NationStates Jolt Archive

Republicans claimed a major victory in this past election by increasing Jewish support from 19% to 25%. According to David C. Steinmetz, a religion professor from Duke University, Democrats have a blind spot concerning Christians, and are "woefully unsophisticated in their analysis of evangelicals."

In the last election 22% of self described evangelicals voted for Kerry. Should Democrats attempt to go after more socially liberal evangelicals and how would that change the party?


Give me the old-time religion?
Evangelicals and the Democratic Party

By David C. Steinmetz (special to Orlando Sentinel)

Some analysts, stunned by the victory of George W. Bush in the 2004 election, suggested that he had won re-election because of the support of right-wing evangelical Christians or fundamentalists (the terms were used interchangeably). A few even braced for the introduction of an unwelcome theocracy and spoke darkly of secession....

full story at:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpsteinmetz23112304nov23,1,6648021.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

Not unless the evangelicals are willing to srop a lot of their fundi bible views.

Not unless the evangelicals are willing to srop a lot of their fundi bible views.


One of Steinmetz' points is that there is a difference between evangelicals and fundamentalist; a difference Democrats have been unable to recognize because of religious bias.

One way or the other, Democrats courting people based on their religion will be highly ammusing. The democrat party as a whole, and the lunatics at moveon.org have no clue about the thought process behind placing your faith in a higher power. Unless that higher power is hollywood.

The Christian evangelicals here are fundamentalists. It is not a difference democrats fail to understand. The majoirty of the evangelicals are social conservatives who want to see a president use is faith in office. Jerry Falwell and his Chrtistian coalition/ moral majority are the greatest examples of this. They seek to impose the christian views of morality on the rest of the U.S. populace.

That's not true. Democrats just don't think that the higher power should be invoked in Social Policy.

I vote no. I will not compromise with the Christian Right. They are destroying this democracy, and I am trying to save it. There is no common ground.

One way or the other, Democrats courting people based on their religion will be highly ammusing. The democrat party as a whole, and the lunatics at moveon.org have no clue about the thought process behind placing your faith in a higher power. Unless that higher power is hollywood.

placing faith in a higher power? Oh, you mean like saying god told you to go to war. I get it.


Religion has no place in law. At all.

One way or the other, Democrats courting people based on their religion will be highly ammusing. The democrat party as a whole, and the lunatics at moveon.org have no clue about the thought process behind placing your faith in a higher power. Unless that higher power is hollywood.


And yet Democrats regularly get 90% of the Black vote, most of whom are religious, and in the last election picked up 48% of the Catholic vote, 75% of the Jewish vote, and turned around a majority of the Muslim vote from Republican to Democrat.

I agree with your point that in general Democrats have been inept about speaking to the concerns of people of faith.

The democrats can't court the christian right. The christian right aren't really interested in the aspects of faith and policy that have to do with charity and fairness. They are more interested in curbing homosexuality and promoting "family values", which I beleive is a code word for putting women in their place and disallowing any messages which are in contradiction to the bible.

The Christian evangelicals here are fundamentalists.

Did you read the article? They are not the same and at times have had opposing agendas.

Religion has no place in law. At all.
That is your opinion, that is my opinion, however, most of the people that the democrats need to target dont agree with you. You definitive (in your mind) statement is exactly the root of the lefts failures. You make statements like that and when someone disagrees with you, you attack them.

The democrats can't court the christian right. The christian right aren't really interested in the aspects of faith and policy that have to do with charity and fairness. They are more interested in curbing homosexuality and promoting "family values", which I beleive is a code word for putting women in their place and disallowing any messages which are in contradiction to the bible.
:rolleyes: Take your head out of the whole it is in. This is exactly why the left fails. These kind of bigoted statements.

No.

Why not?

They already have one party in their back pocket. What does God need with a Theocracy?

The democrats can't court the christian right. The christian right aren't really interested in the aspects of faith and policy that have to do with charity and fairness. They are more interested in curbing homosexuality and promoting "family values", which I beleive is a code word for putting women in their place and disallowing any messages which are in contradiction to the bible.

It would help if you read the article before generalizing about the "Christian Right."

"Evangelicals were never merely orthodox. Their passion for classical Christian doctrine was fused with an equal passion for personal renewal and social reform. Like the Puritans before them, evangelicals were addicted to good works. They built schools, hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens and rescue missions....Evangelicalism now covers a broad spectrum of religious belief and practice from the fundamentalist fringe to socially (though not theologically) liberal activists."

of course the democrats should court the evangelicals.

its hard to get anywhere in politics in the US if you ignore those who are on your side juet because they are religious.

there are PLENTY of evangelicals who are pro choice, anti death penalty, pro social justice. those who think that fighting racism, homophobia and poverty are important policies.

we have fallen into the trap of thinking that being religious means being a close minded bigot who only cares about unborn life. its just not true. there are manymany very religious people who are LIBERAL.

the democratic party needs to make it seem RIGHT to be religious and democratic. after all wouldnt jesus want us to be fighting for the poor and disenfranchised? democratic ideals ARE christian ideals and we should start proclaiming it.

That is your opinion, that is my opinion, however, most of the people that the democrats need to target dont agree with you. You definitive (in your mind) statement is exactly the root of the lefts failures. You make statements like that and when someone disagrees with you, you attack them.

Usually because I'm right. That statement, by the way, is definative. Check the constitution - its right there for all to see.

The people that don't agree with me here tend not to agree with me most social issues. After I'm done attacking their views, they ofte don't have much to back it up on. In fact, most tend to turn to the bible. Once I tell them that can't be used in court of law or in justifying social actions within the civic system, they usually can't find another reason to do things like ban gay marriage, stop the feminist movement, stop euthanasia, and so on.

:rolleyes: Take your head out of the whole it is in. This is exactly why the left fails. These kind of bigoted statements.
These are my conclusions based on listening to the statements coming from the religious right and the actions of the candidates they support.

It would help if you read the article before generalizing about the "Christian Right."

"Evangelicals were never merely orthodox. Their passion for classical Christian doctrine was fused with an equal passion for personal renewal and social reform. Like the Puritans before them, evangelicals were addicted to good works. They built schools, hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens and rescue missions....Evangelicalism now covers a broad spectrum of religious belief and practice from the fundamentalist fringe to socially (though not theologically) liberal activists."
Yet they back candidates who slash social programs and try to take funding away from public schools through voucher programs.

That is your opinion, that is my opinion, however, most of the people that the democrats need to target dont agree with you. You definitive (in your mind) statement is exactly the root of the lefts failures. You make statements like that and when someone disagrees with you, you attack them.

The problem here is that the Democratic Party don't believe that religion has any place in law. How can they chase the votes of people they fundamentally disagree with? Unless you're suggesting they abandon all pretense at principle and just pursue power for its own sake.

I think the Democratic Party in the USA should try to address the problem of the Religious Right, and should try, through argument, to wean some of them off their swivel-eyed notions. Mind you, crazy is crazy, so they probably shouldn't hold their breath. They'd probably be better advised to point out to the rest of America the pitiful failure of myth-based initiatives and the danger of allowing the nation to be controlled by a political party that sits hand-in-glove with a small coterie of hucksters, con-men and genuine-article deranged gimps.

What percentage of the Evangelical vote could Democrats have picked up simply by turning off our condescending arrogance and just listening to their concerns? What small percentage would have swung the last election or the one before?

What percentage of the Evangelical vote could Democrats have picked up simply by turning off our condescending arrogance and just listening to their concerns? What small percentage would have swung the last election or the one before?
What concerns? Gay marriage? It's matter of equal protection under the law. God has nothing to do with it.

Democrats should court all people, but they shouldn't change their stances on the issues to do it.

If evangelicals would be receptive to a party that supports homosexuals, abortions, and the separation of church and state then I think the democratic party would have received a great deal more support already.

The problem here is that the Democratic Party don't believe that religion has any place in law. How can they chase the votes of people they fundamentally disagree with? Unless you're suggesting they abandon all pretense at principle and just pursue power for its own sake.

I think the Democratic Party in the USA should try to address the problem of the Religious Right, and should try, through argument, to wean some of them off their swivel-eyed notions. Mind you, crazy is crazy, so they probably shouldn't hold their breath. They'd probably be better advised to point out to the rest of America the pitiful failure of myth-based initiatives and the danger of allowing the nation to be controlled by a political party that sits hand-in-glove with a small coterie of hucksters, con-men and genuine-article deranged gimps.
That is an extremly bigoted view, and with views like that, you are ignorable.

What percentage of the Evangelical vote could Democrats have picked up simply by turning off our condescending arrogance and just listening to their concerns? What small percentage would have swung the last election or the one before?

Government cannot and should not listen to the concerns of people based on religion. It has nothing to do with arrogance, it has everything to do with equal respect for all religions.

What concerns? Gay marriage? It's matter of equal protection under the law. God has nothing to do with it.

Like most of the Democratic Party you don't get it do you? Evangelicals are not just one-issue, mass produced, mindless cyborgs. They are people with the same complex range of concerns as you or I. Most of them are focused on the same things as anyone else - raising a family, paying for college, buying a home, the price of gas, crime, etc. Democrats do not need to appease them, patronize them, nor give up core Democratic beliefs. However, certainly there is room to look at finding common ground and, at the very least, availing their fears that the Democratic Party is openly hostile to them and their beliefs?

Like most of the Democratic Party you don't get it do you? Evangelicals are not just one-issue, mass produced, mindless cyborgs. They are people with the same complex range of concerns as you or I. Most of them are focused on the same things as anyone else - raising a family, paying for college, buying a home, the price of gas, crime, etc. Democrats do not need to appease them on every one of their concerns, nor give up core Democratic beliefs, but certainly there is room to look at finding common ground and, at the very least, availing their fears that the Democratic Party is openly hostile to them and their beliefs.
Ok, then tell me what are a few core issues for evangelicals? Not buying a house and putting the kids through college, give me the issues that define evangelicals.

That is an extremly bigoted view, and with views like that, you are ignorable.

So are you ever going to present an argument or your own views? Or are you just going to sit there and try and feel superior because you can tell others their views are wrong?

The problem here is that the Democratic Party don't believe that religion has any place in law. How can they chase the votes of people they fundamentally disagree with? Unless you're suggesting they abandon all pretense at principle and just pursue power for its own sake.

I think the Democratic Party in the USA should try to address the problem of the Religious Right, and should try, through argument, to wean some of them off their swivel-eyed notions. Mind you, crazy is crazy, so they probably shouldn't hold their breath. They'd probably be better advised to point out to the rest of America the pitiful failure of myth-based initiatives and the danger of allowing the nation to be controlled by a political party that sits hand-in-glove with a small coterie of hucksters, con-men and genuine-article deranged gimps.

There is no fundamental disagreement between democrats and evangelicals.

I guess if this idea is commonplace amongst the voters of America, then yes the democratic party may need to court the religious right quite a bit more.

I would like to ask you to never speak up on behalf of the democrats.

Like most of the Democratic Party you don't get it do you? Evangelicals are not just one-issue, mass produced, mindless cyborgs. They are people with the same complex range of concerns as you or I. Most of them are focused on the same things as anyone else - raising a family, paying for college, buying a home, the price of gas, crime, etc. Democrats do not need to appease them, patronize them, nor give up core Democratic beliefs. However, certainly there is room to look at finding common ground and, at the very least, availing their fears that the Democratic Party is openly hostile to them and their beliefs?

I have to point out that the democrats had little to do with the gap. Most of the hostility that may rest between the democratic party and christians is on the side of the Christians and was spurred by the Republicans.

(Note: I said democratic party. I freely admit there are some radical liberals with hostile views towards Christianity who associate with the democratic party. They do NOT represent the party.)

So are you ever going to present an argument or your own views? Or are you just going to sit there and try and feel superior because you can tell others their views are wrong?
Hypocrite!
Usually because I'm right. That statement, by the way, is definative. Check the constitution - its right there for all to see.

I still want to know what the Evangelicals' concerns are that set them appart from other groups. Until told differently I will continue to assume they want no recognition of gay unions, a complete ban on abortion, limits to free speech, and promotion of religion in public life (schools, courtrooms, etc.).

Like most of the Democratic Party you don't get it do you? Evangelicals are not just one-issue, mass produced, mindless cyborgs. They are people with the same complex range of concerns as you or I. Most of them are focused on the same things as anyone else - raising a family, paying for college, buying a home, the price of gas, crime, etc. Democrats do not need to appease them, patronize them, nor give up core Democratic beliefs. However, certainly there is room to look at finding common ground and, at the very least, availing their fears that the Democratic Party is openly hostile to them and their beliefs?

I think this is probably worth expanding on: to what extent are "evangelicals" different from the "Religious Right"? It's obviously redundant for a political party with pretensions of vaguely left-of-kind-of-right-wing-if-you-ask-me views like the Democrats to pursue the votes of hard-Right loons who want to live in their own theocracy; but if there is a large constituency of non-Right-wing evangelical Christians, then it would be worthwhile for the Democrats to pursue their votes. Although one would have to wonder what these Christians, with their laudable desire to help the poor and needy, are doing voting for the Republican party in the first place. It could be that kinder, gentler evangelicals are abstaining, appalled by the Republican greed-fest but equally turned off by something the Democrats have done or failed to do. But is this the case? Does this constituency exist in any great numbers?

There is no fundamental disagreement between democrats and evangelicals.

I guess if this idea is commonplace amongst the voters of America, then yes the democratic party may need to court the religious right quite a bit more.

I would like to ask you to never speak up on behalf of the democrats.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was speaking up for the Democrats. But I don't understand how a supposedly left-wing party can be expected to court the "Religious Right". You might as well ask them to pursue the votes of white supremacists.

(For the record, I don't see any direct link between white supremacists and religious fundamentalists, apart from their common tendency to hold fixed beliefs for no earthly reason.)

Ok, then tell me what are a few core issues for evangelicals? Not buying a house and putting the kids through college, give me the issues that define evangelicals.

As I am not an evangelical, but rather one of those liberal Democrats who has been "woefully unsophisticated" in my understanding of Evangelicals, I cannot tell you what their concerns are.

And that is the point. Like many in the Democratic Party, I too have never even bothered to find out what is important to them.

However, I know both Liberals and Evangelicals want to help people – spiritually as well as temporally. Evangelicals believe they cannot minister to a person’s spiritual needs and ignore his physical hunger. Steinmetz states, in the article I posted, "People who love the Bible know that it has hard things to say about anyone who fails to take care of the poor and powerless. Democrats believe that at their best they are a party that does precisely that -- protects people who cannot protect themselves. It is certainly a starting point for a values conversation with evangelicals."

I am not talking about winning over the majority of the evangelical vote or turning the Democrats into a second Republican Party. However, if there is a way to speak to some evangelicals about issues of concern to them, without compromising core Democratic beliefs, wouldn't in be worth it to pick up an additional 10% of the evangelical vote?

That is your opinion, that is my opinion, however, most of the people that the democrats need to target dont agree with you. You definitive (in your mind) statement is exactly the root of the lefts failures. You make statements like that and when someone disagrees with you, you attack them.

You yourself are on the attack with the "hollywood" remark. The problem with faith and politics is that we also have people like Osama using the same thought process... "i'm right and everyone else is wrong" Isn't that what Jesus said at the sermon on the mount? I think to politicize spiritual beliefs is wrong view.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was speaking up for the Democrats. But I don't understand how a supposedly left-wing party can be expected to court the "Religious Right". You might as well ask them to pursue the votes of white supremacists.

(For the record, I don't see any direct link between white supremacists and religious fundamentalists, apart from their common tendency to hold fixed beliefs for no earthly reason.)
they cant be expected to court the religious right, that would just be a waste of time

but they can court the religious LEFT.

evangelical isnt a political stance its a religious one and a good portion of evangelicals relate to social justice more than right to life. this is a natural constiuency for democrats to go after.

its bad thinking to lump religious people in with the ultra conservatives. some are, some arent. those that arent should be OURS. so why not court them?

Should anyone court evangelicals?

Should anyone court evangelicals?
Probably not gays.

I think that if the Democrats don't try to woo back evangelicals, they're missing a tremendous opportunity. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are more and more seen as problems and obstacles, the "crazy uncles we don't know what to do with". Most evangelicals I know were appalled by Enron and the like, and critics of the war in Iraq have included a large number of evangelical ministers. New writers and speakers are rising to the forefront, and many of them much more moderate politically than the typical media stereotype.

Many evangelicals, especially young college students and recent graduates, are now asking the question as to whether abortion and gay marriage should be their only political concerns, or even the primary ones. There is a re-awakening of Christian concern and care for the poor, for racial and gender equity, and for peace. There is a growing belief within the evangelical community that forcing Biblical views through rule of law is not productive, is probably counter-productive, is wrong, is placing our faith in the wrong thing.

The problem for Democrats still remains in that there is still a lack of trust. These moderate evangelicals still tend to vote Republican on the national level because they still see the Democratic Party as the party that hates them. When they here someone denounce the "Religious Right", they assume that they're talking about them too. They watch enough television and read the newspaper enough to see that the national media, for the most part, doesn't seem to understand the difference. They hear the messages from the radical left demonizing and denouncing "Christians", and assume that they speak for the Democratic Party as a whole.

It is not going to be easy to bridge the divide, a divide that is decades in the making. Democrats can start by taming their lunatic fringe, which was allowed to get too much air-time duing the 2004 campaign. More Democrats need to take a stand for religious liberty, and against all forms of fundamentalism and
intolerance, including secular. It would help if the next time some bigot said
that Christians are the source of all that is wrong with America, a prominent Democrat denounced that statement.

Democrats also need to learn to talk in the language of moral values. The
evangelical perspective is to do what is right, without regard of whether there is an earthly reward. The Democrats don't need to compromise their values, but recognize and communicate that these values, care for the poor and defenseless,
peace, racial equity, fiscal responsibility, are in fact very Biblical, very Christ-like.

Furthermore, Democrats need to learn who evangelicals are. They need to find and befriend prominent moderate evangelicals, some of whom are begging, or rather, praying, for the chance. Here would be a start. (http://www.sojo.net) Democrats would also be wise to remember that the most prominent evangelical voice of the late 20th Century was Dr. Martin Luther King.

It is going to be an uphill battle, and there are too many evangelicals who have embraced a far-right political stance. But as has been already said, gaining the vote of those evangelicals who are willing to listen could really
change things.

We'll court Evangelicals when the Republicans start courting Muslims and Pagans, mmkay?

Godless Satanist Atheist Demoncrat men should secretly court Evangelical Christian women, and once they have married them they should tell them to heed the teachings of Paul and keep their mouths shut, and learn from their husbands at home. And they should never cheat on them, so they can't get a christian divorce. :D

One way or the other, Democrats courting people based on their religion will be highly ammusing. The democrat party as a whole, and the lunatics at moveon.org have no clue about the thought process behind placing your faith in a higher power. Unless that higher power is hollywood.
Aren't many Democrats also Christians? Most Democrats aren't atheists. I think they could easily court some more Christians, using Jesus' "tolerance" and "compassion for the poor" arguments.

Religion has no place in law. At all.
That is your opinion, that is my opinion, however, most of the people that the democrats need to target dont agree with you. You definitive (in your mind) statement is exactly the root of the lefts failures. You make statements like that and when someone disagrees with you, you attack them.
How was his post an attack?

You say it's his opinion, you say it's your opinion, but you forget to mention that it's also the opinion of the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well said, Big Ten Country. Well said.

I still want to know what the Evangelicals' concerns are that set them appart from other groups. Until told differently I will continue to assume they want no recognition of gay unions, a complete ban on abortion, limits to free speech, and promotion of religion in public life (schools, courtrooms, etc.).Evangelicals as a group are concerned with finding ways to assist and aid those who are disadvantages under the current system and providing them with an opportunety to advance and make more of thier lives. They see injustices in the current system and want solutions to these injustices. They tend to gravitate towards republicans because republicans are offering changes to the current system and pointing out how these can help the disadvantaged. Take this example:Yet they back candidates who slash social programs and try to take funding away from public schools through voucher programs.This is just wrong. Evangelicals see that the current school system is falwed and not working as well as it should. Republicans offer a change from the current system, a system of school accountability and vouchers which is designed to enable those currently worse off under the current system a way to get out the flawed system. They view is as not a means of stripping money from public schools but as a way of ensuring students get a decent education. In facy many p[eople see argumetns like Koey's as a perfect example of what is wrong with the democrat, their goal is not educating students but proping up the education system without regard to the students. Plenty of good arguments can be made about how best to improve education, but the democrats are not presenting them well while the republicans are presenting thiers quite well.


Government cannot and should not listen to the concerns of people based on religion. It has nothing to do with arrogance, it has everything to do with equal respect for all religions. I cannot think of how else to define arrogance. regardless of what the basis for the concerns of the people is, be it religion or something else they remain the concerns of the people. You seem to be suggesting that government has no responsability to the people it governs.

I cannot think of how else to define arrogance. regardless of what the basis for the concerns of the people is, be it religion or something else they remain the concerns of the people. You seem to be suggesting that government has no responsability to the people it governs.

Arrogance is believing that your personal beliefs are valid enough to dictate how other people are governed.

Government has total responsibility to ALL of the people it governs, which means that it cannot take into account any particular beliefs that are devisive. Our government was based on equal representation of all people, and the recognition of religious values would inherently lead to an oppressive majority.

Arrogance is believing that your personal beliefs are valid enough to dictate how other people are governed.

Government has total responsibility to ALL of the people it governs, which means that it cannot take into account any particular beliefs that are devisive. Our government was based on equal representation of all people, and the recognition of religious values would inherently lead to an oppressive majority.Most importantly my objection wa the use of the word "listen". I am not saying government must comport all of it's behavior according to the prevailing sentiment of the majority, but it must at least take cognizance of the concerns of the people (even the minorities). Arrogance can be defined as indifference to opinions of others, responsible government means an inabilty to act solely according to opinions of one group. There is a significant difference between these two: it is not arrogant to say "We understand you opinions and respect them, but cannot force others to live by them"; it is arrogant to say "We don't have to listen to your opinions".

Most importantly my objection wa the use of the word "listen". I am not saying government must comport all of it's behavior according to the prevailing sentiment of the majority, but it must at least take cognizance of the concerns of the people (even the minorities). Arrogance can be defined as indifference to opinions of others, responsible government means an inabilty to act solely according to opinions of one group. There is a significant difference between these two: it is not arrogant to say "We understand you opinions and respect them, but cannot force others to live by them"; it is arrogant to say "We don't have to listen to your opinions".

I am not talking about particular people here, I am talking about government as a whole. I am also not saying that the government should not listen to christians, only they should not listen to any views based on Christianity. The government must fully respect all of its citizens, and to do that it must ignore all religion. The founding fathers realized that and constructed the constitution accordingly.

I am not talking about particular people here, I am talking about government as a whole. I am also not saying that the government should not listen to christians, only they should not listen to any views based on Christianity. The government must fully respect all of its citizens, and to do that it must ignore all religion. The founding fathers realized that and constructed the constitution accordingly.Right, so instead of not listen to people who are religious, you make it OK by ignoring them the instant they start talking about opinions derived from thier religion. Nonsense the government must not ignore religion and is under no constitutional obligation to do so, in fact the first amendment appears to guarenttee the right to be heard (petition of griveances). What the governmetn is forbidden to do is not to act upon those views. There is a significant differance between acting and listening, and the government should listen to them. This is a major difference in perception of many US citizens about the two major parties, the democrats don't seem to even listen to other's views while the republicans listen and pay lip service to them. The democrats don't even have to change any of thier policies to woo the evangelicals (and other groups), they merely have to listen to the groups and explain their policies to them in terms the groups can understand.

You say it's his opinion, you say it's your opinion, but you forget to mention that it's also the opinion of the US Constitution:
No, it's not.

Until they learn to tolerate abortion, no.

Should Democrats Court Evangelicals?

Only if they're attractive, rich, or both. :p

Right, so instead of not listen to people who are religious, you make it OK by ignoring them the instant they start talking about opinions derived from thier religion. Nonsense the government must not ignore religion and is under no constitutional obligation to do so, in fact the first amendment appears to guarenttee the right to be heard (petition of griveances). What the governmetn is forbidden to do is not to act upon those views. There is a significant differance between acting and listening, and the government should listen to them. This is a major difference in perception of many US citizens about the two major parties, the democrats don't seem to even listen to other's views while the republicans listen and pay lip service to them. The democrats don't even have to change any of thier policies to woo the evangelicals (and other groups), they merely have to listen to the groups and explain their policies to them in terms the groups can understand.

They SHOULD NOT ignore the PEOPLE, they SHOULD ignore the religion.

Let me ask you this:

If they are banned from acting upon religious beliefs, then what possible good would it do for them to consider the argument? The only thing it can do is bias them unfairly.

I also believe that Kerry attempted explain that he respected Christian views but felt that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, not a definition of marriage issue, and that abortion was a women's choice issue, not a "is abortion murder" issue. It has been explained ad nauseum that not allowing school sponsored prayer is not an indictment of christianity but a protection of other religions.

It would take a miracle to actually get the religious right (in general) to accept that.

I would much rather have the democratic party continue with those policies than compromise in order to broaden their constituency.

Democrats should cook evangelicals. Really, they'd want it that way anyway. It'd play into their martyr complex beautifully.

And they'd taste good deep-fried. Everything tastes good deep-fried. Just remember to extract the chromeplated pickles from up their asses before tucking in.

People running for public office should try to appeal to as many voters no matter what segment they are. Why do they seperate differnt people? No one "group" decides any election. :rolleyes:

Let me ask you this:

If they are banned from acting upon religious beliefs, then what possible good would it do for them to consider the argument? It can win "them" elections. This level of politics is all about perceptions, and large chunks of the electorate percieve the democratic party as not even bothering to listen to them, while the republicans at least listen respectfully to viewpoints they cannot/willnot give into. There are large chunks of the electorate who happen to support the republicans not because they agree with them, but because the democrats seem to have abandoned them, and at least the republicans give them some time to talk about thier opinions. Even if your opinions never have any effect on policy, just knowing that the people setting the policy listened to your opinions before making the policy makes you more likely to support the policy adopted, and makes you feel better about the people making the policy.

*grumble grumble grumble*

Political/elected leaders have every right to act upon their religious views, that is, use their religious views, if they have them, to inform their positions and decisions. They in fact should act on their moral and ethical views, whether informed by religious faith or not. Laws should be enacted enforced and interpreted morally and ethically, and we should well expect them to use their own moral and ethical sensabilities and beliefs in the performences of their jobs. What they can't, or at least shouldn't, do is enact enforce or uphold laws that have no reasons to exist other than religious traditions. For example: blue laws (sabbath restrictions or sunday restrictions), religious diets, laws upholding or restricting religion or religions, etc.

Are we clear? :)