What if we ran a few religous candidates for Senate?

[Threedifferentones]

As all of you are aware, the conservative movement in America has hijacked Christianity and turned it into a weapon against the left. The ironic thing about this is , of course, that Jesus actually had a liberal message. We should use this to our advantage and run some very religous and very liberal candidates, since the two are not mutually exclusive.

A few religous candidates could do wonders in our effort to "re-frame the debate" by talking about their faith and "values" in terms of economics. If we had candidates talking about social programs as being the right, moral and "Christian" thing to do then we could probably get the media to talk about it as well, which is what's most important. At worst this discussion would give us a chance to repeatedly slam Bush's economic policy, especially in the number of people he has let slide below the poverty line and loose health care (which is very un-Chirstian). At best it could help make people realize that the repugs aren't very moral after all, and it might even help us get elected in some places.

I know alot of you are worried about mixing religion and politics. I myself wish they would stay seperate. But a religous liberal and a secular liberal get along very well in terms of policy, because, unlike their conservative counter-parts, religous liberals generally favor a strong seperation of church and state. The only issue that regularily produces a conflict, as far as I can tell, is abortion. However, even if we ran some anti-choice candidates, it wouldn't matter that much. A progressive religous senator would hopefuly not be a one issue votes when it comes to judges, and therefore would probably not vote for someone that W. would try to appoint, nor would he vote against a more liberal choice for that reason alone.

All in all it seems like an excellent step for us to take on the road to taking back the country.

Note: I am not advocating the entire party become more religous, I am just saying that it seems like a strategically sound move to run some religous candidates.

[Melodybe]

1. Jim Wallis freaking rules!!!

I would vote for him any day.

[Starlight]

12. He'd certainly be an asset. n/t

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

2. I agree that we should tap into the faith mesage that's

already there with the Democratic Party. Link our message with moral values. Not in a strategic, vote-grabbing way, but in the way the Dems have always done it. As a Christian, I vote Dem because my faith and values are best served by the Democratic Party. What I'm saying is that the Dems don't need to find religion, we just need to tap into what's already there.

[Kool Kitty]

3. I think that there shouldn't be religion mixed

with politics. I don't want to run religious candidates. I don't want candidates that tell us that they speak to their god or that their god speaks to them. I don't want a candidate that thinks that his or her god put them in office or that they believe that they are doing god's work. I want a candidate that is interested in improving life for those that are still drawing breath on Earth. I want candidates that show some respect for the environment. I don't want candidates that think what they do or not do while they are alive really doesn't make any difference because they are going to reap their reward in the afterlife.

[Jamastiene]

4. Jessie Jackson

I would have voted for him in the primaries in 1988 had I turned 18 soon enough. Ended up voting for Dukakis in the general election.

[Melodybe]

7. I wish that Jackson or Sharpton would run for the Senate

It would be awesome!

[Starlight]

10. I'd love to see *both* of them in the house or senate.

I know they'd never get elected in some areas...but there are still plenty where they'd trounce any competitors.

[Jamastiene]

11. Yes it would.

If Jackson ever runs for president again, I'm there. I think the man is a legend. I like Sharpton too, but Jessie Jackson has views closest to mine. I think his son is a rep or something. I can't remember.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

5. You can't find a politician in Washington that doesn't go to a

Church or Synagogue. Whether they believe or not.

Hell, we've got Jesse Jackson and Reverend Sharpton. We do have religious candidates... It's just that they don't get votes.

[Dookus]

6. how many non-religious

Senators are there? My guess is zero.

[Starlight]

13. Religious in name only doesn't count.

Most people who claim to be "christians" don't live their lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

[Dookus]

14. and no true

Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

[Greybnk48]

8. The end does not justify the means

Anti-choice is anti-women. A move to an anti-woman policy is a deal breaker for me. No more moving to the right or I, and my husband and four voting age kids are leaving the party--period. I have been a voting Dem since the 60's and I will not move any further to the right than we already are. I'm an Atheist and quite frankly I am sick of hearing about Christians. Do you really want to degrade your religion even more by jumping on the political bandwagon with the right-wing crazies? Religion is a private matter, why play their game?

[diamond14]

15. nice slogan: "Anti-choice is anti-women"

got to remember that slogan.....

it's important to have SLOGANS and ACRONYMS and stuff that truthfully portrays the bushites/reTHUGlicans as the American TALIBAN that they are....cruel vicious hypocrites....none of them embody a 'Christian' principles...they are CROOKS, mascarading as Christians....

and the pathetic thing is that 'red states' really LOVE bush*, as if he were somekind of savior.....pathetic insanity....

[Threedifferentones]

21. That is why I put the note at the bottom...

I understand your revisions, as I have them myself. My feelings about religions are entirely nuetral, except that I am getting tired of hearing about Christian values as well. I am also very tired of our party and the country's shift to what seems to me like the far right. But this doesn't mean that a religous senator would ever vote for policy that I don't agree with.

I did not mean our party would be more conservative. The candidates I am envisioniong are based on the truly liberal Christians I know: they do not try to push their beliefs on others, they simply try to be good people, and they respect the right of other people to live as they choose. These senators would fit in perfectly with a progressive agenda in every area except for abortion, an area where they have little direct influence of policy.

[vpigrad]

9. The problem is the lack of overlap...

between their beliefs and the party beliefs. You might find a party member to run that is religious, but it wouldn't be someone we'd want.

[JI7]

16. i think most if not all Democrats who run for office are religious

at least the major candidates. most of them are Christians and a few are Jewish.

[Telly Savalas]

30. I think you're right.

Most of them don't feel compelled to wear their religion on their sleeve. They let their actions speak for their faith.

[JI7]

17. Joe Lieberman

but he is Jewish so many of those who vote on "morals and values" probably wouldn't consider him one of them.

[paineinthearse]

18. Robert Drinan

Unfortunately, the RC church has banned its priests from holding elected office. He now lives in DC, which should have at least one full member of Congress.

===============================================================

Robert Drinan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Father Robert Drinan
Father Robert Frederick Drinan (b. November 15, 1920, Boston, Massachusetts) is a Jesuit Catholic priest, lawyer, human rights activist, and a former U.S. Congressman from Massachusetts. He is currently a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

Drinan received a BA and an MA from Boston University in 1942 and joined the Jesuit Order the same year; he was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1953. He received an LLM and LLB from Georgetown University Law Center in 1950, and a doctorate in theology from Gregorian University in Rome in 1954, in addition to receiving 21 honorary degrees throughout his life. He studied in Florence for two years before returning to Boston, where he was admitted to the bar in 1956. He served as dean of the Boston University Law School from 1956 until 1970, during which time he also taught as a professor of family law and church-state relations. During this period, he was also a visiting professor at other schools including the University of Texas law school, and served on several Massachusetts state commissions convened to study legal issues such as judicial salaries and lawyer conflicts of interest.

In 1970, Drinan sought a seat in Congress on an anti-war platform, narrowly defeating longtime Representative Philip J. Philbin, who was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, in the Democratic primary. Drinan won election to the U.S. House of Representatives and was reelected four times, serving from 1971 until 1981. He sat on various House committees and was the chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the House Judiciary Committee. Drinan was the first to introduce a resolution in Congress calling for the impeachment of President Nixon over the Watergate scandal, though many of his colleagues thought that it was poorly timed before sufficient support and evidence could be gathered against Nixon. Regardless, as part of the Judiciary Committee, Drinan played an integral role in the subsequent congressional investigation. He was also a delegate to the 1972 Democratic National Convention.

Drinan's consistent support of abortion rights drew significant opposition from Church leaders throughout his political career, who had also repeatedly requested that he not hold political office in the first place. Drinan attempted to reconcile his position with official Church doctrine by stating that while he was personally opposed to abortion, its legality was a separate issue from its morality. This argument failed to satisify his critics. In 1980, Pope John Paul II unequivocally demanded that all priests withdraw from electoral politics. This was framed as a general order, but it seemed clear to most observers that Drinan in particular was the target. Drinan complied and did not seek reelection. However, he continued to be a vocal supporter of abortion rights much to the ire of the Church, and notably spoke out in support of President Clinton's veto of the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 1996.

Drinan has taught at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC since 1981, where his academic work and classes focus on legal ethics and international human rights. Drinan has also privately sponsored human rights missions to countries such as Chile, the Philippines, El Salvador, and Vietnam. He regularly contributes to law reviews and journals, and has authored several books, including The Mobilization of Shame: A World View of Human Rights, published by Yale University Press in 2001.

Drinan currently serves as a member of the American Bar Association House of Delegates and was chair of the ABA Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities. In 2004, Drinan received the ABA Medal, the organization's highest honor for distinguished service in law. Drinan serves on the Board of Directors of the International League for Human Rights, the Lawyer's Committee for International Human Rights, the Council for a Livable World Educational Fund, Americans for Democratic Action, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

[ComerPerro]

19. We can't run religious candidates, it would never work

They would get attacked by the right, and by people like Robertson, for not really being religious, but rather "trying to exploit Christianity for political gain".

Ironic, yes?

[Threedifferentones]

20. Yes, but that'e the point.

We force them to debate what a Christian really is, and if we actually fight instead of rolling over we can at least pull a draw that brings a Republican weakness, the current economy, to the front of the debate.

[Dookus]

22. Except for the fact that ALL our candidates are religious

The idea that we need even MORE religion in government is absurd.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Could be playing with fire!

There are some real drawbacks to this. However, I feel we need to do as another wise Du'er said about abortion....reframe the issue! The issue here is not Christianity, or even religion, but morality. We need to have elected officials who are moral and stand by their campaign promises. Religion should be private. Religion has no business in government and government has no business in religion!

[indigonation]

24. Smart idea....

We have to give the enflamed religious constituency other reasons to vote on "religous values" than abortion and gay marriage. Some of these reasonable people have to be turned off by "tax cuts for the rich", "corporate welfare", and the wide variety of assaults on the poor.
I don't think we have to become religious zealots to appeal to the basic messages of Jesus himself. Why can't these people see the administration for what it really is?

[bowens43]

25. No thanks, they would vote with the Repugs on important issues.

Moving the party to the right is what got us into our current mess. If I want overtly religious candidates I will vote republican.

[Telly Savalas]

31. Huh?

The reverend at my church is far to the left of most Democrats. Granted this is in Canada, but if hypothetically she could run for office in the States, she wouldn't vote with the Republicans on any issues.

Read the original post again. I'm not sure if I fully agree with it's argument, but it certainly says nothing about moving the party to the right.

[SoCalDem]

26. "We" have always run "religious" candidates

They just have not been craven media-whores who wear their faith as a grotesque costume for all to see..

This nonsense of "Jesus loves ME best" has to stop.. It's DANGEROUS..

[KG]

27. oy.

yet another suggestion on how the dems become should be more like republicans in order to win elections. boy howdy, hasn't that worked great the last 12 years!

[Threedifferentones]

28. Thanks for not reading any of what I wrote.

Nowhere in my post did I say democrats should move farther to the right. I said that running a few candidates who talked about economic values in terms of religion could bring the issue (of economic values) to the front of public consciousness for once, something which could help the progressive cause a great deal.

As I have already said, I do not envision these candidates constantly harping on religion, or trying to impose religious views on the rest of the country.

[Telly Savalas]

29. How about the GOP runs religious candidates too?

And I don't mean the folks they have now who use a perversion of Christianity to promote their hatemongering, war, and exploitation of the poor and downtrodden, but rather people who believe in the Christian values of love, compassion, nonviolence, and noncooperation with evil. For all the blather on their side about God and values, you never see anyone like this emerge from their ranks.

[seabeyond]

32. we did, kerry, catholic for life AND goes to church

look what it got him against a man that has never AND doesnt go to church

[Threedifferentones]

33. Did Kerry talk about economic issues

as being intertwined with religous morals? No, so he is not relevant to this topic.