get restrictions on late-term abortions or requirements for parental notification. There is still no government-mandated prayer in schools - at most, there might be a moment of silence in some places. Gays are not only still out of the closet, but anti-sodomy laws are now unconstitutional. Even gay marriage is a realistic possibility right now - something that would have been dismissed as ridiculous two or three decades ago.

Elliot

I tend to agree with you; however, the point is that the Religious Right will not have an administration in their back pocket like they have enjoyed with Bush.

I'm curious... what makes you think that Bush is currently in the back pocket of the religious right?

Has abortion been banned? Has there been any sort of cut in the funding of planned parenthood? Has the NEA had a funding cut under Bush? Has there been a significan increase in the federal funding of any Christian organization? Has there been a decrease in the number of public venues at which religious symbols are being banned? Has there been a federal marriage protection amendment to the Constitution? Has there been a ban on gay marriage at the federal level? Can you point to a single event, a single piece of legislation, a single decision that points to Bush being "in the back pocket of the religious right"?

The closest I have ever seen anyone come to "proving" that Bush is in their pockets is when people claim that Bush is a "member" of the religious right, therefore he must be in their pockets. But the actual legislation seems to disprove that fact. There has been no action on Bush's part to indicate that he is in anyone's pocket. If he were, surely SOMETHING that Bush has done in 7 years would prove that point. The closest we come to any legislation that MIGHT prove something like that is Bush's stance on fetal stem cell research... and considering that much of the medical community is of mixed feelings on fetal stem cell research (because all of the real medical breakthroughs have been in ADULT stem cell research), it can hardly be argued that Bush is listening only to the religious right on that issue either.

I don't want to turn this into a stem cell argument. I am just pointing out that Bush's stance on fetal stem cell research is not exclusively a "religious right" position, but rather has much support in the medical community.

So in fact, there is no real evidence to bear out the accusation that the current president is in the back pocket of the religious right.

And in fact, the religious right will be no worse off after the 2008 election than they were after the 1992 and 1996 elections, even if it turns out the Bush WAS in their pocket. Nothing new here.

Elliot

Elliot

In their back pocket, was perhaps too general; however, all one need do is look at the background of his administration, Federal prosecutors and Judges.

Elliot

In their back pocket, was perhaps too general; however, all one need do is look at the background of his administration, Federal prosecutors and Judges.

What are the religious backgrounds of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito? I don't think either of them is an Evangelical Christian.

I have no idea what Condi Rice's religious background is, but I would GUESS that if she is religious at all, she is probably Southern Baptist.

Anybody know Rumsfeld's religious background? Or Cheney's? Or any other prominent member of the Bush administration?

In fact, other than Bush himself, is there any member of the administration who is an Evangelical? I don't know, so please help me out on this one.

As far as judges, prosecutors and other appointees are concerned, again, do you know the religious background of ANY of them? I don't.

On what basis are you making the statement that if we look at the Bush Administration and Bush appointees, we will see some sort of pattern of Bush being a puppet of the religious right. Are you making an assumption or do you have any sort of proof?

I'll continue this conversation some time next week. I'll be out of touch for the Jewish holiday for the rest of the week.

Elliot

Some leaders of the radical right are deserting some of the Republican hopefulls already. Dobson has just dumped Fred Thompson because he isn't working hard enough to be President and for the right wing moral agenda.

Also, some of the fundimEv ministers are backing traditional Christian issues such as fighting poverty and have added the protection of the environment to their agendas.

Decent citizens are wary of the religious right after all the shebangin's during the Bush Administration.

It seems to me that the radical religious right will have less influence in 08---they will be trumpeting their fear and hate toward the usual institutions and folks, though..... decent people are tired of the hate.
Choux
Contrast that with the Political and Social Views of the Christian Left: Oppose the Iraq war, support the teaching of evolution in the public schools and oppose teaching theories related to the concept of Intelligent Design, believe more strongly in the establishment of religion clause in the first amendment to the Constitution than in the free exercise of religion clause, and support abortion in terms of “a women’s right to choose while generally opposing capital punishment, just to point to a few differences.

Least we forgett, the left was behind ending slavery.

Lincoln was a Republican.



promoting civil rights.

It was, perhaps, the last half of the past century that brought the Democratic party to join the forefront on equality issues.



Women's Suffrage .

If I recall correctly that actually was the Republicans again.

Grand Old Partisan: Republican governor first enacts women's suffrage (http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/republican-gove.html)




Unionization.

I think that is correct. Personally, I find good reason to back the Union when their not in bed with the large corporations.



While Abortion is still legal - at most, they get restrictions on late-term abortions or requirements for parental notification. There is still no government-mandated prayer in schools - at most, there might be a moment of silence in some places. Gays are not only still out of the closet, but anti-sodomy laws are now unconstitutional. Even gay marriage is a realistic possibility right now - something that would have been dismissed as ridiculous two or three decades ago.

I think this represents, if anything, that the mainstream left of today is even more liberal than the party was fifty years ago. Enough to make others like myself leave the party in support of Independent and Republican candidates.





Bobby

Elliot

So, that's what you believe, OK.
I am to weary to argue an onslaught of endless particulars whose answers will only bring on another volley. If you don't believe that Reagan, Thatcher and now George W. Bush are followers of Hayekian political economy which Hayek considers to be classical liberalism and who considered himself to be an “Old Whig,” and that that is Right wing Christianity, so be it.

It seems to me that the radical religious right will have less influence in 08---they will be trumpeting their fear and hate toward the usual institutions and folks, though... decent people are tired of the hate.

Decent people are tired of the hate, like these examples from the Kossacks (http://www.dailykos.com/section/Diary) today:


Dems--Don't be afraid to say Bush is crazy (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/26/164030/509)
By 2501
Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 01:42:03 PM PDT

OK, so I know I am just as pissed as many people here about some of the recent votes in Congress. You know a few years back, when people were accusing the Democrats of "bringing a knife to a gunfight" in the 2004 elections? Last week's anti-MoveOn vote felt like we had all said, "we know you only have a knife, but we're not afraid to use a gun once in a while, and we've got your back," and the Dems finally decided to use their knife--to stab us in the back with it.

Today I'm listening to a repeat of Randi Rhodes, and she is saying that the reason Dems will not use their power to vote (or, not vote) to cut off funds for the war is that they are all afraid that Bush is so stubborn and/or crazy that he will just leave the troops sitting in Iraq as they run out of bullets.

If the Dems truly believe that, then here is my advice for them:

F**ING STAND UP AND SAY SO!


A bat-sh*t crazy President (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/26/162324/583)
By Stash
Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 01:39:27 PM PDT

On September 24, 2007 two Presidents of two different nations made these comments:

1. "You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world."

2. "What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? ... You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious."

3. "I think your ideas are weird, your religion is bat-sh*t, and you talk funny."

Which comment belongs to which President?

This was an easy test, of course.

Comment #1:"You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world" was said by President Bush but could be a paragraph about George W. Bush in his biography.

Comment #2: "What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? ... You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious." was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's retort on 60 Minutes to a question about President Bush supposedly being "a very religious man".

Comment #3: "I think your ideas are weird, your religion is bat-sh*t, and you talk funny" was silently thought by both Presidents (and known to all because their lips moved). [snark]


The American People think David Brooks Smells like Monkey A$$ (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/26/101111/155)
By WinSmith
Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 07:11:11 AM PDT

This is a sober, serious diary on a very sober and serious topic, which only sober serious people like republicans and Joe Lieberman will understand.

It is about the very grave issue of David Brooks's body odor.

What has become increasingly clear is that the American People, and by the American People I mean me, think David Brooks smells distinctly like stale monkey a$$.

Yep, decent people are tired of the hate.

Bobbie, please, please, what is all of that supposed to prove... please at least Google Christian Right vs Christian Left so that you can at least learn a little about the history of the two.

Decent people are tired of the hate, like these examples from the Kossacks (http://www.dailykos.com/section/Diary) today:
Yep, decent people are tired of the hate.
Yep, that’s the opposite of the Religious Right’s Ann Coulter, etc, etc, etc... I’m tired of all of them. The thing is, you are not quoting the Religious Left so there is a category error in your comparison.

Bobbie, please, please, what is all of that supposed to prove...please at least google Christian Right vs Christian Left so that you can at least learn a little about the history of the two.



Well I don't think I'm above learning. When possible I like the historic facts to be part of the dialogue. I wonder why that would bother you?


Bobby

Yep, that’s the opposite of the Religious Right’s Ann Coulter, etc, etc, etc...I’m tired of all of them. The thing is, you are not quoting the Religious Left so there is a category error in your comparison.

Well DC I find that irrelevant to my comments to Choux. She knows what I'm talking about.

I can't wait to begin reading the latest Bill Sammon book on the Bush Presidency 'The Evangelical President' .

Really ;the laugh is on people who think that with the nadir of this Presidency his influence will cease. I tell you that it was revealed today that Bush has concluded that Hillary may very well be President and he has been secretely pushing her prospects above others like Obama ;who he thinks is not informed enough to be a good President. He has been in discussions with her about the continuity of the Bush Doctrine because like the Truman Doctrine before it ;the policy will be applicable long after this administration ;and it will be bipartisan from year to year with both Republicans and Democrats being the stewards.

I read today that Hillary will be the most religious of the Democrats running since Carter . Unlike the posturing of the former President Clinton Hillary evidently believes.

The horde has been stopped and the wave of extreme liberalism has come to and halt . America is returning to it's moderate conservatism and everyone can ridicule the so called "religious right " all they want to .It has been a very effective counter-revolution.

More tomorrow got to run now .

Edit : it should read that the religious right has been PART of a very effective counter-revolution

I can't wait to begin reading the latest Bill Sammon book on the Bush Presidency 'The Evangelical President' .

Really ;the laugh is on people who think that with the nadir of this Presidency his influence will cease. I tell you that it was revealed today that Bush has concluded that Hillary may very well be President and he has been secretely pushing her prospects above others like Obama ;who he thinks is not informed enough to be a good President. He has been in discussions with her about the continuity of the Bush Doctrine because like the Truman Doctrine before it ;the policy will be applicable long after this administration ;and it will be bipartisan from year to year with both Republicans and Democrats being the stewards.

I read today that Hillary will be the most religious of the Democrats running since Carter . Unlike the posturing of the former President Clinton Hillary evidently believes.

The horde has been stopped and the wave of extreme liberalism has come to and halt . America is returning to it's moderate conservatism and everyone can ridicule the so called "religious right " all they want to .It has been a very effective counter-revolution.

more tomorrow gotta run now .
Let me paraphrase Mark Twain and state unequivocally that the death of the left has been greatly exaggerated; it's like a Hydra, a monster composed of numerous heads. So which head are you referring to: Communism, Socialism, Nazism and Fascism, the peace movement, the environmental movement, Secular Humanism, multiculturalism, political correctness or the Christian Left. Just what exactly is liberalism? Just which 'head' do you think has been cut off?

Recently, there has been an increase in books and Web sites by religious liberals, national and regional conferences, church-based discussion groups and new faith-oriented political organizations. "Organizationally speaking, strategically speaking, the religious left is now in the strongest position it's been in since the Vietnam era," said Clemson University political scientist Laura Olson.

Is there any semblance of a religious left in the United States today that could counterbalance the religious right; look out, I think their coming.

Bobbie, please, please, what is all of that supposed to prove...please at least google Christian Right vs Christian Left so that you can at least learn a little about the history of the two.

You can't really be that ignorant of American History, DC -- And I'm even cutting you slack based on the presumption that you attended Public Schools.

Lincoln was a Republican.




It was, perhaps, the last half of the past century that brought the Democratic party to join the forefront on equality issues..






If I recall correctly that actually was the Republicans again.

Grand Old Partisan: Republican governor first enacts women's suffrage (http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/republican-gove.html)

It bears noting that the two parties (Senator Byrd, being the anachronism that he is, aside) are the Polar opposites of what they were and represented in the late 1800's

Just my two pence.

It bears noting that the two parties (Senator Byrd, being the anachronism that he is, aside) are the Polar opposites of what they were and represented in the late 1800's

Just my two pence.


Hi Growler-

Good hearing from you. I agree. Concerning our country's history, Lincoln was well ahead of the curve representing equality of manhood. Byrd... well... uh-mm... he was more concerned with keeping that pillowcase hood clean for the next rally.



You can't really be that ignorant of American History, DC -- And I'm even cutting you slack based on the presumption that you attended Public Schools.

As much as we all appreciate good dialogue, I have to admit being taken back by DC's reply as well. I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one that took notice. :)




Bobby

Just what exactly is liberalism?

DC a label is an approximation.


Recently, there has been an increase in books and Web sites by religious liberals, national and regional conferences, church-based discussion groups and new faith-oriented political organizations. "Organizationally speaking, strategically speaking, the religious left is now in the strongest position it's been in since the Vietnam era," said Clemson University political scientist Laura Olson.

Is there any semblance of a religious left in the United States today that could counterbalance the religious right; look out, I think their coming.


Here's my dirty little secret. I once thought myself as a member of what you refer to as the religious left. I thought myself a liberation theologist .I still am in a way except that the left abandoned the idea of true liberation and instead only believed that it meant liberation from the so called right winged juntas. When it came to freeing people from the yoke of communism, then freedom was just another word.

Today I suppose they are pacifist in their beliefs and would never lift a finger to oppose jack-booted dictators either left or right. Witness the silence about the persecutions in Yangon this week .

The religious left is very high on ideas like social justice ,and believe that non-Stalinist socialism is the means to egalitatarianism .But,when it means picking pockets then there is no virtue in it. The early Christians may have been communal societies but they never would have mandated charitable contributions at the point of a gun.

As far as the so called separation of church and state canard; the left has never made the distinction. The church has always been part of the political movement . When the church is in support of left winged causes it is celebrated and made an integral part of the revolution.As an example; Candidates have always utilized the pulpit in their campaigns and in mobilizing support .Another example would be the role the church played in ending segregation. The left still champions their Reverends who are on the front line of the social debate .It is only when conservatism enlisted the support of religion that the issue became conveniently revived.

DC a label is an approximation.



Here's my dirty little secret. I once thought myself as a member of what you refer to as the religious left. I thought myself a liberation theologist .I still am in a way except that the left abandoned the idea of true liberation and instead only believed that it meant liberation from the so called right winged juntas. When it came to freeing people from the yoke of communism, then freedom was just another word.

Today I suppose they are pacifist in their beliefs and would never lift a finger to oppose jack-booted dictators either left or right. Witness the silence about the persecutions in Yangon this week .

The religious left is very high on ideas like social justice ,and believe that non-Stalinist socialism is the means to egalitatarianism .But,when it means picking pockets then there is no virtue in it. The early Christians may have been communal societies but they never would have mandated charitable contributions at the point of a gun.

As far as the so called separation of church and state canard; the left has never made the distinction. The church has always been part of the political movement . When the church is in support of left winged causes it is celebrated and made an integral part of the revolution.As an example; Candidates have always utilized the pulpit in their campaigns and in mobilizing support .Another example would be the role the church played in ending segregation. The left still champions their Reverends who are on the front line of the social debate .It is only when conservatism enlisted the support of religion that the issue became conveniently revived.
I agree Tom, Liberalism is a sort of approximation, or an idea having a general application, as is the terms, Republican, Democrats, Rightist, Leftist, Christian, jack-booted dictators or right winged juntas.
So for instance, let me ask you a question: You assert that, “the left abandoned the idea of true liberation,” if I could give you an example of a Christian Leftist, the name of someone in particular who did not, by your defination, “abandon the idea of true liberation,” would that prove that you were wrong in what you said?

Clarification : I meant that liberation theologist abandoned the idea of true liberation and instead only believed that it meant liberation from the so called right winged juntas.This sounds like a set up so I will not concede anything until you name that Christian Leftist . My bet is you will try to lay the line that Jesus was a leftist . I have never read in the scriptures where the government is commanded to play Robin Hood .

Clarification : I meant that liberation theologist abandoned the idea of true liberation and instead only believed that it meant liberation from the so called right winged juntas.This sounds like a set up so I will not concede anything until you name that Christian Leftist . My bet is you will try to lay the line that Jesus was a leftist . I have never read in the scriptures where the government is commanded to play Robin Hood .
Not a set-up at all Tom, one exception to an approximation, or an idea having a general application, does not negate the approximation. So that even if I gave 5 exceptions that alone would not negate your assertion. However, what negates your assertion is that it falsely assumes the Christian Left in America once held the belief that America’s role was to give freedom to the world, not just it’s citizens. And the proof of that is written in pre-world war 1 history.

Was there a left -right divide in the 18th century ? Yes ,when the nation could not do so we tended to be isolationists to a degree. But then again... abolition was also a religious movement.

Was there a left -right divide in the 18th century ? Yes ,when the nation could not do so we tended to be isolationists to a degree. But then again.....abolition was also a religious movement.
I believe in what some would consider a contradiction, and what Hegel would call a dialectic. On the one hand, the rugged individualism that is at the heart of the Christian Right, and the notion that no American should be with-out health-care, a shelter or food, which is at the heart of the Christian Left; those two notions is in my opinion what should drive American politics. Not extending liberty to the world
:)

Will the Religious Right have far less influence in the 2008 cycle than in recent history.


It appears so...

The religious right’s candidate - The Carpetbagger Report (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12942.html)

Agree.

James Dobson does not represent all or most christians though he does have influence.

I think most christians realize that we are not to be of this world, thus left or right political involvement is not a true calling.
I think most will do their own assessment and vote for the candidate of their preference.

I do not think morality can be legislated, but when the "left" pushes for its own morality regarding such issues as gay marriage, abortion, the 10 commandments, etc... then the religious "right" will make their votes known.




Grace and Peace

Agree.


I think most christians realize that we are not to be of this world, thus left or right political involvement is not a true calling.



Grace and Peace
Oh! I pray that it were true.

Laura Bush did her part to extend liberty this week. In a VOA radio address to Burma she said :


"I want to say to the armed guards and to the soldiers: Don't fire on your people, don't fire on your neighbors. Join this movement."


VOA News - US First Lady Appeals to Burmese Junta: 'Don't Fire on Your People' (http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-26-voa54.cfm)

Extending liberty to the world does not always mean taking up arms but it does mean supporting legitimate democratic movements .I say that Christians in the U.S. of any political persuasion should unite under that banner.

“Support” is a word I would use for the poor and homeless, encourage seems more fitting to me. And then when I think about the democracy of the Palestinian government I am reluctant to even use that. I think the Religious Right has their priories reversed.

Jesus said to extend love and compassion, not liberty and freedom.

I believe in what some would consider a contradiction, and what Hegel would call a dialectic. On the one hand, the rugged individualism that is at the heart of the Christian Right, and the notion that no American should be with-out health-care, a shelter or food, which is at the heart of the Christian Left; those two notions is in my opinion what should drive American politics. Not extending liberty to the world
:)

DC, that's what the left would have us believe. The heart of the Christian right is more than rugged individualism, it is giving. We don't expect or wait for government to make sure people have healthcare, shelter or food, we give out of our resources - time, money, labor, prayer, etc. - to meet the immediate needs of others and to help them succeed later on. What the left sees is a group of people hell bent on running their lives, imposing our morality, ending abortion (the right to choose as they say), denying rights to gays and some alleged nefarious campaign to establish a theocracy.

That is where the left has succeeded in eroding support for the religious right, with a heated campaign to strike fear into the hearts of people by warning the world of our alleged intolerance, bigotry and selfishness. We've been called neo-Nazis, Christo-Nazis, Christo-fascists, compared with Hitler and labeled as no different than Islamic radicals. Just look at the first answer to this post, the same woman that called us fascists said "decent people are tired of the hate" coming from the religious right. That kind of nonsense is not only dishonest, it's often delusional.

One difference between the left - including the religious left - and the religious right is we just take care of things without the need for recognition. The left seems to like the attention they get for doing something, while the right goes quietly on. Bill Gates makes a huge donation it's all over the news, Oprah opens a school in Africa and she's a saint, Bono makes a declaration and it's around the world in 60 seconds. What happens when World Vision opens another school in a third world country, or a Baptist church sends a disaster team to a hurricane ravaged town? Usually nothing, and that's fine - just stop telling everyone how little we care for and do for those less fortunate.

And by the way, last night Bono basically said when others aren't free "then none of us are truly free." Perhaps extending freedom to others should be more of what drives American politics.

You can't really be that ignorant of American History, DC -- And I'm even cutting you slack based on the presumption that you attended Public Schools.
I am uneducated so I find it easier to express what I wish to say with as much force as possible and let others chip away if they can.
An ad hominem does not chip even dust, they only affect those who use them.

DC, that's what the left would have us believe. The heart of the Christian right is more than rugged individualism, it is giving. We don't expect or wait for government to make sure people have healthcare, shelter or food, we give out of our resources - time, money, labor, prayer, etc. - to meet the immediate needs of others and to help them succeed later on. What the left sees is a group of people hell bent on running their lives, imposing our morality, ending abortion (the right to choose as they say), denying rights to gays and some alleged nefarious campaign to establish a theocracy.

That is where the left has succeeded in eroding support for the religious right, with a heated campaign to strike fear into the hearts of people by warning the world of our alleged intolerance, bigotry and selfishness. We've been called neo-Nazis, Christo-Nazis, Christo-fascists, compared with Hitler and labeled as no different than Islamic radicals. Just look at the first answer to this post, the same woman that called us fascists said "decent people are tired of the hate" coming from the religious right. That kind of nonsense is not only dishonest, it's often delusional.

One difference between the left - including the religious left - and the religious right is we just take care of things without the need for recognition. The left seems to like the attention they get for doing something, while the right goes quietly on. Bill Gates makes a huge donation it's all over the news, Oprah opens a school in Africa and she's a saint, Bono makes a declaration and it's around the world in 60 seconds. What happens when World Vision opens another school in a third world country, or a Baptist church sends a disaster team to a hurricane ravaged town? Usually nothing, and that's fine - just stop telling everyone how little we care for and do for those less fortunate.

And by the way, last night Bono basically said when others aren't free "then none of us are truly free." Perhaps extending freedom to others should be more of what drives American politics.
I agree with you whole heartily that Christian, both the Christian Left and the Right give a great deal in not only money, but time as well; I really don’t think anyone would deny they hold this fine attribute in common.
However, what they don’t hold in common is evangelism and the belief in absolute infallible word of God in Scripture.
Much of what you attribute to the Christian Left is in fact posited by an entire spectrum of organizations and groups which consider themselves to be leftist or have origins in leftist movements...

“Support” is a word I would use for the poor and homeless, encourage seems more fitting to me. And then when I think about the democracy of the Palestinian government I am reluctant to even use that. I think the Religious Right has their priories reversed.

Jesus said to extend love and compassion, not liberty and freedom.

DC, this goes also to your comment above concerning evangelism. Jesus said, "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." That is the gist of evangelism, setting people free, free from fear, guilt, sin, loneliness and other things that oppress them so they can live life to the fullest. That's what the secular left doesn't get, it's not about oppression but true freedom.

What gets under my skin about all of this is what inthebox touched on. If you listen to the rhetoric from the left concerning the religious right, they expound breathlessly on the dangers of imposing our morality on others - while pretending they aren't doing the same.

DC, this goes also to your comment above concerning evangelism. Jesus said, "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." That is the gist of evangelism, setting people free, free from fear, guilt, sin, loneliness and other things that oppress them so they can live life to the fullest. That's what the secular left doesn't get, it's not about oppression but true freedom.

What gets under my skin about all of this is what inthebox touched on. If you listen to the rhetoric from the left concerning the religious right, they expound breathlessly on the dangers of imposing our morality on others - while pretending they aren't doing the same.
Again, I believe you are not talking about the Religious Left, but rather others on the left in general. Can you give me an equivalent from the Christian Left’s, of the Right’s Jerry Falwell
Evangelism... a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith; the Crusades was not waged to give peace of mind.

Again, I believe you are not talking about the Religious Left, but rather others on the left in general. Can you give me an equivalent from the Christian Left’s, of the Right’s Jerry Falwell

DC, I included both the secular and religious left earlier. The reason you don't perceive any liberal Falwell's is because they are held up as heroes in the MSM, while every perceived injustice or hypocrisy by a Falwell or Dobson is scorned. Why should the media attack the religious left, they think the same (http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/) - but they're out there.

Jimmy Carter
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton
Al Gore
John Edwards
Rabbi Michael Lerner
Frank Forrester Church
Tony Campolo
Ron Sider
Katharine Jefferts Schori
BOTH CLINTONS


evangelism... a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith; the Crusades was not waged to give peace of mind.

Don't fall into that trap, name one Christian leader, group - one Christian engaged in anything even remotely similar to the Crusades. 'Evangelism' from the right is not about conversion to the faith, it's about changing lives, empowering people, freedom, relationships, personal strength. 'Evangelism' from the left is about submission to an ideology and acceptance and tolerance for our differences - unless you're a conservative.

“As televangelism expanded, it also became increasingly associated with conservative perspectives in both religion and politics, and it generated considerable controversy during the 1970s and 1980s after a number of its major proponents lent their support to conservative political causes.
“The shift in focus of mass evangelism during the twentieth century, from a broad connection to the Protestant mainstream to a narrower association primarily with religious conservatives, has had significant implications for its relationship to American cultural generally. The leading televangelist especially have become less exclusively concerned with the individual conversion experience, and increasingly concerned with general trends within American popular culture. In this sense, evangelism has evolved from a primarily religious phenomenon to one that has had significant impacts on politics and public policy in the United States.




http://130.94.23.9/images/sjpc/sjpc_02_img0394.jpg






I don't think blaming it on the media is a very good argument at all, the fact is there are none for the media to publicize or there would be, news in the making, if the Christian Left was as vociferous as the Right.


Evangelism History | sjpc_02_package.xml (http://www.bookrags.com/history/evangelism-sjpc-02/)

DC- That newest picture of a stoned philosopher guy is rather fitting. Anyway this topic managed to get even weirder. When it comes to casting votes, personally IMO there doesn't appear any difference between the liberal secular left and a proclaimed Christian left. The Christians that I know that are observant vote for conservative candidates. The ones that don't want to follow there own religion, but rather still be labeled as "Christian" seem vote otherwise.

Oh! And I can't stand those televangelists suckering the old and poor of out what money they do have. Unfortunately they have large followings, joined mostly to the Republican platform, but I don't think they represent traditional Christianity no more than any proclaimed Christian left.

Steve- I know you and Tom are Christians, and probably a lot closer to the pulse of the Christian communities than I am. How much difference is there between a secular liberal left and a proclaimed Christian left when it comes to politics?


Bobby

Here is the breakdown of the religious vote in the 2004 Presidential debate :

Twelve Tribes Exit Polls Chart Election 2004 Electorate Percentage -- Beliefnet.com (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/167/story_16773_1.html)



I am intimate with the religious left having defected from it myself ,and having the Catholic Church in America in many ways being in the forefront of the "movement" ;especially in areas like illegal immigration restrictions.

On the positive side they generally do not like the "secular left " and their dominance in shaping the political debate. Jim Wallis'[editor of'Sojourners'magazine] book God's Politics Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It is probably the definitive book that explains it. His central theme is God belongs to no single political party and true faith transcends political categorization. Hard to argue with that. Basically this is a call to the left to embrace religion .The cynical among us might suggest that this is a call for a strategy that doesn't abandon the "moral vote" .

Jimmy Carter in Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis also explores this subject . He makes a much more vicious attack on fundamentalism (he lumps all of us right wingers as fundamentalists) .

The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right by Rabbi Michael Lerner [editor of 'Tikkun' magazine]also takes on the 'religious right' .He says the political left
"often sees religion not merely as mistaken but as fundamentally irrational, and it gives the impression that one of the most important elements in the lives of ordinary Americans is actually deserving of ridicule"

Faith and Feminism: A Holy Alliance by Helen Hunt explores it from a feminist viewpoint.

The thing they have in common with the' political right' is the view that religion should not be removed from the public square ;which represents their main difference with the secularist left. While both put fighting poverty high on the agenda ;the 'religious left 'frames it in evangelical terms. They agree ;as many of us here have argued that American history in general ,and the progressive movement [abolition ,women's suffrage, the fight for child labor laws and the civil rights movement]specifically has it's roots in religious activism.

They have been very active in the anti-Iraq war effort. From the start groups like the National Council of Churches, the Catholic Church, Faithful America have led the protest movement .It was members of the 'religious left 'who have stood as human shields in Bagdad and in Palestine. To their credit ,they have taken the lead in the public awareness of the holocaust in Darfur.

Ethnic groups like Latinos tend to be very religious and are generally liberal.

The Catholic church is split on the issues . But the left in the church generally agree with the right on issues like abortion and gay marriage .But on these issues they do not take a strong advocacy stand. They are often in opposition to church policies and attendance has declined as they exercise their protest. In the United States the socially liberal elements have infiltrated the church hierarchy so groups like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops pose a unique challenge to Rome .

Thanks Tom. I found the link helpful. It appears the Christian left is slightly more conservative. Now I am curious, if for example, as to when the liberal secular left and the proclaimed Christian left vote on issues if they are fairly consistent on voting the same? In other words, how are they are similar on issues and how are they different.


Bobby

That breakdown is also provided on the same site

Twelve Tribes Exit Polls Chart Election 2004 Important Issues Moral Values -- Beliefnet.com (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/167/story_16769_1.html)

Tom- Thanks again. That's fairly close as I thought it might be. Secular and Religious Left run similar percentages on the issues per categories provided.

Bobby