Dems and religious voters — redux

It’s becoming quite irritating. Every few months, the LA Times runs an op-ed column insisting that Dems have an antagonistic attitude towards religion and are indifferent towards voters who take faith seriously.

About a year ago it was Tony Quinn insisting in an LAT column that Dems are “irreligious” and “hostile” towards faith. Six months later, it was an op-ed by Richard Viguerie and David Franke that argued Dems had instigated a “God-cleansing” effort in recent years, culminating in a “banish[ment]” of God “from their public face.”

Yesterday, the LAT op-ed page sought to drive the point home again, this time at the hands of USC history professor Kevin Starr, who identified himself in the piece as a Dem. Like his predecessors, Starr embraced the myth that Dems have become an excessively secular party.

[N]ow the Democratic Party elite — the activists, the pundits, the big-bucks donors — have succeeded in pitting social democracy against the very values (one is tempted to say the very people) that gave rise to social democracy in the first place.

Baffled by such rejection, an ostracized faith community shows every sign of realigning itself politically…. Enough already! Let Democratic movers and shakers take one last look at those they are demonizing, because many are their brothers and sisters, social democrats driven into exodus by party excesses.

Like the previous two op-eds on the same subject, Starr bolsters his case by pointing to … nothing in particular. No examples, no anecdotes, no proof of any “demonizing” at all. Starr went on an 830-word tirade about Dems rejecting faith, culture, and tradition, but offered literally zero instances to illustrate his point. The observation is simply offered as a given, as if it were too obvious a fact to warrant an explanation.

As long as the LA Times feels the need to keep publishing these eerily similar pieces, I’ll feel the need to debunk them.

Honestly, how many election cycles will it take for Dems to shake free of this useless, caricature-like myth? The Gore-Lieberman ticket should have shattered this misperception of the hyper-secular Dems once and for all. Gore proclaimed himself a “born-again Christian” in an interview on 60 Minutes during the campaign. He told the Washington Post that he often asks himself, “WWJD” — a Christian catch phrase meaning “what would Jesus do?” The very day Lieberman was introduced as Gore’s running mate, he raised a few eyebrows by opening his first campaign address in Tennessee with a prayer and a recitation from the Book of Chronicles.

In 2004, the Dems were no less obvious. The DNC, for example, hired a full-time staff for religious outreach. At the Dem convention, the two most celebrated and inspirational speeches were delivered by Barack Obama — who reminded the nation that Dems “worship an awesome God in the Blue states” — and Al Sharpton, who happens to be a Christian minister.

Soon after, John Kerry was reminding audiences that he attends weekly church services and was an alter boy. Indeed, his standard stump speech told audiences: “The scriptures say, ‘It is not enough, my brother, to say you have faith, when there are no deeds.'” And in the final presidential debate, it was Kerry citing the Bible (twice) and explaining how his faith plays a role in driving a progressive political agenda.

And how about since the election? When replacing Tom Daschle, the Dems didn’t turn to a Unitarian from Berkley; they picked a devout, anti-abortion Mormon from Nevada. In the House, Dems continue to rally behind Nancy Pelosi, who’s a devout, life-long Catholic, and who began developing a “faith agenda” — an internal party effort to recapture faith-based voters — shortly after Congress convened a couple of months ago.

And yet, there was Kevin Starr, arguing yesterday that Dems are “leaving the faithful behind.” It’s as if he and I are looking at two different countries.

Huzzah! Couldn’t have said it better myself. Why don’t you take this nifty little piece and submit it to the LA Times Op-ed page?? Perhaps it would serve to counter the current torrent of “godless” Dem letters.

  • Make fun of religion and the religous when appropriate…ANYTIME “they” overstep their scriptural boundaries (which include NO JUDGEMENT OF OTHERS and no calls for anything except mercy, compassion and selfless love) it’s okay to call them on it…allow the religous to be religous, but, if you’re not, don’t fake it to hang with the cool kids…I am NOT afraid to laugh at them when deserved – and laughter is MUCH better at putting them on the defensive (and making them scream – like the fanatics they are – out loud in front of god and everybody…) than trying to use logic or reason (a process they long ago dropped)…they are their own worst enemies so encourage them to do and say everything they want…and remember, the Evangelicals are using the other sects for their own ends…”they” do not believe Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses or Latter Day Saints (anyone except them) are going to heaven…ask an evangelical what they really think about Mormons & Catholics and make them say it out loud (and proud) – their own bigotry will bring them down…

  • But then, remember Mondale, the son of a minister and obviously with deep religious convictions, versus Reagan who used church as a photo-op? Jimmy Carter may have been the only Dem in recent history to convince people of his religiosity (and he was up against Ford, who wasn’t playing that card). Though personally, I felt that Carter’s commercials for his second run where a little halo appeared over his head were over-the-top.

    Probably we need to go on the attack here. Write op-eds about the failure of the Republicans to provide a moral message. The Republicans have very well learned that if you say something often enough, people will believe it’s true. There are things that ARE true that the Dems aren’t saying often enough. We’re so outraged with what goes on, that we simply comment on what is thrown at us — whether its the outrages of the administration or the outrages of attacks on Democrats. It’s time we went on the offensive pointing out the superior moral power of the Democratic party and the vacuum in moral power demonstrated by the current batch of Republicans.

  • Catherine, you’re on the right track, except that OUR message should be that the Republicans don’t LIVE a moral message. They TALK an awful lot, but they don’t practice it much at all. They cherry pick the Bible precepts they wish to hit, but ignore those that don’t match their ideology. E.g., Liviticus says “an eye for an eye”, which they cite to support the death penalty, while they ignore that Jesus said “turn the other check seventy times seven”. Jesus says “I am the completion of the revelation (i.e., the Old Testament) and the fulfillment of the law.” In other words, to be morally consistent a Christian MUST read the Old Testament precepts through the prism of Christ’s teachings. It’s like watching an episode of Law & Order and, once the perp has been arrested, you stop watching — you’ll never get the whole, and therefore the correct, understanding of the episode.

    While it is true that to be a Christian one has to accept Christ’s teachings as revealed in the New Testament, one can only get a true understanding of our responsibilities as Christians by reading the Bible in its ENTIRETY. You can’t pick and choose; you sure as heck can’t cherry pick Old Testament rules by ignoring how they are shaped, altered and even replaced by what is set forth in the New Testament!

    And to the evangelicals, I have one question: what part of Jesus’s teaching of “faith without works is death” don’t you understand? How can they forget the mercy required by Jesus’ teaching that “when you do it [feed, shelter, clothe, visit] unto the least of these [our fellow man] you do it unto me.” That is the WORKS that goes with the FAITH that gets one’s ticket punched for Heaven. The hypocracy is stunning….

  • Though I don’t have any polls at hand to back it up, it seems evident that those of us who are atheists or agnostics are overwhelmingly Democrats, which is where much of this animus finds its roots. The fact that Dems are more oriented toward a secular society puts them closer to other civilized nations, and the ranting theocracy buffs put the Rethuglicans more in the camp of the Islamofascists. Which would you rather be associated with?

    I am sick to death of watching candidates jump through religious hoops of fire to prove their devoutness. What a bad joke! The fact that they aren’t struck by lightning—in droves!—proves that the sort of god espoused by fundies simply does not exist. The fact that so many suckers take these spiritual poseurs as sincere Christians fits in nicely with their tendency to abandon rationality in general. The tide of anti-intellectualism and irrationality sweeping our nation is truly a fiasco for us all.

  • “Catherine, you’re on the right track, except that OUR message should be that the Republicans don’t LIVE a moral message.”

    Quite wrong. A simple negative message doesn’t work. Making people simply dislike George W. Bush wasn’t sufficient to get enough people to actively vote against him.

    Speaking as both a Catholic and a liberal Democrat who would sooner vote for a scummy communist or an insane libertarian than a Republican, I refuse to put up with attacks no my faith. I don’t see a contradiction between my faith and my politics despite the fact that some of the most spiteful and hateful things online have been people on the left aiming at my religion, but just like Log Cabin Republicans in the party of the Religious Right, I slog onward towards a vision of a better tomorrow that I think is best realized through the Democratic Party.

    It’s very simple. Not everything that is immoral should be illegal, but those actions are nevertheless immoral. Democrats need to make clear that we stand for tolerance, but also for freedom of conscience to not also accept the things we must sometimes reluctantly tolerate in the name of freedom.

  • Republicans’ “Christianity” consists of denouncing abortion and homosexuality. Sadly, a large number of Christians (primarily evangelical fundamentalists) apparently think similarly.

  • Comments are closed.