McCain’s ‘evangelical problem’

Late last week, Mark DeMoss, arguably “the most prominent public relations executive in the evangelical world,” raised a few eyebrows when he told BeliefNet that many evangelicals have a “fascination with Barack Obama.” DeMoss concluded, “…I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 40 percent.”

And what about the Republican nominee? BeliefNet asked, “How is John McCain doing among evangelicals, a crucial Republican constituency?” DeMoss said from his perspective, no one in the evangelical community is really talking about McCain at all.

Following up, it appears some evangelicals are talking about McCain, but the campaign probably wouldn’t care for what they’re saying. Bob Novak wrote in his latest column about McCain’s “evangelical problem,” as evidenced by McCain’s “estranged” relationship with James Dobson, and the campaign’s clumsy handling of the John Hagee blunder.

And the NYT notes today just how challenging it is to resolve this problem.

[Activists’] hesitation illustrates what remains one of Mr. McCain’s biggest challenges as he faces a general election contest with Senator Barack Obama: a continued wariness toward him among evangelicals and other Christian conservatives, a critical voting bloc for Republicans that could stay home in the fall or at least be decidedly unenthusiastic in their efforts to get out the vote.

To address this, Mr. McCain’s campaign has been ramping up its outreach to evangelicals over the last month, preparing a budget and a strategic plan for turning them out in 18 battleground states this fall.

The campaign has been peppering over 600 socially conservative grass-roots and national leaders with regular e-mail messages — highlighting, for example, Mr. McCain’s statement criticizing a May 15 decision by the California Supreme Court overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, or his recent speech on his judicial philosophy. It has also held briefings for small groups of conservative leaders before key speeches. Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers, recently sat down with a dozen prominent evangelical leaders in Washington, where he emphasized, among other things, Mr. McCain’s consistent anti-abortion voting record.

So, is the outreach working? Not so much.

Barna is clearly the leading evangelical polling outlet in the nation, and his latest numbers are striking.

[T]he big news in the faith realm is the sizeable defection from Republican circles of the much larger non-evangelical born again and the notional Christian segments. The non-evangelical born again adults constitute 37% of the likely voters in November, and the notional Christians are expected to be 39% of the likely voters. Among the non-evangelical born again adults, 52% supported President Bush in 2004; yet, only 38% are currently supporting Sen. McCain, while 48% are siding with Sen. Obama.

How can this be? For one thing, McCain’s outreach is half-hearted, in part because he’s afraid of alienating the middle while he pursues the right.

Mr. McCain’s outreach to Christian conservatives has been a quiet courting, reflecting a balancing act: his election hopes rely on drawing in the political middle and Democrats who might be turned off should he woo the religious right too heavily by, for instance, highlighting his anti-abortion position more on the campaign trail.

“If McCain tried Bush’s strategy of just mobilizing the base, he would almost certainly fall short,” said John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Because the Republican brand name is less popular and the conservative base is restive, McCain has special needs to reach out to independent and moderate voters, but, of course, he can’t completely neglect the evangelical and conservative base.”

For another, conservatives have noticed.

In a sign of the lingering distrust, Mr. McCain finished last out of nine Republican candidates in a straw poll last year at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, a gathering for socially conservative activists.

James C. Dobson, the influential founder of the evangelical group Focus on the Family, released a statement in February, when Mr. McCain was on the verge of securing the Republican nomination, affirming that he would not vote for Mr. McCain and would instead stay home if he became the nominee. Dr. Dobson later softened his stance and said he would vote but has remained critical of Mr. McCain.

“For John McCain to be competitive, he has to connect with the base to the point that they’re intense enough that they’re contagious,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Right now they’re not even coughing.”

The record is getting pretty long. McCain denounced the religious right (“agents of intolerance”) eight years ago, and bungled the Hagee and Rod Parsley fiascos. McCain can’t even talk about how, when, and whether he switched from being an Episcopalian to a Baptist without sounding completely incoherent.

The Times piece added that McCain’s advisers say they’re in a “listening mode with evangelical leaders.” I get the sense the advisers will get an earful.

Part of the reason i think McCain will continue to have problems is that he does not own his own party. He is beholden to too many different wings and groups and is not able to command the party and put his stamp on it like he should to have a shot at wining. It is bafling to me why McCain who seemed ready to do his own thing in 2000 is so unwilling to do it now that he has the nomination. If he goes down shouldn’t he at least do it own his own terms? The right wingers need him, without him they have nothing.

  • I can see a situation in which the evangelicals decide that Obama is walking the walk more than McSame is doing. Things can change, even beliefs. That said, I’d still prefer to not have a candidate’s religious beliefs play such a large role.

  • “The Times piece added that McCain’s advisers say they’re in a “listening mode with evangelical leaders.” I get the sense the advisers will get an earful.”

    An earful of the kind of advice they can’t use.

    “Because the Republican brand name is less popular and the conservative base is restive, McCain has special needs to reach out to independent and moderate voters, but, of course, he can’t completely neglect the evangelical and conservative base.”

    In a wingnutshell, McCain has to campaign like a 90’s Dem: overly cautious, overly non-threatening, and deal with a fringe constituency that while won’t by itself win any elections, has enough in number that when pissed will cause him to lose all the close ones.

  • WTF are “non-evangelical born again” and “notional Christians?” The phrase ‘notional Christian’ is especially mysterious (I would say unintentionally ironic, but that’s just me).

  • In case anyone cares:

    “We categorize Notional Christian as those who describe themselves as Christians, but do not believe that they will have eternal life because of their reliance upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the grace extended to people through a relationship with Christ. (A large majority of these individuals believe they will have eternal life, but not because of a grace-based relationship with Jesus Christ.)”

    “By definition, non-evangelical born again Christians have accepted Christ as their savior, but do not accept the complete accuracy of the Bible nor believe in a personal responsibility to share their faith with others. They also do not cite faith as very important in their lives, believe that Jesus Christ was holy, believe that God is the Creator who continues to rule the universe today, or believe that Satan is not symbolic but truly exists.”

  • The two party system has served to form two broad coalitions composed of people who share some views and disagree on others. There is no inherent reason why religious voters should also agree with conservatives on economics or support the war in Iraq. There are actually strong reasons for them not to.

    For years the Republicans have managed to keep this diverse coalition together. The height of this came when George Bush gave the religious right far more than any of his predecessors, who would typically appeal to them during elections but give them very little. With the overall collapse of the Republicans there is more of a chance that religious voters will reassess their allegiance to the Republicans. Obama might appeal to many as the more openly religious candidate. From there they might be more open to listening to Democratic viewpoints than they have in the past on other issues.

    Hopefully Obama can also transform the way they look at politics and government. Historically religious leaders have often been strong supporters of separation of church and state, as Obama has noted himself. Hopefully Obama can also convince religious voters of the importance of separation of church and state, including to guarantee them the ability to worship as they choose, as opposed to using government to impose religious views.

  • I thought virtually everyone on this site makes fun of people who BELIEVE in God, let alone making fun of evangelicals who are more serious in their religion.

    Now that it looks like Obama, who is far more religious than McCain, might do with with the evangelicals you seem to be changing your tune.

    I find it amazing that you don’t even realize the contradictions you seem to swallow.

    I guess it doesn’t really matter why you support Obama as long as you support Obama. What are good are principles when you need to win an election?

  • The phrases “talk the talk” and “walk the walk” are trite and tiresome, but I’m going to dive in anyway because they make good shorthand.

    Every Democratic presidential candidate in recent memory has been superior to their Republican counterparts in “walk the walk,” but we have been crushed in the “talk the talk” department. Exhibit A: George W. Bush.

    My frequent swipes at the “holier-than-thou crowd” express my opinion that a large number of evangelicals (and I’m singling out the huge Southern Baptist denomination here) who wear religion on their sleeves don’t come anywhere close to “walking the walk.” Nevertheless, their affiliation with their faith and their love of “talk the talk” affirms their self-images as superior people. Obviously they aren’t all like that, but let’s face it – many are.

    Obama does the God-talk with ease, comfort and… sincerity! McCain? His God-talk is pathetic. That’s why so many evangelicals will defect to Obama. It would be a lot more than 40% if party identification wasn’t such a hard habit to break.

  • Dear Neil, The focus here..always..is the improper intrusion of religion into politics. You know, separation of Church and State and all. For fundamentalists to prefer Obama because he is more profounly religious than McCain is their right. For them to prefer McCain because he will create legislation that supports their world view will inevitably lead to some commentary here.

  • Neil,

    There is FUNDAMENTAL difference between having faith and shoving it down their throats. As far as I know, Obama hasn’t gone out and said that we will ban the teaching evolution or females because it contradicts with the only book we read despite all the evidence to the contrary (see evolution etc.)

    Despite the scrutiny of the Trinity Church, there really isn’t much wrong with what they do. Helping people? Why that so mockable! Hell, I’d even contribute some money for that.

    Surprisingly, I do respect many religious people because they live up to their beliefs whether I agree with their notion of a higher being or not. The problem has been that many religious folks seem to think that we should ALL believe in what they do and disagreement is not tolerated or when they are in it for their own gain (power or money, does it really matter?)

    Get this straight. It’s not your belief I mock or have harsh comments about because that is your belief, not mine. It’s the absurd and stupid PUBLIC activities especially in areas where fundamentalists have neither the insight, knowledge or skill to actually hold an opinion is where I have a problem with.

  • Mudge and Former Dan:

    I just don’t understand how everyone can split hairs.

    There are numerous posts on this site that make fun of ANYONE who believes in God.

    If you believe that abortion is murder then isn’t it reasonable to want to stop people who murder?

    If you believe that stealing is wrong then don’t you think you should want everyone to support a law to make stealing illegal?

    If you believe that people who make $3,000,000,000 a year should have to pay regular income tax on that money instead of the current law that allows them to pay the 15% capital gains rate?

    We all try, for various reasons, to force things we believe in down the throats of other people.

    I just find it funny when there are so many intelligent people that share almost all of my views make fun of others who disagree with them. I love a robust debate. I just find the name calling and insults to be counter productive

  • neil wilson said:
    I thought virtually everyone on this site makes fun of people who BELIEVE in God, let alone making fun of evangelicals who are more serious in their religion….

    I find it amazing that you don’t even realize the contradictions you seem to swallow.

    There are several regular commenters on this site who are very vocal and evangelical atheists. But I think you will find that most of those who criticize Republican “Christians” do so because the views they promote are so very contrary to the ideals ascribed to their faith’s namesake.

    Personally, I think that the literalists and religious nationalists or all faiths — Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Christian — cause far more harm than good in the world. I will tolerate almost any religious person until they try to impose their religious beliefs on me or others against our will. Then I push back hard. But I try to . . . what’s the phrase? — ‘love the sinner but hate the sin.’

    I will join Barack Obama in welcoming anyone, whatever deity they venerate, who will help make the world a better, safer, more tolerant place.

  • “Evangelical” Christians have been evolving of late, in case anyone else hasn’t noticed. What used to be seen as evangelical always meant religious right. Many evangelicals now look to a range of issues, such as poverty and the environment. The Rev. Jim Wallis is one prominent example, and he’s been around for years. (You may remember how he hosted a forum during the campaign where Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all spoke.)

    So you can’t paint the “evangelical” community with such a broad brush anymore.

  • Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, ALL should consider the following…
    The Bible says the Anti-Christ will be a man in his 40s of Muslim descent with a charismatic personality and gift of persuasive speech. Sound familar? Don’t trust me on this – look it up for yourself. If true, we are ALL being greatly deceived.

  • Molly Weasley (#13) said:

    So you can’t paint the “evangelical” community with such a broad brush anymore.

    Excellent point. I certainly am no Evangelical Christian, and I have had my problems with the “holy roller” types over the years, but I have to agree with you that many of them are reassessing and broadening the range of issues they deem “Christian values” to include poverty and the environment and other things that Democrats have been supporting for years.

    This election could be a turning point among certain faith communitees due in large part to Obama’s own faith history.

  • I wouldn’t be worried if I was a Republican, I think Democrats have managed –against all odds – to lose the upcoming general elections, let me explain why.

    As many other Independents out there I was going to vote for Senator Clinton, Democrats managed to put Senator Obama for President and there is no way in heaven or hell I would vote for him. The sad part is Senator Obama can’t do anything about it. I’m in my 50’s, I’ve a BS and a MBA degree –not all educated people likes him as the media keeps saying.

    Here are my voting plans for the upcoming general election.

    Scenario #1, Senator McCain does nothing stupid like putting Condoleezza Rice or Mike Huckaby in the ticket… I’ll vote McCain, he will do a find President.

    Scenario #2, Senator McCain does something stupid like putting Condoleezza Rice or Mike Huckaby in the ticket… I’ll stay at home on Election Day and prepare myself to feel unrepresented for another one or two presidential terms.

  • Thomas (#14) said:

    Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, ALL should consider the following…
    The Bible says the Anti-Christ will be a man in his 40s of Muslim descent with a charismatic personality and gift of persuasive speech. Sound familar? Don’t trust me on this – look it up for yourself. If true, we are ALL being greatly deceived.

    Your implication that Obama might be the Anit-Christ is IMO rediculous. Of course, I fully support your constitutional right to choose your own religious path, but please, don’t force this narrow world view on the rest of us in this political blog. Find some comparitive religions blog for that.

    This is a discussion of the broad possibility of a shift in voting preference among certain Christian voters.

  • neil wilson said:
    I just don’t understand how everyone can split hairs.

    There are numerous posts on this site that make fun of ANYONE who believes in God.

    You’re right. And as liberals we should strive to be tolerant of everyone, not just the people who agree with us. And we probably should speak up more against those who express prejudice here, even if it’s prejudice against people we dislike.

    If you believe that abortion is murder then isn’t it reasonable to want to stop people who murder?

    We all try, for various reasons, to force things we believe in down the throats of other people.

    Most people here welcome debate. I try to craft my arguments in a way to show that my ideas will be best for the community, the country or the world. The difference between me and some conservative Christians is that dont’s want a reasoned debate. They want to be able to say, “You must do this because God says so,” and end the discussion.

    Yes, both sides want to force our beliefs on others. I can’t even say that my side — which favors gun control, corporate regulation and progressive taxation — is even always on the side of personal liberty. But my arguments are made to persuade others that the evidence indicates that the beliefs we’re trying to impose will result in a better, stronger society for all of us.

  • PaulB @16 provides no rationalization for voting for McCrap – other than he can’t have Hillary. The only logic that follows from his ‘argument’ is that racism is not muted by education.

  • The Bible says the Anti-Christ will be a man in his 40s of Muslim descent with a charismatic personality and gift of persuasive speech. Sound familar? Don’t trust me on this – look it up for yourself. If true, we are ALL being greatly deceived.

    I don’t know is this is a joke or not.

    However, “Muslim”, “Islam”, etc. are never mentioned in the Bible becuase the last books of the Bible were written long before the prophet Muhammad was born.

  • It appears that honesty is making its way back as a Christian value.

    And Neil, my problem is the extreme hypocrisy of the so called leaders. When you hate gays but are caught up in a scandal, when you espouse one thing and do another, when you beg for God and live wealthy on the backs of others, I have a SERIOUS problem with that.

  • If one reads the statement closely, you will see it is NOT forcing anything upon anyone. It DOES say thinkers would be wise to consider and decide for themselves. In any case, in order for intellectual discussion to be fruitful, one must consider all sides of the argument despite one’s personal bias.

    Here’s for hoping we as Americans will carefully weigh our decisions in regards to selecting our future leaders. The future will require much of them…

  • Thomas said:
    Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, ALL should consider the following…
    The Bible says the Anti-Christ will be a man in his 40s of Muslim descent….

    The Muslim religion came into being 700 years after the Bible says Christ was born, and more than 300 years after the Bible was codified into its present form.

    Unless you’re talking out of your ass, can you cite the relevant Bible passage?

  • SadOldVet @ 19 just used the ‘racist’ card on me, how sad is that?

    My issue with Senator Obama is more of a business case, he promises something -change- but he only delivers carefully prepared speeches with no content at all… I wouldn’t buy an used car from him in a zillion years. Got it?

  • Neil, no it’s a serious point to consider. You are correct – Islam did not appear until 600 AD. However, Revelations are the visions described by John upon the island of Patmos that he claims were Divinely inpsired. Unfortunately, because they are recorded in such symbology and allegory, they are difficult to discern. However, most scholars agree they refer to a coming age which perhaps we are living now. I do not make these comments to create dissent. I think we’d be wise to keep our eyes and ears open. Most of us have the ability to know what is true and what is false when we put matters to serious thought. Peace be with you all.

  • “PaulB @16 provides no rationalization for voting for McCrap – other than he can’t have Hillary. The only logic that follows from his ‘argument’ is that racism is not muted by education.”

    Lots of people are saying things like this. Not only are they basing their decision on something other than policy — Obama and Clinton are much, much closer on policy than McCain and Clinton — but they are disregarding the stated wishes of the candidate they claim to support.

    So, Paul loves Hillary Clinton so much that he’s going to refuse to support the candidate whose positions are closest to hers, in defiance of her wishes. Nice.

  • For a good many years, I’ve believed—based on my experience—that the species Homo Evangelicus actually consisted of two distinct subspecies: the greater bulk being the aptly-named Homo Evangelicus, and its evil little Chuckie-doll step-twin, twice- or thrice-removed Homo Wingnuttius.

    The loud-mouth dolts with their hate agenda represent the latter group—and the minority—while the former group has been like the sleeping giant. They’re kind of like that Biblical fellow who denied his Carpenter friend three times to save his own hide—each denial being accompanied by a rooster crowing in the background. For the majority of evangelicals—the “sleeping giant” group—they’ve already heard the rooster crow twice (the two terms of GWB), and they don’t want it to crow a third time. They’re beginning to realize that the Republic is just a wee bit more than the so-called “den of iniquity” that froth-brains xenophobes have painted the US to be for decades now.

    That sleeping giant is beginning to wake up, and it will support the devil himself long before it even contemplates embracing the Infamously Evil McMuppet.

  • Steve. As I mentioned earlier, I’m not asking you to believe me. I suggested you investigate it for yourself. I am doing this myself because I want to know the truth. One of the problems with this sort of inquiry is discriminating between valid points and the false and often angry rhetoric out there. Another problem is the Book of Revelations is difficult to study as it is a man’s dreamlike vision written using much symbology. I wish I could offer you a better answer, but I’m learning myself and have learned over the years to be wise and discern. I suppose it’s a bit like UFOs – no one has really been able to prove what they are because the matter is literally “alien.” That does not, however, mean they do not exist. Hope this helps…

  • PaulB said:
    SadOldVet @ 19 just used the ‘racist’ card on me, how sad is that?

    My issue with Senator Obama is more of a business case, he promises something -change- but he only delivers carefully prepared speeches with no content at all… I wouldn’t buy an used car from him in a zillion years. Got it?

    That’s clear to me. I cringed a little when I saw the explanation for why you don’t support Obama. I don’t buy the idea that anyone who supports McCain (or Clinton) over Obama is a racist.

    However, I still do not understand how someone who supported Clinton (presumably for her stance on the issues) would choose McCain over Obama. On the issues Clinton and Obama are far more closely aligned than McCain. Almost never in presidential politics do we end up with our first choice. That is the nature of the primary process. But at the end of the day I just don’t get how you go from supporting a candidate who supports improved healthcare, a woman’s right to control her body, progressive tax system, gay rights, etc to supporting a candidate who advocates cutting taxes on the wealthy, leaving millions without healthcare, would nominate Supreme Court Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and seems to want to limit gay rights etc. Obama may not be your first (or even second choice) but how is he worse than McCain?

  • Neil in #11 includes:
    “If you believe that abortion is murder then isn’t it reasonable to want to stop people who murder?”

    Thanks for quickily bringing up the big issue. This is the issue that allows the self identification of pro death penalty & pro war people as “pro-life.”

    One of the purposes of law is modification of behavior. I believe that eveyone reading this blog would be happy if there were no women who ever wanted or needed an abortion again. But we know that in the real world, this will not be the case.

    So why do so many people who believe that abortion is murder also believe that contraception is also murder? Well, that’s what they have been taught, and these teachings come from religion.

    Let me pose a question. What if killing in self-defense was considered murder by the dominant religion in a country? Wouldn’t any self defense be considered attempted murder? My point is that an absolutist vision (Abortion is murder, conraception is abortion, therefore also murder) ignores that “other” person in the equation, in this case, a woman having sex.

    Oh, yeah, it’s also the law of the land, not shared by all religions, and highly offensive to many of our citizens to interfere in such a private matter. Highly offensive, kind of like waging an illegal war in our names offensive.

    No resolution here, just looking to state an other opinion to the “murder” slur.

  • 666

    The mark of the devil

    Well, that may well be true but it was actually the mark of the Roman Emperor who started persecuting Christians. BTW, some places have the number as 616 which would be the Emperor without the title.

    You can read Revelations and the rest of the Bible in many different lights.

  • Dear independent thinker, here is the deal: on election day we are selecting a leader, you have to look at the man/woman and trust him/her, you have to feel you can read that person and be certain that person is not going to let you down. Looking at Senator Obama I do not have such a feeling, looking at Senator McCain I do.

  • Paul, as much as I hate to say it, your comment “looking” at Obama appears to be, well, racist. Did you look at positions? Issues? Beliefs? Or did you just look at each man?

    If you’re so inclined, you might want to peruse Obama’s positions. He’s not the empty suit you think he is.

  • Thomas, please take your postings to a Republican-leaning blog. I would say that most people who post here are firmly committed to the church and state separation.

    We do not pick our leaders on what the Bible prophesies. We judge them on the issues they speak out for and against. We have enough troubles in the here-and-now to concern us.

  • PaulB @32:

    I agree that McBush will not let you down…

    As long as you want more war…
    As long as you want white men to determine reproductive health availability for women…
    As long as you believe that the problem with the economy is that the rich do not have enough money…
    As long as you believe that Bush II is a great president…

    As long as you are a rich white male…

  • Is there any way he can win in Novemeber? If he does, it will speak so poorly of this country as to be unimaginable…

    John McCain: Here’s to you, poor people!
    McCainonomics 101.
    John McCain: Your retirement is too secure as it is, don’t you think?
    John McCain: Here’s to you, OH, PA, MI!
    John McCain: Can’t poor sick children just get a job already?
    John McCain: 100 more years of war!
    John McCain supporting our troops by keeping them uneducated.
    Who knows better how you should act with your own body, why of course, John McCain!
    4 more years of Bush/McCain policies! They’ve worked so well so far!

  • Hey Neil Wilson (#7): The evangelicals are still as looney as they always are, as witness the definition of “notional Christians” that JHM so nicely provided. I rather suspect that these kind of Christians are the ones who will be moved to support Obama (as Barna reports, 48-38 right now), and since they’rethe kind of people I think of as “good Christians” – unlike the fundamentlaist Taliban morons of the looney Xtian right – I’ll continue not to make fun of them, as I have not made fun of them over the past 50-odd years.

    You really are a fifth-rate intellect, you know?

  • PualB (#32): So when are you volunteering your son/daughter/nephew/niece/cousin to go fight in Iraq? Or are you the typical right wing COWARD who thinks it’s just fine for somebody else to go fight your wars for you.

    Don’t go away mad, Paul, just go the fuck away. Morons like you aren’t welcome.

  • It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of politicians have an “evangelical problem”: too much bible and too little separation.

  • John McCain is rebuffing evangelicals at his peril. I for one am not enamored by his cosiness with the left as it is, but will vote for him only as a vote against Obama.

    What Senator McCain is risking by not adressing evangelical issues is the enormous grass roots efforts on his behalf that we can muster. Many evangelicals will simply not vote. This alone could defeat his candidacy.

    I believe that he will give up much more by ignoring evangelicals than he can possibly gain by trying to attract Democrat moderates.

  • @ Msg 14

    Thomas said:

    Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, ALL should consider the following…
    The Bible says the Anti-Christ will be a man in his 40s of Muslim descent with a charismatic personality and gift of persuasive speech. Sound familar? Don’t trust me on this – look it up for yourself. If true, we are ALL being greatly deceived.

    Islam didn’t even exist until 500 years after Jesus. Ass.

  • ____On June 9th, 2008 at 9:54 am, neil wilson said:
    I thought virtually everyone on this site makes fun of people who BELIEVE in God, let alone making fun of evangelicals who are more serious in their religion.____

    I see the religious debate here and elsewhere as being on two levels:
    1) Political rights- Separation of church and state is basic to the American system of government. This can be proven rationally. Those who deny it get toasted here because they deserve it. Some may be guilty of overgeneralizing when referring to the political goals of the RR (myself included). Maybe not every conservative christian wants the ten commandments posted in every public school, but the most vocal ones do. The non-vocal ones should speak up if they don’t want to be included.

    2) Actual beliefs- I’m an atheist. I respect the right of believers to practice their religion. I respect any person who lives an ethical life. I do not respect religion, particularly chistianity, at all, because I find it false, immoral, and harmful. I will at times attempt to convince others of this. I don’t “make fun” of believers- I mock their poor arguements. But it is meant as a debate.

    I don’t change my tune because I support Obama and he is religious. I’m very uncomfortable with his faith, because it is basically irrational and I want a rational president. I seem to have few options, however. He at least supports Separation. Give me an hour with him and I might persuade him it’s all hooey and then he’d be completely unelectable. I don’t want McCain to be pres so let’s not try.

  • Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, ALL should consider the following…
    The Bible says […] — Thomas, @14

    Why should I consider “what the Bible says”?

    I’m an atheist. To me, the Old Testament is a collection of interesting stories — as fascinating as the Greek or Roman Mythology, stories about Buddha etc. The New Testament, to me, is a collection of opinions expressed by pundits 2000 yrs ago or so. I read only fragments of it because I found it boring as literature and irrelevant to the present day circumstances (though I’d like some of what they’d been smoking).

    You want to take every word in the Bible (both Testaments) as an axiom, that’s your choice and a privilege that’s been granted you by the US Constitution. But don’t expect *me* to take it as seriously as you do; I don’t consider it to be the book of all magic and/or all answers.

    There are some old Polish writings which say that Messiah will come one day to liberate us all “and his name will be 44”. I don’t put much faith in that prediction, either.

  • I wonder if there really is any point in trying to convert the people who are sitting on the fence to support our side.

    I bring this up because when you insult the fence sitters then you are probably pushing them over to the dark side.

    Of course, I am the perfect demographic of the Bush voter in 2000 and 2004

    I am a married man with kids at home making more than $100,000 a year and goes to church every Sunday. And I have voted for 2 Republicans and 150 Democrats since 1978.

  • Thomas, I gather that your “verse” about the anti-Christ being 40 and Muslim etc. is in Revelations. Which verse exactly. You never do say. I’ve read Revelations many times, yet have not found that level of specificity…

  • Neil, you’re absolutely right. Yes, there are and will be trolls, but not everyone who has an opinion is one.

    Just as we need to embrace the more zealous of the Clinton supporters who believe she was robbed, we need to embrace those who are true fence sitters. A vote is a vote.

    And Obama has a lot of good to offer everyone. We, too, are (albeit imperfect) Obama surrogates.

  • I go scanning for references and I just can’t find this.

    But Jesus promised that before the last of his Disciples died the Kingdom of God would come. The last was John. He’s dead. There is no Kingdom of God.

    Why exactly do you trust John’s writings in the Book of Revealations when the Gospil got it wrong first?

  • Senator McCain is not a “principled student” of any religion. He decries those “having principle” as ”agents of intolerance”.

    He views Biblical-Values as “Bigotry”. Senator McCain has “NO Tolerance” for those having values higher than his own. And…He DOES HAVE the freedom to make that choice!! So, who then is the real Bigot?

    His actions more closely resemble those of a church-going “Agnostic-Opportunist”, who is pandering favor from a predominantly Judaeo-Christian electorate.

    The Episcopal-Baptist-Episcopal yo-yo transformation is one example.

    Episcopalians Contribute BIG… Baptists Vote! (even bigger) The chameleon NEEDS Both.

    The glib smoothe always campaigns as a Republican; Yet for years, the Senator has served as a Good Democrat. He only recently lost his Democrat following AFTER announcing a bid for president AGAINST a Democrat!

  • Comments are closed.