Pete Buttigieg shouldn't lead the religious left. There shouldn't even be a religious left.

[trotsky]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/05/20/pete-buttigieg-shouldnt-lead-religious-left-there-shouldnt-even-be-religious-left/

...Mayor Pete, who is drawing extra attention for his appearance on Fox News on Sunday, has certainly been getting plenty of media attention about his faith, all of it mainly focused on him being the “religious left” candidate, in contrast with the long-dominant “Christian right.” Buttigieg’s unapologetic harnessing of Christian rhetoric in defense of liberal political principles has caused a sensation (although, as Washington Post columnist Elizabeth Bruenig has pointed out, this isn’t exactly as new as some seem to say).

...So many of us on the left have long lamented the power of the religious right in America over the past several decades. Criticism has centered not only on the bad political and policy positions it has advocated, but also on the very concept of religion being overly entwined in politics. In a pluralist society, why should one small reading of one particular faith tradition have its way in decision-making?

If we don’t want religious people on the right employing explicitly religious arguments for wielding power because of the separation of church and state, then why should we want someone on the left doing the same thing?

The establishment clause of the First Amendment should not set the terms of this debate for Christians. Rather, the test of Scripture and the example of Christ should drive our engagement with and in the world and should be the primary influencing factor in mediating these kinds of situations. When Buttigieg or any progressive candidate centers the Gospel message as the rationale for their policy choices, and then wins and implements said policy agenda, then that becomes a form of Christian witness, albeit a perverted one. In short, the use of the Christian faith to justify political choices conflates Christianity with those choices. This is no more desirable, from a Christian viewpoint, if it’s Buttigieg or if it is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), no matter the content of the policy prescriptions.

[zipplewrath]

1. Ya don't wanna mix the two

The quickest way to screw up a religion is to get it involved in politics. Just look at the Roman Catholic Church, which WAS the governing authority in much of western Europe at one time. We can look to our religions for guidance on morality. But we have to make our decisions on governing based upon a kind of practicality in which we decide what can or should be accomplished through the power of government. Enforcing or even encouraging a particular moral view isn't always appropriate.

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. Even from a more cynical place...

...people who support Buttigieg because they think he can peel votes away from the evangelicals don't understand evangelicals.

Trying to counter religious conservatism with religious liberalism is a waste of time. Anyone who honestly still thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

[leftofcool]

4. What makes you think those of use who support Pete care about peeling votes away from evangelicals?

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Composition fallacy.

Those who support Buttigieg because they think he will peel votes away from evangelicals are one subset of those who support Buttigieg. No doubt there are many other groups who support him for many other reasons.

[marylandblue]

20. How you do know there are a significant number of people in that subset.

And if you do know that, how do you distinguish those people from the religious left, who are already in competition with the religious right for souls as well as as votes.

[Major Nikon]

33. Pretty sure he thinks so

Otherwise there would be no point to wearing the religiosity on the sleeve. If such people don’t materialize, and there’s little reason to suspect otherwise, that only underscores part of the point it’s a failed strategy. Regardless it’s not a direction worth going even if the remote possibility of success is realized. Once you crawl in bed with organized religion they will inevitably expect power in return.

[marylandblue]

38. Or.maybe he is a member of the religious left who likes to wear religion on his sleeve

because that's who he is. And he is running as who he is. As a opposed to the Democratic politicians who are either closet atheists or like to hide their religiosity from secularists to get their votes, but maintain religious ties enough to keep the religious vote.

[Major Nikon]

41. Regardless he is using his religion as a political tool by his own admission

So it's perfectly reasonable the intent of that is to capture those who vote based on religious preference. It doesn't seem to be working all that well.

[marylandblue]

43. Yes that's true, he is using religion as a tool.

One thing I like about him is that he has no secret strategy. He tells you exactly what he is doing.

The book is not yet written on how well this works. Even if he doesn't win the primary (and he knows he probably won't), he's raised the issue and will probably continue to use it in his future career.

[Eko]

52. There's your problem right there.

"As a opposed to the Democratic politicians who are either closet atheists or like to hide their religiosity from secularists to get their votes".
Why should there have to be Democratic politicians like that?

[marylandblue]

58. Because people don't trust atheists and Democrats don't trust people who are too religious.

[Eko]

70. The first part is for sure,

I would argue against the second part. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=President+obama+quotes+scripture

[marylandblue]

71. Well I think it depends on two factors

One is just how much religion you wear on your sleeve, and Obama was relatively mild compared to some Bible thumping Republicans. The other is that it's more common and therefore more acceptable for African Americans to be religious.

[Act_of_Reparation]

114. But don't you think politicians have a moral obligation to fight prejudice?

If most Americans distrust atheists (and they certainly do), then politicians putting on a show of their religiosity because it goes over well with the electorate are reinforcing this bigoted perception.

[marylandblue]

117. Yes politicians should fight prejudice, but they also have to get elected.

So they are always in a catch 22. They have to stand up for what is right, but if they are too far ahead of they crowd, they could lose to someone more prejudiced than themselves.

In the case of personal religious beliefs, if there are any closet atheists in Congress, I think they believe it sufficient to claim religious affiliation and support separation of church and state.

[Bretton Garcia]

35. Guil? An argument against a religious left, is a very good argument against Guil

[leftofcool]

3. I love Pete bashing threads so early in the morning

If kindness, humility, taking care of the poor, taking care of your elders are too "Christian left" you can count me in and I am not a Christian.

[trotsky]

7. That's not the point of the article, but go ahead. n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. This is just the way we're going to do things here from now on.

It's sad. Fanboyism makes for dangerous politics.

[trotsky]

10. Indeed it does.

The MAGA club does it, and liberals aren't immune it seems.

[Fullduplexxx]

18. Yes the bernie bros showed us that

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. It was hardly a behavior relegated to Sanders fans.

As is evidenced by this thread. And pretty much every other thread in GD and Primaries.

[stonecutter357]

9. +1000

[trotsky]

12. Would you care to address the topic of the article?

Is it OK to base policy on religious beliefs, as long as they're *your* religious beliefs?

[radical noodle]

101. It seems to me

that the policies of Democrats in general are in line with the religious left, like it or not. We believe in caring for the poor, the sick, in sex education, in science. Those are the same beliefs of the religious left. If you don't want Christians to vote for Democrats because they're religious people, then we've got a problem.

[trotsky]

103. Is your answer to my question "yes," then? n/t

[radical noodle]

104. No.

The "religious left" does not believe in basing policies on religious beliefs. It's just that those policies often are in line with their religious beliefs. I suppose you can't see the difference here?

[radical noodle]

105. To be more clear

I think most in the "religious left" believe in the separation of church and state. How's that?

[trotsky]

109. That's great, as long as you agree religious beliefs should not be the basis for policy.

Does everyone on the "religious left" believe that?

[radical noodle]

110. I can't say anything about "everyone"

but yes, most believe that. That's why they're "left."

[True Dough]

76. Just remember

One of America's greatest presidents did not try to hide his Christianity. His faith may very well have informed his policy, but he didn't force religion down people's throats. I think it would be much the same with President Pete.

[safeinOhio]

6. Sectarian religious wars?

Always the bloodiest wars.

[stonecutter357]

11. dis·gust·ing OP!

[trotsky]

13. Really.

Do explain why it's OK for us to base policy on religion.

[Scoopster]

14. Please show where he's doing that.

He's not basing policy on religious beliefs. He's using his personal beliefs as a moral guide along with other factors. If you have an example that proves otherwise, go ahead and share it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. Which is exactly what conservative Christians have been saying for years.

So there's that.

[marylandblue]

21. Actually they've been saying the US is a Christian nation based on Biblical principles.

so no.

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. Not all of them are that dumb.

If you're looking to pass the Lemon Test, you offer the following platitude: "I'm not legislating my religious beliefs; my legislation is based on my morality, which is informed by my religious beliefs".

As if adding a middle-man changes things.

[marylandblue]

26. I'd probably oppose such legislation unless there was a good secular reason too.

But if I agree with the legislation anyway and there is no religious reference in the law itself, I don't care if some people came to the same conclusion for religious reasons.

[True Dough]

77. Barack Obama led by example

A Christian who knew where to draw the line. So there's that.

[Act_of_Reparation]

99. Anecdotes are quaint.

[True Dough]

106. That's so profound!

I'm at a loss for words.

[Act_of_Reparation]

107. Not surprising.

But a welcome change of pace.

[trotsky]

16. "use of the Christian faith to justify political choices conflates Christianity with those choices"

Agree or disagree?

[Fullduplexxx]

17. You heard him no religious people allowed!

[trotsky]

19. That's not even close to what was said.

So much for honest discussion.

[marylandblue]

22. The article draws on a subordinate Christian tradition, not the dominant one.

Christianity has always had a political expression, at least since Constantine, but probably going back to when it was just a Jewish sect, and all the Jewish sects then were political.

Some have always thought Christians should not participate in politics as Christians, some don't even vote for this reason. But that was never the dominant strain. There has always been Christian politics in this country. It has leaned right wing since the 1970s, but prior to that it was more mixed.

So the question is not whether there will be Christian politics. There will be for as long as there are Christians. The question is what sort of Christian politics will we have? One dominated by the right so that the Church becomes an arm of the Republican Party? Or one with more diversity, reflecting the diversity of America? In either case, you don't really have a say in the matter, Christians will make their own choices and you may chose to either ally with some of them or reject them.

[trotsky]

23. Is it preferable to base policy on religious beliefs? n/t

[marylandblue]

24. Policies and politics are not the same.

I don't think policies should be based on religion and I believe that is unconstitutional. But I don't see anything wrong with an organized religious group engaging in political action. It might jeopardize their tax exempt status, but that's okay with me.

[trotsky]

27. No one is saying religious groups can't engage in political action.

In short, the use of the Christian faith to justify political choices conflates Christianity with those choices. This is no more desirable, from a Christian viewpoint, if it’s Buttigieg or if it is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), no matter the content of the policy prescriptions.

[marylandblue]

28. Yes that's what he says, but that's not what most Christians have historically believed.

So I really don't see that changing, and I have no particular objection to it. I only object to the right-wing policies themselves, whether they are based in Christianity, Ayn Randism, or both.

[trotsky]

29. Base your policies on religion, and they become unassailable.

Attacking someone's policies becomes attacking their religion.

That's bad for our country, I think.

[marylandblue]

30. That's too vague and general a statement to really have an answer.

Some people get upset when you attack their policies and some people don't. That's how politics works sometimes. But I don't see anyone on the religious left arguing that their political positions are unassailable or that attacking their policies is the same as attacking their religion. That's more of a right-wing thing.

[trotsky]

36. Getting upset is one thing.

Insisting that your position is the correct one because the creator of the universe agrees with you and no one can question you is another.

Is anyone on the left doing this right now? No, not that I'm aware of.

Still doesn't make it OK to do. Base policies on reason and evidence, not on what someone thinks their god wants. That's what the author is saying (they're even Christian, how nuts is that?) - why is it so controversial?

[marylandblue]

39. It's controversial because there has always been this tension in Christianity

Between religion as an inward looking personal relationship with Christ and religion as an organized social force.

At.least the religious left is committed to separation of church and state, so that any policy they advocate has to have a rational basis. Religious left Christians say that Jesus teaches that we should heal the sick therefore they back universal health care, but recognize any healthcare legislation has to have a secular basis and be executed without religious discrimination such as denying individuals healthcare for "religious" reasons.

[trotsky]

40. Which makes such a thing as the "religious left" unnecessary, as the author states.

I mean, if as you say they're already committed to supporting policies with secular and rational principles, then the author is correct. There shouldn't be a "religious left." Be religious if you want, justify your positions to yourself, but don't base policy on those reasons. The concern here is that the entanglement has the potential to be dangerous no matter how noble your intentions are.

[marylandblue]

48. No that's really your argument.

His argument is that Christian theology is meant to be apolitical and otherworldly. But a lot of Christians disagree with him. As we often discuss here, one Christian's theology is no better than another's and secular observers have very little say in it.

My view is that if we are going to have political Christians, better they align left than align right.

[trotsky]

49. OK.

The nature of religious belief is the same regardless, and not a good foundation for policy OR politics. That's my argument.

[marylandblue]

60. I don't agree that the nature of religious belief is always the same.

Not all religious belief is dogmatic. The dogmatists get the most attention so they make it seem that way.

[trotsky]

62. Not all is dogmatic,

but all is based on faith.

[marylandblue]

63. I don't like the word "faith" because it is very vague.

It's often used to assert that a legend is a proven historical fact, but not all religion makes this assertion. Rather I'd say religion is based on emotion. But so is politics. As a group, humans are much less rational than they think they are.

[trotsky]

64. Indeed it is, thus the problem with it.

Particularly the kind that says not only is faith without evidence good, but faith *despite evidence to the contrary* is even better.

I'm not one to take the equivocation path and throw up my hands to say "humans are irrational, whatcha gonna do."

[marylandblue]

65. Dare I say you have more "faith" in humanity than I do?

Because I've pretty much thrown up my hands. I just assume we are all nuts until proven otherwise.

[trotsky]

66. There are bad systems of government, and not-as-bad systems of government.

We don't have to give up and say it's all bad. Breaking free of the divine right of kings was a huge step forward.

[marylandblue]

67. Yes, some systems are worse than others, but I'm losing my faith in democracy after Trump

Now I think the best form of government is Plato's philosopher-kings. The Pre-modern Chinese government gives us a glimpse of what that could look like. Even though there was a emperor at the top, the civil service, which chosen by merit, had a lot of power and maintained stability no matter who the emperor was.

[radical noodle]

111. The religious left became necessary

when people began to equate the religious right with Christianity as a whole. It is not. In fact, what the religious right believes is the total opposite of the Christ that Christians are supposed to emulate.

[trotsky]

115. See this is the dangerous shit:

"what the religious right believes is the total opposite of the Christ that Christians are supposed to emulate"

How do yo know? Are you the final word on what Jesus is or is not? You may not believe the same things as a member of the religious right, but you have the same fundamentalist-style fervor and certainty.

Jesus also said that those who do not accept him shall burn forever. Was he just bullshitting about that, or was he serious?

[radical noodle]

116. I'm not sure what passage you're referring to

when you claim Jesus says that. I suspect you've plucked it out of context. Most of the times he said things about "hell," he's chastising the people for not being the kind of person they should be (taking care of the poor, for example).

Primarily the teachings of Jesus are about loving your neighbor, giving to others and taking care of the poor. Some of his words can be interpreted in different ways, but much of it (at least according to the translated versions) is quite definitive. There are so many denominations of Christianity because there are vastly different views of what a Christian should believe and do.

Look, I'm not necessarily a believer, so I have no fundamentalist fervor or certainty, right or left. At best, I'm an agnostic. I did grow up in the Church (attending almost daily... I won't go into why) and have some knowledge of the Bible and the words of Christ. I also maintain an interest in Christianity as a whole. Jesus tells his followers without equivocation to do things the religious right ignores and on that I base my opinion that the religious right does not represent what Christ preached. Obviously, the "Christian left" feels that way or they would not have actively worked to try to change the Christian narrative the right has espoused.

Religious beliefs can no doubt be dangerous when taken to a level of fervor that everyone must believe the same thing, and in that, I agree with you. My comment about the religious left is what I believe but no one else has to believe it and I'm certainly not going to try to twist anyone's arm. It is also what the Christian left apparently believes and I was attempting to explain that to you.

[trotsky]

119. By declaring that YOU know what the true message of Jesus is, yeah, you're expressing certainty.

The same certainty that Pat Robertson has about the things he thinks Jesus wants.

And naturally, just like Pat, when you're confronted with a verse you don't like, you make excuses. "That's out of context." Actually, no, it isn't. Matthew 13:47-52 where Jesus is clearly referring to people being cast into hell with the "weeping and gnashing." And Mark 9:42-50 where he says explicitly those who sin will be thrown into hell where "their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched." There are more verses supporting the same thing.

There are so many denominations of Christianity because there are vastly different views of what a Christian should believe and do.

Yeah, and because there are verses that say "love everyone" and then there are those saying "bring those who would not have me rule over them, and slay them in front of me." This isn't just different views, it's blatantly contradictory verses. You pick and choose just like Pat does - how can either of you say you're any more right than the other?

Let's base policy on actual evidence and not what people think a god wants (or doesn't want). That's OK with you, right?

[radical noodle]

122. You seem to be confusing me with someone else

Where did I say that I know what the true message of Jesus is? Where did I ever say that policy should be ruled by religion? Not only did I not say that I directly said it should not.

The verse you first referred to

Jesus also said that those who do not accept him shall burn forever

appears to be from Luke 19:27. However if you read Luke 19:1-27, you will see that he is telling a parable about a king and his servants. The verses you refer to in this post refer to separating the evil from the good, but that's a belief most religions share. Reading the entire passage Matthew 13:30-50 and Mark 9:30-50, give a fuller picture of his meaning. I personally believe there was probably such a man, maybe or maybe not named Jesus, but what and who he even was is debatable. What he meant is also debatable since there have been multiple translations and I imagine those translations were colored by the translator's beliefs.

Religion does not rule my life. In fact, I haven't set foot in a church for three years and then I only went to register voters. Back in the day when I did attend church regularly, it was to a rather progressive church for those times. I came away from it without a religious belief, but with some moral and ethical ideas firmly ingrained. If you want me to agree that there are undoubtedly controversial passages in the Bible I will freely admit that. There are also tons of examples of contradictory passages, particularly if one jumps back and forth between Old and New Testaments.

I will try once more to be clear. I do NOT believe that religion should make policy. What I do believe is that human beings may form their moral and ethical beliefs based on religion if exposed to one. This might lead those who have progressive or liberal values toward the Democratic Party. I would never suggest that religion be used to make policy.

[trotsky]

123. Nope, not confused.

This is what you said:

what the religious right believes is the total opposite of the Christ that Christians are supposed to emulate

That is a declarative statement that you know what that true message is, because you know they are doing the "total opposite." Would you like to retract or clarify that claim?

And yes, Luke 19 is a parable. Answer me this: Who does the king in the parable represent?

What (Jesus) meant is also debatable since there have been multiple translations and I imagine those translations were colored by the translator's beliefs.

Then exactly how are you able to proclaim that "what the religious right believes is the total opposite of the Christ that Christians are supposed to emulate"?

[Major Nikon]

34. You don't see anything wrong with religious groups engaging in political action? Really?

Even if you're oblivious to the multitude of problems throughout the past 50 years alone just tuning in today and seeing what's going on in Mississippi, Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky and Alabama should be something that's not OK.

Once a political power crawls in bed with organized religion, they will always demand power and that power will always result in forcing their warped idea of morality on everyone else. This has been the case for thousands of years. Even if it weren't for that, when organized religionists mix with politics there's never any compromise. If they think their invisible friend is telling them to do something, there are no other options.

[marylandblue]

42. I don't seen anything wrong with it precisely because it has been the case for thousands of years.

There's never been a time religion hasn't influenced politics. The current situation is unusual in American because the last 50 years has seen a white religious right wing church vs. a black religious left wing church while white religious leftists sit it out. The result is, of course, the white religious right wins everytime.

It's time the white religious left join their black brothers who have been fighting almost alone. Few Democrats complain that black churches foster religious activism. Many candidates showed at at Rev. Sharpton's forum. It's a only problem now that there might be white people.doing the same thing.

As long as Christianity exists, there will be political Christianity. I can understand if you don't like it. But you are not being honest about what you don't like. You don't like religion itself, so of course you don't want to a religious left, no matter how reasonable. You don't want a religious anything else either.

Maybe you'll get your wish and someday religion will die out, but not in our generation.

[Major Nikon]

44. There's been plenty of examples where religion hasn't influenced politics

A good portion of Europe is now secular with religion having next to zero influence. As far as progressivism goes the US simply trails behind the trends of Europe. So no, I don't see it as far off as you see it especially given the current trend.

[marylandblue]

45. This is all a relatively recent trend.

I'm talking about the sweep of history measured in centuries.

You might be right that religion will continue it's decline faster than I think.

On the other hand, Europe has a rising right wing now. It hasn't affected religion in Western Europe, but it has helped religion in Eastern Europe. Things may change in Western Europe as well.

"Prediction is hard especially.about the future."

[Lordquinton]

31. Policies should not be based on anyone's religion

if they happen to coincide, then lucky them, but they need to be separate.

As for the religious left, it may be a minority thing that attracts some who are already on the left, but it's misunderstanding what the religious right is, which is a massive political force that is driving policy and laws backed by rich religious dudes. The left will never match that.

[trotsky]

37. Right?

It's very interesting how upsetting this is for some people to consider, even otherwise secular liberals.

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. It's typical in-group thinking.

The same reason they say "God bless you" to sneezing strangers. They think the sentiment is good, so why wouldn't anyone want to accept to it?

[marylandblue]

47. Or we are just conditioned to say it automatically,

despite it being based on a forgotten medieval tradition that not even the most brain washed fundamentalist believes.

I guess if you think it imposes some sort of religious privilege on you, you can ask people to say "Gesundheit" or nothing at all, instead.

[Voltaire2]

50. Why say anything?

Some customs are just stupid and should go away.

It was and is a quaint custom in some regions of this country for white people to refer to African Americans using the N-word. Just let that slide too?

[marylandblue]

59. That's a really silly analogy. nt

[Ilsa]

51. It doesn't matter; he's Episcopalian. ;-) nt

[Docreed2003]

53. Agree with you completely trotsky

As much as I may like Pete and his policy positions, he will never win a "religion" battle with the religious right and, more importantly, pushing a religious view in policy making is a HUGE slippery slope and breaks down the wall of church and state.

[The Genealogist]

54. The wall between religion and government needs to be high

Keep your religion away from the government.

[True Dough]

78. Obama showed it can be done

Or perhaps you regretted the way President Obama carried himself in office?

[Voltaire2]

83. Obama got nowhere with his religiosity

in fact it was weaponized against him, and he was forced to abandon his church and pastor.

[True Dough]

85. He was unfortunately linked to a rogue pastor, yes

So he did leave that particular church. He did not abandon his religion, but he wasn't a "hardliner" either. That's the sort of open-mindedness that can allow a president of faith to appeal to non-believers (like myself).

2016: Final Easter Prayer Breakfast

“(O)ur faith changes us. I know it’s changed me,” Obama said. “It renews in us a sense of possibility. It allows us to believe that although we are all sinners, and that at times we will falter, there’s always the possibility of redemption. Every once in a while, we might get something right, we might do some good.”


2015: Eulogy for the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, pastor of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C.

“Our pain cuts that much deeper because it happened in a church," Obama said. "The church is and always has been the center of African-American life, a place to call our own in a too often hostile world, a sanctuary from so many hardships. … That’s what the black church means. Our beating heart. The place where our dignity as a people is inviolate.”

[Voltaire2]

87. It was his pastor at his church.

This wasn’t an “unfortunate linkage”.

[True Dough]

88. That's just glib. It wasn't "his" church

It was a church he attended. The pastor wasn't someone Obama vetted and endorsed. The pastor expressed views, on his own volition, that Obama obviously found offensive.

Obama left that particular church. He did not abandon religion. So if you choose to keep ignoring the overarching argument that a religious individual can still make a forward-thinking and widely-admired, respected and cherished political leader, then you're wasting everyone's time.

[Voltaire2]

89. I'm sorry you are uncomfortable with the facts.

On May 31, 2008, Barack and Michelle Obama announced that they had withdrawn their membership in Trinity United Church of Christ, stating that "Our relations with Trinity have been strained by the divisive statements of Reverend Wright, which sharply conflict with our own views"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy

Wright also officiated at the Obama’s wedding.

It wasn’t just some church he attended, it was his church and Wright was his pastor.

Further I made no claim that Obama abandoned religion.

[True Dough]

90. Still obtuse

Let's see how you'd handle this question:

What would you have had Obama do in light of controversial statements by Reverend Wright? Stand by him? Obama had no control over what Wright chose to say publicly.

And regardless of that, the larger point still stands: Obama was a principled president who abided by the tenets of his chosen religion. Pete Buttigieg could most certainly follow suit.

[Voltaire2]

91. My point was that Obama's religiosity

was weaponized against him.

And yes of course he should have stood up for Wright. But the political circumstances made that impossible. So what Obama demonstrated was that his religious convictions were subservient to his political ambitions. And that is ok with me, obviously, but not what he was trying to do, which was to somehow undermine the GOP’s stranglehold over religious voters.

[True Dough]

92. "And yes of course he should have stood up for Wright."

Oh, really?

You think you truly know all of Obama's motivations? And you disagree with him disowning Wright?

So you also believe Hillary Clinton had this issue all wrong too?

"You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend," Clinton said.

Later the same day, during a press conference, Clinton spoke on her personal preference in a pastor: "I think given all we have heard and seen, [Wright] would not have been my pastor."

EDIT: I forgot to add "weaponize" and Republicans go hand-in-hand, no matter what decision a Democrat makes. You ought to know that by now.

[marylandblue]

93. Obama's goal was to win, and he won.

There is no religious principle that required him to stand by the politically ill-advised and/or weaponized remarks of his pastor, even if he did officiate at his wedding.

And even if you are right about whatever Obama did or did not do correctly, this is a different time, with different candidates. They say generals always fight the previous war, now it seems you are fighting the previous 3 elections.

[Voltaire2]

94. I didn't bring up Obama.

I responded to a post claiming that somehow Obama got it right with respect to religion and politics.

He didn’t. It nearly derailed his campaign right at the start.

[marylandblue]

96. Anything can be weaponized. Point is, he won.

[njhoneybadger]

55. Church membership has taken a dive in the last 20 years

In another 20 years this bullshit won't be a factor (Thank God)

[guillaumeb]

56. Tell that to religious progressives.

[Bretton Garcia]

57. Like you, Guil?

You are a little hard to talk with, now that you mention it.

So what about the non-religious origins and nature of much progressive thought? Shouldn't it be acknowledged?

[guillaumeb]

68. There are religious progressives.

And many religious progressives speak of the faith based roots of their progressivism.

And among the non-religious, there are progressives, and the not progressive. That too should be acknowledged.

[trotsky]

61. I don't want to live in a theocracy.

Doesn't matter if that theocracy is right-wing OR left-wing.

Keep your dogma out of my government, guillaumeb.

[guillaumeb]

69. And I do not wish to live in a Chinese style, non-theistic, dictatorship.

[Bretton Garcia]

72. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat " or the people?

[guillaumeb]

74. Any dictatorship is, in the end,

the dictatorship of the dictator who holds power.

[Lordquinton]

75. We couldn't go a discussion without dragging China into it

Could we?

We want to preserve the non-theistic "dictatorship" we have in the US, not make it a theocracy, left or right.

[Bretton Garcia]

82. Democratic rule: by The People, for the People

China made an effort at that, with the People's Revolution.

[Voltaire2]

84. Nah. Blanquist vanguard parties are the

antithesis of popular democracy. They have proven themselves incapable of relinquishing authoritarian rule and inevitably descend in Stalinist corruption.

[Bretton Garcia]

86. Eric Prince currently in China ...

Last edited Mon May 27, 2019, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

... advising them how to deal with Muslims, though, probably isn't helping.

Background Summary of .modern Chinese History?

Mao on his long march had at least claimed to be supported by the peasants he promised to help; against centralized capitalists/empirialists. Mao though WAS excessive. And eventually Maoism was partly given up.

China retains a nominally Marxist goverment. But allowed a capitalist economy. Which resulted in a much better economy, and trade with America and the west.

In the absence of any reliable religion, China long ago sought social stability through a Confuscian bureaucratic/ethical state. When western imperialism interferred, imperialists were eventually thrown out. And then compromised with.

To retain social control, government and education remained.

[trotsky]

97. #Whataboutism n/t

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

73. My Pastor shakes his head at me because I give to the Freedom from Religion Foundatioin

... as I told him...

I don't want to live under Evangelical rules, I'm sure they don't want to live under the more progressive.

Build that wall.. between Church and State.. and enjoy religion as you deem fit.. not as your neighbor deems fit.

[Mariana]

79. Your pastor doesn't support the principle of Separation of Church and State? nt.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

80. Actually he does but not an activist about it! N/t.

[Mariana]

81. What a shame.

If we had more pastors actively promoting the principle of Separation of Church and State, rather than standing by and shaking their heads at those who actually work to preserve it, I think we'd all be a lot better off.

[Cartoonist]

95. Is God becoming non-partisan?

That's the title of this article, but they get it wrong. God has taken over the GOP, now he wants the Dems.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/politics/god-becoming-non-partisan

"We're seeing not just the religious right but we're seeing the emergence of, perhaps, a religious left,"

[MineralMan]

98. Entanglement between religion and government is never good.

I do not want to hear about the religious beliefs of candidates for any office. I want to hear plans to help people live their lives better.

So, please, Democratic candidates, leave your religion in the sanctuary of whatever church you attend.

[marylandblue]

100. Many of them talk about religion and other things that aren't related to their plans.

Biden talks about growing up in Scranton and having to move to Delaware. People seem to like that, but it's not a plan.

[left-of-center2012]

102. This is laughable

I never heard anything about Pete Buttigieg leading the religious left.

[procon]

108. The state has no legal justification to engage in

making any official public proclamation reqarding religious doctrines and practices so long as participation is consensual and no harm is done.

Other than the routine celebratory and goodwill messages that are commonplace in statecraft, similar to birthday greetings and sympathy remittances released for any personage of note, the state should never start down that slippery slope of religious endorsements.

The public, however, can engage in most any type of religious furor on their own time and time, and the state should make that separation clear. The faithful cannot expect the state to use the Treasury, or its mighty powers to endorse or enable their preferred diety when their own efforts at attracting followers have failed.

[guillaumeb]

112. Some prefer to think that religion has no place in the Government.

And it has no official place. But expecting people to erect some type of intellectual wall between their faith and their actions seems counterintuitive at best.

[procon]

113. Nonsense. Believers do that all the time.

Religiously processed people selectively ignore history, science, archeology and objective evidence to maintain the fiction of their chosen supernatural fairytale. They deny other religions the right to adhere to their chosen dieties. And let's not forget how the pious would treat atheists if only they could get away with murder without getting caught.

There's nothing "intellectual" involved in the fantacies, fears, hatreds and taboos of religion. It's just another very effective brainwashing technique that is used successfully by every relgious sect, large and small, the world round.

[NeoGreen]

118. If you are mixing religion and Government as a citizen of the US of A...

Last edited Wed May 29, 2019, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

...you're doing it wrong.

[marylandblue]

120. Really? I guess we'll have to shut down the DU Religion Group then.

[NeoGreen]

121. Good catch, allow me to rephrase my comment...