This post caused some lively discussion over the weekend. The topic is brewing elsewhere now too.
Michael Gerson's column in today's WaPo discusses an atrocious Democratic own-goal in the process of that party trying to make itself hospitable to persons of faith. The error in question being the atrocious attack-ad put out by Louisiana Democrats against apparent Governor-to-be Bobby Jindal. Local Democrats are fleeing from the ad's factually challenged and "theologically ignorant" accusations, which may have done much to cement the GOP's growing strength in Louisiana.
Gerson's point is that all the outreach efforts in the world - such as say top-tier Democratic Presidential candidates being willing to talk about their personal faith a bit in public - isn't going to help if the Democratic Party and its secular base keep throwing religious bombs:
This Democratic ad is not merely a tin-eared political blunder; it reveals a secular, liberal attitude: that strong religious beliefs are themselves a kind of scandal; that a vigorous defense of Roman Catholicism is somehow a gaffe.
It's too broad a brush to pin such missteps on all Democrats, or even all liberals for that matter. But it reminds me a professor of mine once said, "the problem with stereotypes is they're usually true." Some Democrats keep finding ways to live up to the stereotype. That perception may be all that counts.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 29, 2007 07:32 PM | Email ThisThe jindalonreligion thing is funny. The basic criticism they make of him is that he believes Catholicism is correct, and, therefore, that other religions are incorrect. Which makes him not different from every other honest Christian and Jew and Muslim and so on.
This is perhaps the most boring criticism of any public official that I've ever seen.
Posted by: pudge on August 29, 2007 08:09 PMClick Here-Attack Ad on Jindal
(I think it's the same ad, but I didn't see the "original" one.)
Posted by: cryptometaphor on August 29, 2007 08:20 PMI think this is yet another example of such.
Posted by: Michele on August 29, 2007 08:50 PMIn political terms, this means that those who follow a literal denomination and are practicing members of that denomination, not only Roman Catholic, but many Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches are not going to favor abortion or gay marriage no matter how many picnics Dr. Dean wants to invite us to. Since core constituencies of the dem party are NARL and many gay marriage supporters, there is a real dilemma for the dems in reaching out. True Evangelicals understand who they serve and therefore many positions advocated by dems have no appeal. This doesn't necessarily mean a vote for a pubbie. In my case, Micky Mouse is always handy.
I'm not surprised that dems don't get it, after all if one can fake sincerity, one can go far in politics.
Posted by: WVH on August 29, 2007 09:38 PMInstead of picnics, I hope you'll consider what some respected religious leaders have to say. I highly recommend www.forthebibletellsmeso.org .
Let's see, an atheist has a clue about who are respected Christian leaders are? I said that many claim to be Christian, former Bishop Spoogen of the Anglicans wasn't sure he believes in God. God will sort out the wheat from the chaff and yes I have studied my own religion extensively. I suggest you back off in telling any Christian who they should respect. Typical dem, you are clueless.
Posted by: WVH on August 29, 2007 10:36 PMLet's see, an atheist has a clue about who are respected Christian leaders are? I said that many claim to be Christian, former Bishop Spoogen of the Anglicans wasn't sure he believes in God. God will sort out the wheat from the chaff and yes I have studied my own religion extensively. I suggest you back off in telling any Christian who they should respect. Typical dem, you are clueless.
Posted by: WVH on August 29, 2007 10:37 PM1. The profound differences in the view of those that read Scripture literally and those that do not.
2. The fact that an atheist would be so arrogant as to imply that Christians should give any credence to his opinion. Gosh, you hate conservative Christians and all that they stand for. Your only intent is to marginalize, demean and destroy anything connected with faith. The philosophy pushed by you and the ACLU is separation of church and state which is code for remove all religion from society. You are pushing one view of society and culture pushed by your atheist beliefs and I for one will fight you on the culture wars.
I can't wait to be insulted by you at Christmas, what is your greeting - Happy Evergreen Day.
You are a prime example of why dems or dims don't get the faith community. You are simply another secular progressive weasel.
It has bugged me for decades now that the Democrats can politick in Baptist Churches without fear of repercussion from the law.
Posted by: swatter on August 30, 2007 07:03 AMRespecting peoples right to have their own religion does not equal putting their religious rules into our legal code. I could honestly care less how Christians live their lives or what they believe. It has no barring what so ever on my life so long as they don't try to force the rest of us(and often other Christians) to follow their rules. We keep church and state separate to protect both.
Posted by: Giffy on August 30, 2007 08:05 AMI have read some of the books on religion as recomended reading by the New york Times and have found them to be childish, ordinary and uninspired.
None of them have a clue. The readers of this childish nonsense are looking for a "feel good" redeligion and teh market has provided for their wants.
“I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” — God in the Dock
“The great difficulty is to get modern audiences to realize that you are preaching Christianity soley and simply because you happen to think it true; they always suppose you are preaching it because you like it or think it good for society or something of that sort. Now a clearly maintanied distinction between what the Faith actually says and what you would like it to have said or what you understand or what you personally find helpful or think probable, forces your audience to realize that you are tied to your data just as the scientist is tied by the results of the experiments; that you are not just saying what you like. This immediately helps them realize that what is being discussed is a question about objective fact — not gas about ideals and points of view.” — Mere Chrisitianity
And a couple of quick ones to ponder from Chesterton - "There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions."
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own."
Posted by: JDH on August 30, 2007 09:41 AMSo it is alright to have YOUR values codified into law against the desires of the religious, but not ok for the religious to have THEIR values codified into law?
Isn't law simply the codification of the values of society? And if so, don't all members of society have a say in which values are codified?
Posted by: Eyago on August 30, 2007 11:03 AMSo tell me why I should respect any religious leaders who agree with this? Oh yes, they claim it is a "misinterpretation of the Bible." But it's not. I have a minor in Biblical Studies, I read Greek, I have studied Romans 1, I've studied what major theologians of all walks have said about the context of Paul's writing, and I've been well-convinced through scholarly study that the only way to believe that Romans 1 doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong is to WANT it to say that, and then read it into the passage.
And, of course, I don't respect very well a religious leader who does such unrespectable things. And setting "respect" of such people aside, there are far more Christian leaders and scholars over thousands of years, and even today, who agree with me. People who have far more knowledge and understanding than me, and than Gene Robinson.
Bruce, you remind me of a gay atheist friend of mine. He tried to prove to me that Romans 1 doesn't mean what it says. Except he doesn't know the first thing about Greek or the context, he was just regurgitating what some people with an agenda told him on some web page. He doesn't even care about the Bible, except when he wants to try to beat Christians over the head with it, and even then he cherry-picks the passages those web pages tell him to cherry-pick, and he comes out with a completely unreasonable view of the Bible and the religion.
He is typical of most Democrats I know, unfortunately: very hateful of a religion they don't understand.
Posted by: pudge on August 30, 2007 10:19 PMIf they stopped forcing their false religion, started no more than a century ago, down everyone elses throats we might actually stop caring what they think or say, but untill freedom of religion is again honored and respected in the US, we will continue ALL efforts to destroy the followers of the mortal god.
Posted by: KittenComputerGoddess on September 4, 2007 12:09 PMEvery Con child I have seen has been poorly raised, either beaten or let out of control completely, do if you hadn't pointed out that she was talking about you we Mods would never have thought twice about it. But now that we know it is truely a Con's child it is VERY believable, and most likely true. You are probably a horrible parent.
Oh, and go ahead, try to attack me like you did her, I have never hid anything from anyone. The police here in Seattle know me well, but not because I am a criminal, the papers also know me, and everyone in my life knows everything about me.
Why? Because, unlike Con's and political morons, I do NOT lie.
Posted by: KittenComputerGoddess on September 4, 2007 12:16 PMDon't shoot your parents and ask for mercy because you're an orphan.
Posted by: pudge on September 4, 2007 02:47 PM