I'd concur, but as a former Fundamentalist Baptist (all four pastors at my home church in GA were BJU alums) I'd also say there's no end to the stereotyping of northeastern liberals as "anti-family elites."

From what I read in many op-eds and conservative press, you'd think that this Boston-based liberal guy

 1) Doesn't care what my daughter watches on TV

2) Will encourage my daughter to have sex as often and with as many boys as she can handle

3) Only makes the appearance of loving my wife and kid -- how could someone who doesn't believe in Jesus as God (I'm a UU today) really love or care about anyone other than themselves.

Makes me ill. 

"There are many evangelicals and observant Christians who do not share the views of Dobson and Robertson."

Then why don't they speak and rise up against the charlatans Dobson, Robertson, et al?

Those who truly believe in the teachings of the Prince of Peace know that the brand of Christianity practiced by those mentioned is as far removed from Christ's teachings as can be.

bobski of http://www.gratisnet.com

Sorry all those fundamentalists are upset that their homophobia and intolerance causes us "elites" to scorn them, but you can't take controversial political stands and then cry when your opponents criticize you for them.  And I'm still waiting to hear from all those who don't agree with Dobson to denounce him.

This whole brouhaha is absolute nonsense.  Dean said that the Republican party is monolithic.  It is.  He didn't CRITICIZE Christianity.

 Republicans and reactionary Christians will imply hate speech to continue playing the victim.  If you believe that this kind of garbage can be stopped by modifying your own speech, then you're a sucker that is playing into their hands.

Is there any way to vote Marshall Whittman off this island?  He is deeply, deeply unhelpful, divisive, and corrosive to everything the Democrats need to do in the run-up to 2008 and beyond.

Does JMM really expect me to take seriously the writings of a guy who work for Ralph Reed for years and now claims to be a "centrist" who can lead the Democrats to safety?  Conflict of interest anyone?

 sPh

Basically, according to Mr. Whittman, Democrats are only allowed to speak on topics, in frames, and using language approved by the Radical Right.  Any attempt otherwise will be given the Mighty Wurlitzer treatment, with the Swift Boat Liars for Truth and Rush Limbaugh brought out to twist, lie, and punish.  Democrats can't speak about what they see happening:  not in Iraq, not at Gitmo, not about the theocrats.  No no NO!  (hold our your hand to be slapped).

Is there anyone here who thinks this is a prescription for anything other than Radical domination for the next 50 years?

sPh 

Dean's chosen words may have missed the mark, his specific approach may be wrong, but his philosophy is correct. We need to go on the offensive and put the other side on the defensive. 
When Cheney told Leahy to F off, how many Republicans fell all over themselves to distance themselves from what Cheney said? 

You'll forego the opportunity to criticize Dean, then waste a whole blog post doing just that. What, you think we're as dumb and easily led as those poor hicks on the Christian Right?

If you think their God-damned critique of the Liberal Establishment is on target, go back to them. No really. We don't want you, because you're here, in our so-called big tent, telling us why they're right and trashing our leader.

No, I won't keep anything you say "in mind" before I speak. It's your ilk who've sentence the Democrats to minority status by imposing a regime of pointless self-surveillance that amounts to an abdication of principle in exchange for a false expedience. I choose none of the above.

And one more, one more thing.
W. Bush ain't gonna be no pretty sight when he is finally put on the defensive over a protracted period. He sure can dish it out, but he cain't take it.

Of all the sanctimonius sermons I have heard in my life, Wittman's comments are near the top.

First, if you are going to take on Dean, then do it. Don't hide behind the intellectual facade of "I will not bother to reply to such hideous comments as it is beneath me." Second, when you say that elites and liberals have a bias against "religiously observant Americans" you should consider this: I attend shul every Friday night and Saturday day with my partner; we even maintain the dietary laws. Funny thing is I don't feel this liberal and elite bias you say is directed against us. Sure, it gets a little tricky when friends want to invite us to movie on Friday night, but we manage just fine. So, what is the difference between me and my Christian neighbors who proudly displayed last election cycle their cross and "Save Marriage" banner? It is simple: in America you have every right to worship how you please, but if the God you pray to tells you that it is ok to hate gays, it is ok to interfere with the private choice of a woman, it is ok and righteous to ignore the poor and comfort the comfortable, then you are making a claim against democracy and decency. And, no matter how much you confess you believe in God, your views--wrapped in the language of faith, if you please--will be opposed by those of us committed to the greater good of democracy, even by two "religiously observant Americans" whose faith in God you and your right wing ilk fail to recognize.

One thing though; if Dean said he enjoyed sunny days, the media would report that Dean supports global warming. Looking at the remarks in context they are far less inflammatory than one might expect based on the coverage of his remarks. Right now the Republican party has it pretty easy; they can throw red meat to their base, essentially calling for violence against federal judges and the press sits idly by. Any Democrat who speaks to fire up our base is attacked for being hateful, negative, elitist, liberal and so on.

Democrats are not going to win any fundamentalist or evangelical voters any time soon. No matter what Democrats do, the Republicans, including the majority of our corporate media, will try to turn it against us. That's their job (Republicans, not the media). So these remarks are really a tempest in a teapot.

I am glad that Mr. Wittmann decided not to publically and harshly criticize Howard Dean. Both of them are Democrats and we Democrats should learn a lesson from Republicans about presenting a united front to the public. It does not matter what asinine, bigoted comments the Republican leadership makes, down the line Rupublicans support each other and the leadership and don't publically undermine each other.

I do agree with Mr. Wittman that there is a belief that Democrats are disrespectful to people of faith. As a religious person, I have not found this to be so. However, I do think that Democrats and Progressives need to start a conversation about faith, spirituality and religion, the purpose of which would be to develop a language of faith for progressives. This language would be used to convey respect for people of faith while spotlighting the progressive values that are common to all faiths.

Presumably that is why the pro-Whittman forces are going through this thread and putting a 1 on any comment which challenges him.

sPh 

You wrote ... "we Democrats should learn a lesson from Republicans about presenting a united front to the public. It does not matter what asinine, bigoted comments the Republican leadership makes, down the line Rupublicans support each other and the leadership and don't publically undermine each other."

There is another lesson to learn from the Republicans, that of Trent Lott. When the Republicans saw that his remarks were counterproductive to the image of the party that they wanted to project to the public, they eased him out. The Republicans don't tolerate those who continually create distractions from the party message, and we should not do so either.

"The truth is that the religious right is not an embattled minority but is pulling the strings of the most powerful in our society."

-- 

"There are many evangelicals and observant Christians who do not share the views of Dobson and Robertson.  A friend of mine recently told me that he has been told by pastors from some of the large mega-churches that they are uncomfortable with both the leaders of the religious right and the Democratic Party.  Perhaps, progressives will keep this in mind before they speak."

-- 

I think it's equally important (and perhaps more effective) for evangelicals and observant Christians who don't share those views to be vocal in the media about those differences. Right now, the religious right (which, in an ideal world, might not necessarily be a derogatory term) is represented by those "pulling the strings of the most powerful in our society". That drags in any number of unfortunates who don't deserve to be included but can we logically say that it is effective in the long run to punish those who don't make the careful, nuanced distinction?

Religion, in a general sense, is becoming more and more defined by the extremists. I think the more effective route here is to stand up and distinguish yourself from those you don't support. Could Dean have been more circumspect in his language? Absolutely, but the reaction to his comments ignores something. Do you honestly think he was slamming each and every white, male Christian? No, and it's a diversion to take him to task for not making that distinction. Better by far to work positively, using even comments you disagree with to educate and clarify.

I'll say it again, the religious right (which, in an ideal world, might not necessarily be a derogatory term) is represented by those "pulling the strings of the most powerful in our society". Rather than respond negatively towards Dean (or anyone else making comments like that), respond positively and use the opportunity to enlighten and expand upon the differences between religious people and the extremists.

In an ideal world... 

Be better than them.  One almost expects you to. 

In the meantime, though, look at the rhetoric you're using: "pro-Whittman forces".  That is insane.  We are not enemies, and must not treat each other as such.  Whittman's post was measured, calm, and Ibelieve somewhat wrong.  The general opposition to him here is hysterical but perhaps correct.  But Whittman is just offering his perspective as someone who has interacted with Christian Conservatives.

Now as for interacting with them....I used to be one, and rhetoric like the type I'm seeing here used to piss me off to no end.  In the end, I converted to a more rational world view.  But the hateful and dismissive rhetoric like I see here kept me wrapped up in fundamentalism a lot longer than I should have been.  Confrontation can work wonders, but *not* when arguing over religion.  Several millennia of religious wars ought to have convinced everyone of that by now. 

Every week the Wednesday Breakfast Club run by Grover Norquist, where all the Republican factions get together and prioritize issues for the week, some factions putting aside their concerns while others get to highlight theres.  In the end, they all dialogue and everyone gets something.

We have the potential to do that here.  Let's not squander it by blowing this place up or mandating purity tests.  If someone slights you, be a man (or woman) about it.  We're bigger than that. 

Be better than them.  One almost expects you to. 

In the meantime, though, look at the rhetoric you're using: "pro-Whittman forces".  That is insane.  We are not enemies, and must not treat each other as such.

 Whittman strikes me as being a mole.  The Republicans spent about 10 years identifying moles and non-believers and "inviting" them to go elsewhere before they got to the point where they could have "come to Grover" breakfasts.

Perhaps I am wrong about that.  Certainly the Democrats are, and should be, a much bigger tent than the Republicans (although how one gets to unity from a big tent I am a bit unsure).  But Whittman has had almost a year on the soapbox courtesy of much stronger bloggers, in forums where no feedback or criticism was allowed.  Now he is getting some heat.  He needs to get off the high horse of the "vital center" and start engaging his critics if he wants to be taken seriously.

 rhetoric like the type I'm seeing here used to piss me off to no end

 OK, let's go big-tent here.  Rhetoric from people who tell me that because I do not subscribe to their particular brand of Christianity I am a traitor and unfit to be a voting Citizen of the United States pisses me off to no end.  Such people seizing control of the Air Force Academy terrifies me.  What, exactly, do you recommend I do?

 Finally, I try to avoid rating wars whenever possible.  But I do invite you to review all my ratings in this thread and count the number I have rated up vs. the number I have rated down.  Hint:  down = 0.

<I>There are many evangelicals and observant Christians who do not share the views of Dobson and Robertson. </I>

They, however, have absolutely no role in formulating Republican policy.

Christ, you're a fucking idiot. 

Get the frame right. They are televangelists, televangelist leaders, televangelist leadership, televangelist-based churches, etc. Stop using the name of Christ in reference to them. They are a cult that was created by television and televised con-men.

You wrote ... "Dean was elected to the chairmanship of the party and without Diebold's help. So maybe, just maybe, Dean's message is not a distraction from the party message. Maybe Dean's message is the party message."

There's an irrefutable indication that it is not. Voters in every Democratic primary except Vermont (a courtesy vote) and DC (early on) rejected Dean's message in favor of the message of someone else, almost always that of John Kerry, but also John Edwards and Wes Clark. So, if we grassroots Democrats rejected Dean and his message overwhelmmingly in the primaries, why are we now stuck listening to him represent our party badly as Chairman? It seems that elections mean as little to the DNC as they do to the Bushies, Diebold or no Diebold. We grassroot Democrats did not select Dean as Charman, that happened only by a handful of party operatives deciding to ignore what we said we wanted with our votes. 

Like others here, I have a problem with Wittman's presence on this site--a view given ample support by this post. Like most of the MSM, Wittman parrots RNC talking points: the liberal elite depises religiously observant Americans. This is a crock of you-know-what. Us liberal elites may depise those actively working at turning the US into  a theocracy, but that is a very different thing. And, like the MSM, Wittman seems unpeturbed at the worst vile lies streaming from Republicans concerning liberals/Democrats/secular Americans (indeed, he seems to buy into them) but unloads like a ton of bricks on relatively innocuous--and factual--statements from Democrats, particularly Howard Dean. I was not a Dean supporter last year, but his villification by the press is sickening.

I remember when the Conservatives complained about the moderate Muslims not standing up to the radical Muslims. Well you Conservative moderate Christians "SPEAK UP!" "I Can't Hear YOU!" If the Moderate repiglican Conservatives don't like being cast as Christians, I don't think they should blame Dean, they should blame the Radicals who are giving them a bad reputation!

I don't always agree with the Moose, but I think he's got a damn good point here, and I'd paraphrase it like this:

whether or not you agree with their views on being victimized, on the role of religion in public life, on what constitutes morality, it is imperative that we undo this sense that Democrats and liberals in general are "out to get" "regular Christian folks."

The way you do that is by not implying that it's intolerable to hold views different than you. That's big-tent diversity - I may not like all of what you think and how you act (or what race you are, which is the narrow subset liberals focus on now), but as long as we can each be respectful in our differences, we'll get along and make progress where we agree. My old neighbor used to think his next door neighbor (who was then my landlord), was crazy and immoral because she's an open lesbian.  Now he concedes she's pretty OK, even though he's still troubled by her being a lesbian, cause it's un-Christian and wrong. And he's nice to her, and he's nice to us. People change views when they want to. That's what we're likely to get -  take it or leave it.

"Regular Christian folks" are the party's natural economic consituency - period. And it's up to us to decide whether we want to reconcile our cultural differences to work on economic ones, or focus on those differences.

Finally! Fireworks at the TPMCafe.

Being un-religious myself, the religions and gods of my neighbors are simply not things with which I concern myself. Until they creep into politics and public policy, which are my concern.

I understand Dean's remark in that context. It was white, Christian men who held the nation hostage to the Terri Schiavo debacle. And following that, our leading Senator made a taped appearance before the country's most radical Christian leaders who had declared Democrats against people of faith. Never mind that most Democrats I know ARE people of faith. But then again, it's all about the correct faith, isn't it?

We have Christian pharmacists exerting their conscience clause morals on customers with legal prescriptions for birth control. Birth control, for goodness sakes!

Yesterday, the Tulsa Zoo was tasked with building a Creationist exhibit. Why? Because a white Christian man said the zoo discriminates by not doing so when it permits elephants with Hindu significance to be on display. A publically funded zoo. This kind of thing makes me crazy.

I guess I wonder why Christians have adopted the role of victim, and why it's not enough that they are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to practice their religion freely, in churches on almost every corner in every city in America.

So, yeah, I understand Dean's context. It's not religion or faith that worries me. It's this creeping Dominionism that should worry all of us, including reasonable people of faith.

The Religious Right has a whole slew of beliefs that are repeated over and over, until they become 'the truth'. I'm not talking about ideology here, but about a sort of internal mythology. One example is pointed out here - that they beleive they are the only group who that can be criticized without an uproar. It makes them into 'an oppressed majority' who can righteously fight for freedom from their oppressors - liberals.

Another example is their belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation, founded by Christians and it started to go off track in the 1960s when activist judges got involved and removed prayer in school. There's a great piece on This American Life this week (ThisLife.org) that really explains this particular piece of BS well.  Short version - the founders were by and large Christians, which makes it even more significant that they didn't put anything about God in the Constitution. The idea of referencing God or Jesus in Constituion was debated and they ultimately decided against it. They have been a few attempts to add God in, but they were all rebuffed until the 1950s, when the fight against 'Godless Communism' made adding God to money and the pledge of allegience seem like a good idea.

Yglesias has a pretty effect retort to Whittman on this very site. 

While I wouldn't advocate purges, Whittman's reputation for special insight and basic honesty is really inflated.  I don't think I'm the only person who recalls his recent screeds about bankruptcy 'reform' -- passionately (and correctly, to my mind) decrying it as a sellout of bedrock principles, then rising to the defense of prominent Dems who supported it (Hoyer), or worse, effectively enabled its passage (Lieberman).  To top all that off, he defended the sellouts in a manner that explicitly contradicted remarks he'd published only days before.  And here he is wailing and moaning about a Washington Post article from ten years ago....

It is probably time to split up the "religious right" into segments for political purposes.  There probably are those who are "poor, uneducated, and easy to command" and I do get the sense that they are being exploited in some way but these are probably less than 25% of the religious right (which is a guess, not a scientificly valid claim.)  There are also others who are true-believers who don't consider themselves followers at all; just people hanging out and being activists with other like minded people.  There are those who just don't know any alternative because they were raised that way.  And there are those who associate with the religious right because of what it gains them in terms of political, economic, social, and professional clout.  I'm sad for the exploited, I'm totally OK with the people who are religious by choice, I'm empathetic toward the people who were raised that way, and I'm angry with the exploiters.

Marlowe, you said, "Like others here, I have a problem with Wittman's presence on this site.."

Why? Because he doesn't conform to the prevalent ideology of the site? I will probably never agree with Wittman on anything, but his presence gives us the opportunity to counterpoint. If TPMCafe is to be a true roundtable of ideas, then I wouldn't think we would shut anyone out for ideology. It rather makes us appear like "them," doesn't it? Debate him or ignore him, but don't lock him out.

Folks,

To me...we have to ATTAK the American Christian White TALIBANS symbolyzed in the "Religious Right".  They are America's Taliban and Wahhabist. If you do not agree with THEIR version of "Christianity", you are not of "faith".  If you do not agree with discrediting science and teach creationism, you are not "of faith". In essence, if you do not agree with THEM, you are an infidel.  FOlks, this is nothing but a perversion, exploitation of religion just as it has been done throughout the centuries.  We have to DESTROY these people, meaning make them afraid of identifying themselves as "conservatives" just as they made us afraid of being liberals.

Im sorry. To me, they are the American Osama's and Talibans and we must not oblige to them but discredit them.  We have a religious left and that is superior to the bigoted and intolerant religious right.  Let the fight continue. We want the freedome to be cafeteria catholics etc. They want to take that freedom away from us even when THEY are cafeteria religous folks picking and choosing what parts of scripture they follow and ignore while overlooking OBVIOIS corruption and crimes commited by their favorite politicians. If they complain about feeling stigmatized due to their religious beliefs...GREAT...they should. we SHOULD stigmatize and discredit the American Taliban and bigots.

They are bigots who use use religion for the dirtiest purposes it can be used...to discriminate, insult, divide and hate on others who disgree with their religious interpretation. This is evidenced in their recent gay hating campaign championed by the bigot in chief, the criminal Bush.

You know, the religous that they are discriminated upon. Well, by that...I take it that they do not feel treated well by members outside their cult. Well, I say there are times for that to be approved.  We should do it to the KKK and any other hate filled group who instigates hate upon those who disagree with them LIKE the religous right.

I wonder when non-religous religious right taliban americans will wake up and abandon the GOP when they realize that it has abandoned them and that it has been highjacked by a bunch of criminal american taliban wahhabist?

Carlos

As members of the reality-based community, we should start with the facts, and then draw our conclusions, not the other way around.

 Here are a couple:

Fact #1:

Percentage of US population that identifies itself as Christian:
76.5%

Percentage of elected officials in the current US Congress (House and Senate combined) that identify themselves as Christian:
93.1%

-------- 

Fact #2:

Percentage of US population that identifies itself has having no religion:
14.1%

Percentage of elected officials in the current US Congress (House and Senate combined) that identify themselves as having no religion:
0% (Zero percent)

[NOTE: (the remaining 6.9% of Congress are Jewish (vs. 1.3% in the general population), except for 4 House reps that did not specify, so virtually 100% of elected officials are Judeo-Christian, vs. 77.8% of the population]

------- 

A few more facts, just for the hell of it: 

Percentage of US governors who are Christian:
94%

(4% are Jewish, and only one governor has not specified.)

Percentage of US governors who have identified themselves as having no religion:
0%

7 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices are Christian, the other two are Jewish.

Other statistics are harder to come by, but I have been unable to find record of a single elected federal official who is on record as having no religion (or is anything but a judeo-christian, for that matter); not a single member of a state legistlature anywhere in the United States; and not a single sitting judge anywhere on the federal or state levels--certainly none appointed within the past 20 years.

---------

Those are the facts.

Over 90% of ALL the elected and appointed officials of any consequence in this country are Christian.

Virtually all the rest are Jewish.

NONE, zero, 0% have specified "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "secular" or have stated "no religion" as their identity.

Now, those who can draw a reasoned conclusion from the above that Christians are beseiged, disrespected, disregarded, mocked, disempowered, etc., by a tyrannical secular force dominating American politics are capable of performing miracles and should be canonized. But their arguments should not be considered reasonable, rational or in any way valid.

The 'liberal and elite bias' is not against the religiously observant per se, but rather against that subset who cannot separate their faith from the secular, and wish to replace the secular society with something more 'faith based.'

It is this wish to re-make the world in the image of their faith that leaves the 'elite' scratching their collective heads. As MY eloquently stated a few weeks back, faith is a funny thing - you only get one - and the idea that Missouri Synod Lutherans, Orthodox Jews, Jesuits and Southern Baptists all march lockstep on all secular issues is just nonsense. Sooner or later something's gonna blow up.

The gamble that some eventual theocracy will be tolerant to that particular person's faith (at the expense of others, perhaps?)  is something that an 'elite' can't understand. Better to enshrine tolerance at the outset.

If it were me, I'd attack their rhetoric, not their essense (and I'm not saying you do this).

That is a a very pluralistic, tolerenced, and even nuanced approach.  It is how I was raised by my parents:  stay firm in your own beliefs, but don't try to impose them on others.  It is how the Democrats have behaved (for the most part) since 1960 or so.  It is what has been tried.

The result?  Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.  Rush Limbaugh.  "Al Gore invented the Internet, which he is using to beam porn into your childrens' bedrooms".  James Dobson.  The situation at the Air Force Academy.

I think there is a bit of a problem there, and I don't think Mr. Whittman's advice will help solve it.  If he disagrees, great:  let him respond to his critics and engage them, not lecture.

sPh 

Dean's comments were essentially correct.  I fear we are all  timid and afraid of hearing it like it is and being fearful of criticism .  We cannot be all things to all people. Dean will either grow into this job, or he won't.  Worrying about Evangelical's is ridiculous.  We all know Evangelicals who are disenchanted with GOP, but they are a small group at this time.  The democratic base state by state has to be energized, and oh yes, we still haven't quite found our voice, and the bickering of DLC'ers and the more liberal wing of party is not resolved.  We have not coalesced as a party yet.  Instead of tearing at Dean like blabbermouth Biden who wouldn't miss a photo-op if his life depended on it, I suggest we give the guy a chance. Meanwhile, he's reached out to base,red states,development of stronger state party apparatus, and among other things has told the truth and raised a hunk of money.

HN,

Regarding elite liberal bias against the religious right, youre 100% correct.  We are biased AGAINST American Talibans who want to shatter the the separation of church and state for their political purposes.  Yes, American wahhabist should and deserve to be biased against.  They do not believe in democracy but merging religion (their interpretation) with the state to maximize political power.  This is nothing new and has been attempted by bigots and corrupt power hungry bigots throughout the centuries.

Carlos

Folks,

Check out these quotes from Barry Goldwater.  BOOOOOY, does he lay down the PIPER on the American Taliban Clerics. You think Dean was bad? MG, check out Goldwater's quotes savaging the religous right Talibans.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

Carlos

Folks,

I LOOOOOVE Goldwater....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwat er072894.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwat er.htm

Every Christian should kick Jerry Falwell and all the American Talibans Clerics in their asses....and voters should reject their criminal agenda.

Carlos

I consider myself socially liberal yet fiscally conservative.  Clearly I have no place in the Republican Party.  But the kind of tribalism I see on display here in reaction to Whitman's comments is very off-putting.  If you can't tolerate dissenting opinions, please go on over to the Rethugs, you'll fit right in there. Talk of Republican moles is real Freeper territory.... I don't agree with Whitman's comments, but I defend his right to make them

As far as pandering to the South, I am so sick and tired of hearing about how aggrieved the South is by Northeastern elites.  I just can't take that whining seriously anymore.  Let's wait until the unwashed white masses are ethnically outnumbered and in the minority, maybe then they'll try some reaching out of their own.

I agree with the Dean defenders in this case.  The real point here is the need for solidarity in the face of the right wing noise machine.  At least the DC Dems are consistent in their wilting at the slightest bit of pressure....

Grue wrote: "I think it’s equally important (and perhaps more effective) for evangelicals and observant Christians who don’t share those views to be vocal in the media about those differences."

Some of us are trying, but we don’t have the same platform others do.  As everyone here has probably noticed, reasonable comments and rational people don’t make good tv.  And they certainly don’t get posted on liberal blogs with "can you believe this?!?" headlines.

I don’t actually disagree with Grue.  But I don’t think the entire burden of proof for this belongs on observant Christians.

The problem with that CDR Adama is that they claim the title of 'Christian'. To call them otherwise, would be to 'dishonor' their religious beliefs, and add further fuel to their self-pitying fire.

I mean that literally.

Go look up the phrase and concepts regarding the"New Covenant" in the New Testament. According to the passages in the New Testament, when Christ died on the cross, he formed a New Covenant with his people, leaving the Old Covenant of the religious laws of Moses behind. That means any supposed Christian that quotes the Old Testament as anything but a history textbook of the Jewish people and suggests anything in it is binding is quite literally a heretic.

All that anti-gay hate spew isn't just bigotry. It's Christian heresy. 

Dab,

There is a BIG difference between the two.  We do not attack others as lacking "faith" if they do not agree with OUR version of the scripture.  Also, these are BUSINESS policies we push, not personal matters in which we try to dictate to people what to do in their personal lives based on our religious interpretation.  So, they are apples and oranges wholly.

Carlos

I wonder exactly what troubles you about the issues Progressive Guy raises in his post. Funny--for the all the imagined care you bring to your response, you don't bother to actually engage his critique but ask him to play nicer. But, with all due respect, why should he. If you are "troubled" by gay marriage, and abortion, good for you, but what right have you to insist that your "troubles" should limit what a consenting adult can or cannot do. More importantly, you have the duty as a citizen in the greatest democracy on earth to explain yourself rather than hide behind your polite "but I beg to disagree." If you disagree, fine but please, please, please don't say God told you it was ok to discriminate or to otherwise limit the rights of others.

Finally, ProgressiveGuy is on the money when he turns the right's rhetoric back on you charging conservative Christians with destroying the American promise of liberty and justice for all. If his post offended your sensibilities, then, to quote his subject line "Amen and so forth."

For my money the best contribution here is that of Kilted Liberal. Democrats and folks on the left generally do need to develop a language that productively engages issues of spirituality. Anyone who doubts the validity of this would do well to revisit the speeches and writings of M.L. King.

The Reactionary Right is so disasterously wrong on so many issues that  it is difficult for Dems and progressives to recognize when the opposition actually gets something right. The reaction to Marshall's post is a good illustration, though I'm not sure he currently qualifies  as a reactionary, just a former political bedmate of such.

I think Whittmann's take on Dean's admission of demographic politiical reality vis-a-vis the GOP is utterly wrong headed, mostly for reasons already mentioned above. If Trent Lott can describe his critics on the theocratic right as unchristian, how can Dean's recognition of a well known political fact be over the top?

However, if Whittmann is wrong in specific, this thread illustrates that he is right in general. Least helpful suggestion on this thread: that the word Christian should be reframed in a negative light. Excuse me but the problem is that the term has already been reframed to a large degree by the theocrats. Anyone interested in turning the tide against the theocrats in public debate who refers to the theocons as Christian shoots themselves in the foot.

Transforming the word Christian from a broad, ecumenical discriptive, embracing all the differing schools of believers, into an exclusionary term identitfied with the Dobsons and Kennedys of the right has been a key part of theocrat strategy. Sad to say a lot of folks here seem intent on enabling this rope-a-dope tactic. What could suit the theocrats more than to have their Dominionist agenda conflated with Christianity as a whole? Its a lie of course but who is going to realize that if we abet the swindle by parroting their meme?

Speaking as a native redstater, born and bred in the bible belt, I can tell you that despite external perceptions, freedom of conscience is a value that most church goers in this neck of the woods hold dear. That is why the rhetoric of victimization is so vital to the theocrat movement's strategy. Casting themselves as victims of persecution exploits this central value. The scam works well enough when the focus is on religious clubs in public schools, prayers at football games or commencement exercises and public displays of the ten commandments. It is far less effective when the  theocrats move from these ostensibly defensive acts to overtly aggressive action. That's why the Schiavo case turned out to be such a disaster for them.  The Kennedy's and Dobsons may not see the distinction between these issues but the average believer, of whatever stripe, does.

In the former instances the theocrats have successfully presented themselves as the defenders of local traditions and prerogatives. In the latter, they stood revealed as fomenters of an assault on individual conscience and the inviolate primacy of the spousal relation in medical matters. This from the so-called defenders of traditional marriage.

Frankly, the pretensions of the theocrats to being the epitome of Christianity are so preposterous, so hypocritical, so tissue thin in their theological and historical justifications as well as so destructive in practical effect, that it ought to be easy to unmasked them. It ought to be but it isn't, primarily because so many Dems, Progressives and yes, Christians, have allowed themselves to be put on the defensive in religious matters.

Religion has been an intrinsic part of social life in the U.S. from its inception. It promises to continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Any political party or movement that does not come to grips with this reality, forging a realistic consensus on spiritual matters or at least one that can compete effectively with the snake oil peddled by the theocrats, is headed for an extended sojourn in the wilderness.

Regarding the theocrats we could do worse than echo the words of a certain first century spiritual teacher: Outwardly, they are as lambs. Inwardly, they are as ravening wolves.  

Well I goofed twice. Here's my sig.

Ellen, I didn't mean to be coy -- my apologies for being less than clear.  When I asked for my concerns to be taken seriously, I wasn't responding to any particular policy or stance on an issue.  (I can do that, but this doesn't seem like the place.)  Instead, I was trying to highlight a general attitude that seems to pervade the Left: that any political opinion partially shaped by a person's religious feelings is tainted and not trustworthy. 

I know I'm defensive on this issue, but I don't think I've completely fabricated this attitude.  It's there on questions of abortion, the Pledge of Allegiance, welfare, the death penalty -- pretty much any political question that arises.  Another poster mentioned that she can no more leave her sense of morality outside of political debate than she can leave her breasts.  It seems to me that many expect others to cast off their religion in order to enter the public sphere.  Or maybe they just refuse to take anything that smacks of "morality" seriously.  That bothers me.