I don't WANT to reach out to right wing Evangelicals, screw em'.

[Philosoraptor]

I don't know how many times I've heard Democrats suggest we need to close the supposed gap between Democrats and the so called Evangelicals. That we need to reach out to them, to invite them into our fold, reason with them, appease them, etc.

I disagree. If you are an evangelical, you can still be a Democrat of course, and that's not who I'm referring to. I am talking about the right wing evangelicals who actually think the creator of all things chose the stupidest man on earth to be our president.

How and why would you reach out to them? I don't want them around, and I know I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, they are either going to come around to me, or screw em'. You can't make a right wing evangelical into a Democrat if they are not willing to already. They see us as enemies, and I return the favor.

I don't want to try to reason with them, or appeal to them with logic, its pointless. I don't want to welcome them into my party, look what they did to the right wing. Screw them.

[eallen]

1. Agree. They are what we are not. This is the political issue of our times.

[bluestateguy]

2. No, no. I want to connect with them.

With a fist to the face. :rofl:

Seriously, though, they are only 20-25% of the population. Republicans have no qualms about writing off liberals, gays and blacks. Why do we have to connect with white evangelical conservatives? Why must we be the party of everybody? There is no shame in leaving some Americans behind in our vision of America.

[poverlay]

10. While I would like to agree with you... I can't. If we turn our back on

anyone we are as guilty of bigotry, and evil as the Repugs we oppose.

Here is an excerpt from a letter which was written by the most conservative, religious person I have ever met just a few days ago:

... Sadly, the president has manipulated the "religious right", of which I
unashamedly admit to being apart. The majority of the group blindly followed
him because of his supposed beliefs. The Lord only knows where he's a believer
or not. But, just because he's a believer does not automatically make him
right. I grieve over our country too. What we have now is a society forced to
live in fear, and the Christian faith made to look foolish by a figure head
whose conduct and character is so opposite from what he espouses. ...

I was stunned and given much hope by these words. This person is highly educated and intelligent. Up until now their support for * has been absolute, and I had written 'em off entirely.

It's the stupid ones that scare me, and I'm afraid there are far more of them than there are of us... Yes I think some of them deserve even more than a punch to the jaw but... We can't afford to lose the ones like I mentioned. Nor would it be fair. Millions have been duped by people far less skilled at manipulation than our current "regime". So if we have to deal with a hundred slack jawed yokels to reach one, well, that's the price of saving the future for humankind.

Sucks huh?

[Donnachaidh]

3. 100% Agree -- these people are sheep.

They can stuff the *reaching out* bit.

[tanyev]

4. They keep promising they're going to get raptured out of here.

What's taking so long?

[niceypoo]

5. I work with a right wing evangelical who voted Bush "because of abortion"

Whenever republicans are mentioned anymore he gets mad. He feels he was made a fool of. He says that he is disappointed with the GOP and he sees them as kleptomaniacs and scam artists. He says he will vote to get them out of office. He has also told me that his mother is close to coming around to his side on this. Apparently she feels duped also.

[Arugula Latte]

72. I thought most of those people were too stupid to ever get it, but some do

FINALLY :eyes:

[BeachBuckeye]

6. Totally agree!

They are regressive, power hungry, dangerous and needing to be put in their places. If they are allowed to have their way we'll be having "Salem Witch Trials" all over America.

[calimary]

119. I SORT OF feel this way. Not 100 percent, though. Reason is -

YES, I agree, most of these people are beyond reach. If they flat-out don't approve of a woman's right to choose, or they just hate gays, in that case, there's simply no reaching them. There's no hope. And I would not characterize them in any way other than unreachable and unredeemable. Some of them just cannot compromise, for whatever reason (chances are, whatever that reason is, I won't agree with it). So I write them off, completely. Just file them away as hopeless and forget about 'em. Not worth the waste of my time, when there are other souls that CAN be saved.

Now, on the other hand, the NON-die-hards... they're another matter altogether. They are, like the ones niceypoo is discovering, willing to give a little on their convictions for the sake of the greater good. If they're ardently anti-choice, but finally do see that this is the only reason keeping them from voting out the scoundrels, and that SO MUCH MORE is riding on this than merely one issue, then I WOULD put time into trying to reach them, and I would NOT write them off. Case-by-case basis, I guess.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that there are far more of the hopeless, unreachable cases out there than there are people you can actually do some business with, and with whom you might have a chance of reaching agreement. It's the rigid ones that just can't be reached.

[zanne]

7. I'm with you.

They're aggressive and insulting to anyone who doesn't share their view of God. I think they seek attention and power and leaving them to their misery is the best tactic.

[leftyladyfrommo]

8. I don't see any reason to. Really.

I just kind of let them do their thing and I do mine. There really isn't any middle ground where discussion is possible.

And those kinds of discussions bore me to death.

Now - if they want to talk about conserving the earth? I would do that.

[gatorboy]

9. There's no point in reaching out because they are SET in their ways.

I mean, these people are hoping to float into heaven. And the only way that happens is if the world goes to hell in a handbasket.

See, to them, working for peace is counter productive. If there's peace then that means no rapture. For them it's better if the Middle East conflict gets worse! You can't work with someone like that.

The same goes for their opinion on global warming. To them it doesn't exist because in the Bible, the world doesn't end because of a hole in the ozone. If it wasn't mentioned in the Bible, they close their eyes and ears to the problem becasue to them...It's not a problem!. You can't reach some of these people because they are so set in those ways. And that they're in power only makes things worse!

[Clark2008]

And what they don't seem to understand is that the decision is

God's anyway.

If you believe Rapture text, nothing we do or don't do is going to make any difference in God's decision on the date of the Rapture. It is also a sin in Christianity to tell fortunes or foresee the future; therefore, a good Christian could never make an assumption on God's decision in the first place.

Maybe if we explained that and then pointed out that what we CAN make a difference in is how people are treated on this earth and that Jesus would want us to treat humankind with dignity in keeping with the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe only then can some of these Evangelicals would actually start hoping for Peace.

[LeftyMom]

11. They're fucking crazy.

You can't talk sense to them. It's a waste of time.

[Skidmore]

12. Call them what they are. Religious fanatics. Extremists. Cult members.

They are no different than Muslim extremists, Jewish extremists, or any other extremist or fanatical religious cult.

[Philosoraptor]

its bad enough they get out and vote like robots

but you just can't have crazy people voting

[Skidmore]

17. They need to be marginalized to the minority they represent.

They are not mainstream, in spite of the myths they promulgate to the contrary. Marginalizing them would remove a source of power for them. They are just loud. They've learned that screaming gets them attention.

[Mel]

13. I agree

and my agreement comes from experience (I live in the South, NC) You are correct we are not going to change a right wing evangelical nor do I want them in the party! Oh, I've tried in the past and there's no reasoning with these folks it's just not going to happen they are beyond it!

I don't feel bad about it one bit there was a time when I would of but I am beyond it now. I've banged my head on the wall one time to many they don't give a damn to think for their selves and my big ole' liberal heart refuses to bleed one bit for them!

[noonwitch]

14. I doubt that you need to worry about them joining the democratic party

And I believe that it is important to keep church and state separated, in a business sense. The state should not be doing the church's business-the other way around has a little more leeway, when it comes to helping the poor and such.

However, evangelicals are still our fellow americans and we shouldn't be going out of our way to offend or insult them in conversation or daily life. As a liberal christian, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ (of course, in my new-age view, so is everyone else, whether they recognize it or not).

I disagree with them about whether abortion should be legal, yet I have tried to live my life in a way in which I hopefully will never be in a position in which that is an option I would consider. I disagree with them about a lot of other issues, but I don't consider them evil for disagreeing with me.

[Philosoraptor]

15. my folks are life long democratic evangelicals.

Born again, yet they've never voted R, ever. yellow dog evangelicals, and they are quite common among the populace.

I disagree with them on their religion, but of course I agree with their politics.

It does seem odd though, the conflict.

[Tigermoose]

21. What conflict?

As a left leaning Evangelical, perhaps I can help resolve any false dichotomies you are envisioning.

[Philosoraptor]

22. The conflict of agreeing with the right wing Evangelicals down the line

they are against a woman's choice to an abortion, they are against evolution, etc., yet they vote liberal. I know, there are many colors and shades to evangelicals, they are not from a cookie cutter.

[Tigermoose]

28. They have been conditioned by fundamentalist Christianity...

I can understand their hesitancy about abortion.

Evolution poses no problems with Christianity unless one takes a fundamentalist reading of the Bible that ignores humanity's basic need of metaphor to express truth. Truth is never literal, but always metaphoric at some level. Unfortunately fundamentalists are ignorant of this and push a "literalist" reading of the Bible that is very ignorant.

Greek philosophy distorted and altered the interpretation of the Bible, and after 2000+ years Science and the Humanities are starting to see through the underlying metaphors that provide the structure of Greek philosophy. So now many Christians who have a tradition of reading the Bible through a lens of Greek philosophy are having a huge internal (perhaps unconscious) conflict between their choice of metaphors that are the foundation for their conscious thought processes. Thus you will see many conflicts :) Heck, just the other day the Pope was trying to re-emphasize the Christianity is unalterably tied to Greek Philosophy. He ended up just pissing off some Muslims.

[NanceC]

50. Is that

what the Pope was trying to emphasize? That sure got lost in translation.

Nance

[Tigermoose]

67. Do you expect the media to be able to deliver a nuanced

explanation of this man's speech? It's much easier, and it provides better ratings, if you just take a quote out of context and proceed to piss people off.

[Zhade]

118. "the other way around has a little more leeway" - excuse me?

What part of separation of church and state don't you understand?

It's intended to be completely separate. Period. No public tax monies for religious causes. Period.

[Hamlette]

16. it is a complete waste of time

Fundamentalists and many (most?) evangelicals distrust reason.

There is no middle ground with them. They are incapable of compromise because that would be against god's word.

I had a good friend who was a very politically liberal evangelical. We parted company over gay rights. It got pretty bloody when we stopped talking 7 years ago. His position was everyone gets his or her moral code/values from god, even if you don't believe in god. This guy had a PhD so I thought there was some hope that he could reason.

I don't get religion and maybe they are not all like this but evangelicals believe that people are incapable of devising a moral code based on reason. By extension, they believe we are all lesser people because we refuse to follow the one true path even though, to them, god's existence is obvious.

When you deal with religious people, you hit a brick wall if you do not believe. A place beyond which you can no longer have a reasonable discussion because they trump you with god. With reasonable religious people that place is so far back its not an issue. But with evangelicals they believe they must make a public display of their religion, that religion should "inform" everything in our lives especially politics, and their one true calling is to convert people. The only difference between them and the terrorists is they are not (yet?) willing to kill to get their way.

[true_notes]

34. A-fuckin-men n/m

[deaniac21]

18. Eloquent and thought provoking dissertation!

[endarkenment]

19. Lets reach out to meet intolerant bigots halfway!

I know, we can just give up half of our remaining rights. I'm sure the Big Tent of Bigotry and Intolerance has lots of room for all sorts of bigots. It sure will be fun to have such a broad mix of views in the party. Hey we can bring in the corporate greed heads and neoclowns too. Oh wait, they are already here and are the ones bringing in the religious bigots! Yipee!

[mongo]

60. We should be more tolerant of their intolerance....

I actually had a Bush-bot say that to me a few years ago.

Jeesh.

[ComerPerro]

62. Lets not meet them half way. Lets completely sell out and join them

you know, in the interest of being "respectful" of their views

[leftofthedial]

20. we need to ensure that mentally ill people get the help they need

and are made no longer a threat to the well being of themselves, of others and of their country

[ComerPerro]

63. hahahahahaha

[leftofthedial]

95. hohohohohoho

[Sinti]

23. I've always felt they needed deprogramming. They need help to get

out of their self-made hell. Appeasement, however, turns us into them - fuck that. Don't change the party to please them, that would be insane. The deprogrammer needs to be really subtle in the beginning, and it takes a lot of patience - most folks wouldn't have the stomach for it, they'd rather just smack 'em up and hope that straightens them out.

[Individualist]

43. Agreed

Only a well trained and experienced deprogrammer could get through to those people.

[Tigermoose]

24. Do you all know the definition of "Evangelical"?

An evangelical is one who tries to spread the Gospel, aka the Good News delivered by Jesus Christ. If you read the four gospels of the New Testament closely, without relying on the interpretations of many right-wing religous institutions, you will see that the "good news" is that God is with all of us. You do not have to worship God at a temple, or pay priests, or try to show everyone what a great God worshipper you are. You are simply to love God and love your neighbor. Jesus exemplified this by healing others, helping the poor, standing up to fascist authoritarians, and ultimately dying on the cross rather than using violence or power to overcome those who hated him. The Pauline and Johannian interpretation, in addition to the above, adds that by believing in Christ as the Son of God, the Logos, you will have a God-filled life in this life, and you will be raised again on Judgement Day with your sins forgiven. A liberal reading of this Pauline Judgment Day is that All will ultimately be forgiven and brought into a relationship with God. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for All, with no further effort necessary by any man. The purpose of spreading the Gospel would be to enable more people to live a God-filled life and to help others.

IMHO, the corruption of America is in large part to the distorting of this message by those who claim the label "Christians." And many of you continue to reinforce this distortion by assuming their interpretation is the correct one. The interpretation of many of these "fundamentalist" Christians is that if you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God you will burn in hell for all eternity. This type of Christianity is concerned with the salvation of the individual to the disregard of others. It is a sad distortion of Jesus' message.

I think you all are conflating the term "evangelist" with "fundamentalist." These Christians you despise are fundamentalist. For a great book that explains why they are grossly in error in regards to the New Testament's message, read Keith Ward's What the Bible Really Teaches...

[jokerman93]

53. evangelizing religions

Evangelizing religions of every stripe are, de facto, socio-political systems of conquest and hegemony. Sure some naive evangelicals have the sincerest of motives in "sharing" their message, but from the standpoint of realpolitik the end result is always the same. These types of ideology are the perfect tool for framing the dominance of one, and the subjugation of the other. It's no coincidence that for hundreds of years, missionaries have been sent into new territories first to pacify the natives. The formula is simple enough: usurp the authority of the original integral cultural and replace it with the baseless salvation scam and its own pre-packaged "greater" authority. This is followed punctually by the corporations and trade houses who arrive on cue to strip the land and people clean of treasure and resources. As I see it, the same strategy of pacification has now been used successfully against a significant segment our own population by the corporate owners of Amerika. And the last five years of the Bushco regime has certainly taken corporate plunder to staggering new levels.

I never met a true believer who wasn't easy pickings for the status quo. True believers make fine tools, enablers and unwitting collaborators.

Caveat emptor.

[Tigermoose]

65. You assume a conceptual framework based upon power and realpolitik...

Your framework excludes spirituality and the basis of the good news of the Gospel. Your framework is one of power, of actions as the acquisition and fight over power. For a world based solely on this conceptual framework, please reference the book, 1984. Jesus died on the Cross rather than accept that framework. When one of his disciples attempted to fight back with the sword, that disciple was rebuked and told to put away the sword. Blessed are the peacemakers. Blessed are the poor in spirit. Love thy neighbor. Love is the antithesis of power.

Of course, because you hold a conceptual worldview based upon power and its acquisition, you will say that love is for the weak and for "enablers and unwitting collaborators." From the perspective of Love, you are the one that is being used by those in power. You are in a world that has nothing to look forward to but the image of a boot stamping in the face of humanity.

[datasuspect]

70. jesus has no monopoly on love

i think it is important to make that clear.

[Tigermoose]

83. I never said that...

I know some do, but I do not.

[jokerman93]

71. You are right

You are right about some things, yes. I see the world largely in the way you characterize it. That is the world I see and experience every day.

On the other hand that doesn't mean I don't believe it could be a different way. I admit beyond an intellectual interest I'm not particularly an adherent of Messianism, a believer in the existence of Jesus, or of the Bible as the revealed word of God, but I (in fact) do believe as you do that love is for the strong and that it is a revolutionary force. Where we differ is that I don't believe love is the exclusive prerogative of Christians. To me, it (love) begins with arriving finally at the heartfelt recognition of our interdependence and identity with all life - and the effort one makes to honor that in their own life, work, relationships and politics. I do my best as I'm sure you do.

So like you, I'm in a world that has everything to look forward to. And despite our differences, as I see it, we share a commonality that's far more important than mere dogmas and doctrines.

J

[Tigermoose]

81. I agree with you.

"Where we differ is that I don't believe love is the exclusive prerogative of Christians."

We do not differ in this. I am a Christian that believes that ALL will be saved (all of creation) and live in a new creation that is not subject to the power struggles of this life. We are born into a world based upon a struggle for life that necessitates an embodiment of using tools and others to achieve our wants and desires. This has been identified by different terms in different places by Darwin in nature as the struggle for life, and as Sin by monotheism. These are just some thoughts that occur to me as I listen to The Origin of Species. Jesus calls on us to transcend that struggle and to instead embrace love as a higher standard.

[Perky]

87. People who think funies and evangelicals are the same thing ought to

shut up ans sit down.


Most evangeligals are largely moderate or apolitical. But I would suggest that the tyo of venom unleashed in this thread certainly would not endear the party to any moderate evangelical.

[Sapphocrat]

96. I know the definition.

Evangelism = Proselytization. An attempt to convert someone to a religion.

That's enough for me. Until evangelicals stop trying to subjugate my life to their beliefs, they can kiss my gay ass.

[KittyWampus]

25. So your solution to their existence is to exterminate them? Deride them?

What exactly is your solution, hmmm?

They are fellow human beings and citizens.

Perhaps the issue is, the Left has been inept at presenting their values and programs in an manner that will reach these people you refer to.

And in part, I blame those who refuse to understand the import of symbols and who impugn the realm of spirituality/consciousness.

Packaging ideas using effective language and symbols is important. It's part of being human. It's how we evolved to operate.

And while a dry, logic-based argument might not persuade right wing evangelicals... dry, logic-based arguments by themselves and on their own merit will NEVER win anyone over.

And if you say dry, logic-based arguments should be the sole means of persuasion, then you do not understand human psychology. Our brains have two hemispheres and only ONE responds to logic-based arguments.

Again, perhaps you and the many DU'ers calling other humans sheep worthy only of ridicule should forget the sanctimony and useless anger and start investigating how to communicate effectively.

There probably is a small percentage of Americans who will always allow themselves to be manipulated by the propaganda campaign coming from Rove.

But it is a damned shame that Democrats are so pathetic at coming up with their own marketing campaign and countering what comes from the Right.

And you and too many DU'ers take the easy way out by dismissing a significant number of Americans.

[Philosoraptor]

29. screw em'

if they want to be democrats, fine, if they want to hasten armageddon, screw em'

[true_notes]

39. We are by no means dismissing them...

Just ignoring them in the first place. To tell you the truth, with my job and my family I have no time to listen to their nonsense stories about well nonsense. They are impermeable, and when you come out that you are a atheist, agnostic, or sometimes even a democrat, what do they do to you? THEY DISMISS YOU, you no longer matter to them, because you are Satan's tool.

Evangelicals to me are just lightening rods to ridicule. I mean we are living in 2006, right? When people read and don't have to be frightened when their king makes an admendum to an archaic set of glorified laws, right! Oh wait....Ha.

One other thing that pisses me off about Evangelicals. For the most part they are straight up people, but there's a good slice of em' that will drive and SUV, tear up nature, cheat on spouses, steal money, gamble, and hurt others all in the name of GOD. Hey, they're the chosen ones, so I guess they can play the game.

As for me, resistance isn't futile. I refuse to give in to their beliefs no matter how much of an outcast I am.

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. This is what gets me about humanism though

The idea that mankind is progressing.

You say we have progressed and that enlightened, modern notions fueled by the utilitarian ethics of the materialist, Western professional class are somehow making things better or even providing a check to the Repubs. "This is 2006, right?"

Modernism is silly. Take away the Repubs and the vested interests would quicly convince the affluent, secular, modernistic Dem leadership to go over to the dark side and finally create the society envisioned in Blade Runner, Popular Mechanics and Minority Report, causing the Dem party to split into factions. If we're lucky, at least one of the authentically Populist factions would be amenable / informed by the cultural values of working class, non-prejudiced people.

That way their children would not turn, disillusioned, to the Dixiecrat party and finally create the electoral majority needed, in the face of a three-way division with the ruling New Democrats and beleaguered Populists, to form a new theocracy. In the resultant battle, atheists would be exploited and used by all sides, just like evangelicals now are.

[justacitizen]

59. Well Said!

The hate in this thread disgusts me. What if we were to replace the word Evangelicals with Muslims? Would that change your views any? We ridicule wingnuts for their hatred but in this thread the hatred is thick. Come on we are better than that!

[ComerPerro]

66. I have no interest in reaching out to extremist mulsims either.

Nice of you to show up with RW talking points.

"Liberals love muslims. If they had their way, they would give in and we would all be Mulsim"

[justacitizen]

76. Preaching Against Hate Is Our Talking Point n/m

[ComerPerro]

86. Doesn't that just implicitly suggest that RW Christians preach hate?

[justacitizen]

94. No, We Continuously Accuse Them of Preaching Hate

when we are guilty of the same. They laugh at our duplicity...I know fundies that read this site and point out the hatred that eminates from here. I agree with the fundies on this btw.

[ComerPerro]

98. that's kind of a tired argument, isn't it?

Because we are liberal, we must be tolerant of the intolerant?

Saying that someone is a terrible person because they hate people outside their religion and pass bigoted legislation against certain people isn't hate.

Its reality.

I mean, come on.

How far do you take that?

Someone wants to pat themselves on the back for talking about the virtues of marriage while denying that right to thousands of loving, committed couples, or talks about the value of human life while throwing away the lives of thousands like they were nothing, and I am a bad person because I call them a hypocrite?

[justacitizen]

104. No It Is Not a Tired Arugment.

People see things differently. Isn't that what tolerance is about? Even amongst liberals we disagree with people on various viewpoints. I know a bunch of Fundies, hell, I live in Fundieville. Most of them are well educated and successful people...not the blind dumb sheep that we portray them to be. Yes, we disagree on a LOT of issues. I do not feel hatred from them, nor do I hate them. Quite to the contrary, if I or a neighbor has a problem, they willing try to help me or anyone else that has a need. Even though we have our differences, I honestly respect them and their beliefs. That does not mean that I agree with them. We need to rise above the intolerance, stereotyping and hatred that often leeches from posts on Christians. We need to distinquish ourselves from the Freepers and their insults on Muslims. But when I read our posts on Christians it makes me squirm...we are at times no different than Freepers.

[Puglover]

116. Hey Pal.

Try being gay and in a committed relationship for a day or two. See how it feels to have these knuckledragging assholes play political tennis with your life and compare you to pedophiles and bestiality. Then and only then come back to me and feed me your swill. "People see things differently" My ass.

[blonndee]

121. Actually, the OP used the term "right wing evangelicals."

Very different than the broader "evangelicals" you're using as the basis for your complaints in this thread.

[ComerPerro]

64. get off your damned high horse

that's the problem with liberal websites, everyone is jumping to prove how much better they are than everyone else.

No one is advocating "exterminating" these people.

You need to face the reality, though, that these people are so far gone that they will never look at things from a liberal perspective (you know, the way Jesus preached).

Reaching out to them and pandering for their votes will only result in two parties that both resemble the current GOP

[KittyWampus]

74. Vast difference between "pandering" and marketing your message

for various audiences effectively.

And to suggest that 40% of the US population is "too far gone" says very little about your perspective and willingness to self-evaluate.

edit- You also need to read Lakoff or become familiar with his ideas of "framing the message".

[Lars39]

77. Why is the monkey on the party's back to self-evaluate?

Those 'christians' who voted for republicans need to self-evaluate and see which party lines up with christ's teachings.

[KittyWampus]

106. If Democrats can't make that very BASIC case, is it the evangelicals fault

?

And Christ's 'teachings' aren't exclusive to him, Christianity or whatever.

Underneath are PRINCIPLES>

[ComerPerro]

80. do you know anything at all about electoral politics?

or do you just come here for self-satisfaction?

Think, honestly, for just a minute.

If we are to reach out to these people and get them to vote for us, we have to offer them something that they want and that they aren't already getting.

Our best angle is fair economic policies and social reforms such as single-payer healthcare (as an example). But they don't want this. They have been offered these before, and they reject it time and time again. They vote their "religion" over their best interests every time.

So, in order to get their votes, we have to throw them a bone, right?

But what do they want?


Well, lets see...

They want to

outlaw abortion of any kind
end stem cell research
put the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and in the Constitution
make Christiantiy the offical religion
put religion in government
bring back prayer in schools.



Need I go on?

So, which of these platforms are you going to adopt in order to reach out to these people and win their vote?

[KittyWampus]

109. "Self-Satisfaction"? LOL, Project Much. YOU Are The One Who Wants

to write off about 40% of the population and refuses to consider that they might actually respond to Democrats' message if that message was presented appropriately.

If you can't communicate to an audience, it's not the audience's fault you never bothered to learn their language or culture.

Your problem is you work from the assumption that a large percentage of Americans are unreachable.

You obviously haven't worked with people nor have an understanding of human psychology. If Rove can market crap to peopel, Democrats should be able to market gold.

[OnionPatch]

26. There are some that consider themselves evangelical

who really aren't nutbags. They've just been listening to their whack-job preachers/pastors and have been caught up in the fervor. I think a few of them are noticing the hypocracy and are actually coming around a little. True, there will always be a large number of them that, by their nature, will never allow themselves to use reason and will always be prey to the religious-right "leaders". Those people are hopeless causes, But I do think reasonable discussion with those who are willing to communicate can only be good for the country. No, I'm not saying we go out of our way to "court" them or that we drop a single one of our values. But it doesn't hurt to debunk the fallacies and at least try and explain our values to people who have heard only lies about us if the conversation opens up to that. The things they believe about us are so distorted and full of lies that I think many would be shocked to find out how much we really do have in common. Communication is a good thing.

[Philosoraptor]

30. communication is a two way street.

And they have a large do not enter sign on their street. They cannot communicate when they only allow certain thoughts to go in, and others are forbidden.

maybe you'll have better luck communicating with them than i have, and good luck with it.

[Marr]

27. Right-wing evangelicals are a waste of time, but there are plenty of

moderate and left-leaning religious sorts as well. I don't think it would hurt one bit to point out how unChristian the GOP's policies are, or suggest that Jesus would've helped the poor, not the wealthy.

[Bridget Burke]

36. Sojourners.com is a "liberal evangelical" site....

Jim Wallis, one of their leaders, appeared on The Daily Show. Jim joins Jon in the tradition of Hebrew prophets who use humor and truth-telling to make their point. (He & Jon got along just fine.)

www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=special.display&item=050111_godspolitics

The Texas Freedom Network "A mainstream voice to counter the Religious Right" has members of all faiths--& of none (like me). It's sponsoring to The Texas Faith Network; I'm quite sure that some members would be considered "Evangelical."

Clergy to Politicians: 'Respect Our Faith'
Interfaith Group Launches Campaign to Protect Houses of Worship from Partisan Politics

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 29, 2006

AUSTIN – As election season heats up, an interfaith group of clergy is launching a campaign to protect Texas churches and other houses of worship from partisan political battles.

“Dragging churches into partisan politics endangers the integrity of our houses of worship and is disrespectful of the faith and beliefs of all congregants,” said Father Samuel Hose, pastor of St. John Vianney Catholic Church in Round Rock.

Hose and more than 100 other Texas clergy have already signed on to the Respect Our Faith campaign. The Texas Faith Network, a project of the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, is sponsoring the campaign.

www.tfn.org/pressroom/display.php?item_id=3825

On the main TFN site right now:

The Texas Freedom Network joins all Texans in remembering the wonderful legacy of former Gov. Ann Richards. TFN owes a lot to this great woman. Of course, she was the mother of our founder and board member, Cecile. She was also tremendously supportive of our work – not only during Cecile’s tenure, but always. As we keep Ann’s family in our hearts and prayers, we remember the energy, humor, intelligence and leadership of a great Texas woman. Today we honor this champion of public education, religious freedom and the individual liberties of all Texans.

www.tfn.org/

[bling bling]

31. Nobody's asking YOU to. No skin off your back.

Who elected you? Are you running for office? If you don't want to reach out to anyone, then don't. Who cares.

If others do, tough. Too bad for you.

The Democratic party happens to be better suited for those who find Christianity important. There are many parallels between our platform and what they believe makes someone a good Christian. If Dems would like to spend some time pointing that out to evangelicals then more power to them.

Sometimes I wonder if this is the Democratic party on this board or the ANTI democratic party. It sure seems like a lot of people here are on a mission to oust Dems from the party and tell everyone else to go fuck themselves. This isn't constructive, productive, or helping anything at all.

Edit spelling.

[warrens]

32. Not all evangelicals are hard right wing

The loudest mouths among them are, and they have a predisposition toward the Repukes, but many are a lot more sane than you seem to think.

[true_notes]

33. O' When the Saints...Come Marching In....

I attribute all Evangelical and Fundamentalism to Westboro Baptist Church. The Difference? Westboro Walks the Walk, even though it is a sick and terrible walk. Like a poster said above, to them, we are a work of the antichrist, to us they are their own antichrist

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. I'm not an evangelical, but a left-leaing person motivated by religion

I.e. I am a "radical" Christian who thinks organized religion is no more co-opted by the ruling class than any other organization in American society, which is to say, quite susceptible to co-optation.

Evangelicals and other "Great Awakening" religions used to be a primary source of abolitionist, civil rights, and left-libertarian sentiment in the US.

Abortion and Communism were the primary wedge issues that have driven otherwise left-libertarian Evangelicals into the hands of the right. It did not need to happen that way.

The mainline Protestant churches, after losing many of their affluent members during the 1960s social revolt (when many churches and divinity students, inspired by people like MLK, were on the front lines of said revolt) rolled over in the 1970s and became the tools of local DLC type, upper class "socially liberal -- economically moderate" interests.

Southern and Midwestern mainmline churches went the opposite way, succumbing to statism, discrimination, and in some cases betraying their heritage as anti-establishment sects. The Southern Baptist Conference, for example. The Missouri Synod Lutheran church is another example. Too often these sorts of churches were founded on intolerance of some specific group or cause, such as integration or unionism (which used to be huge in rural Appalachia and the midwest); yet I have come to realize this is true of any movement that attracts enough followers to wield influence.

If the Republican party dissolved overnight, the Dems would quickly split into two or more parties as they had to absorb all those voters. If we were lucky things would fluctuate into a more stable arrangement, with, say a Populist pasrty representing the far Northern states and Midwest, a "New Democrat" (big business) party representing the combined interests of the wealthy Democratic and Republican interests who already control things in the big urban states, and the Dixiecrats would be left with Idaho, the deep South, and whatever states tied between the other two. To quote Toombs: "Three-way split!!!"

[Bridget Burke]

42. Even "Fundamentalism" is not necessarily The Enemy

Historically, Fundamentalists just wanted to live by what they saw as the "fundamentals" of Christianity. In the old days, their denominations often suffered under Established Churches, so they avoided political entanglements.

The Southern Baptist Convention & the Texas Republicans entered into an unholy embrace back in the 80's--one of the milestones in the Creation of the Religious Right. (No, they didn't Evolve!) This enlightening account ends with:

While Jimmy Carter was President, the first electing of a fundamentalist President took place in the SBC. Adrian Rogers was elected and Carter sought to reach out a hand of help and fellowship to the new SBC head. Rogers shocked Carter by demanding that Jimmy quit promoting Secular Humanism as the religion of America. Carter was puzzled at such talk but, near the end of 2000, decided he had had enough of the SBC. Is it any wonder why he has left the denomination of his entire life?

www.livingston.net/wilkyjr/link9.htm

[true_notes]

47. History is all good.

But now they are trying to force their beliefs on me. Not gonna happen...Wouldn't be prudent.

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. The only Fundamentalists I could get into are Anabaptists

Who siezed Munich and various other towns and formed a Christian pacifist commune in the 1600s (actually, the followers of William of Ockham almost staged a Christian-socialist peasant revolution in the 1300s in England, the first such revolt.)

However, I'm not "born again" (I was brought up in a religious church that did a lot of important social justice work in the 60s-80s) so I don't know if I would qualify as an Evangelical.

Plus, I simply don't think the Bible is inerrant. There are too many important truths inside it, to be distracted by arguments about the literal truth of the Bible.

I DO put more stock in the "Principalities and Powers" stuff and the early church stuff, than the more accommodating-to-Roman-society Pauline stuff which most Americans like to concentrate on. There are two sides to it though. I think it's difficult to follow Jesus' message unless one adopts a modified "left libertarian" stance on the issues.

[Bridget Burke]

37. Then--please continue to reach out to those who share your philosophy.

How many recruits have you made recently?

[BootinUp]

38. reach out? close the gap?

I think the most you can do with people that far away from our views is to find some good work that both can commit to. This was something the Big Dawg was just talking about on the Daily Show.

As far as political agreement, forget it, once in a weird blue moon maybe.

[ourbluenation]

40. Jeus was no doubt liberal...these people traditionally were too...

I'm not willing to say "screw em" at this point.

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. Sweetened or unsweetened? ;-)

And he said unto them, do not seethe the sweet nectar of Jeus in the foul crystals of Aspartame, nor of the one that is called Splenda, nor of corn syrup: for it is an abomination.

Nor shall Jeus be concentrated, for truly he did say: I am the light, and therefore you shall have no other light beverages before me; and all who drink of my fruits or make milkshakes from carrots, to them I say, this is my body, distilled for you, and not concentrated.

And this shall be your sign, that all who drink Gatorade or any other sports drink shall sweat profusely, in vibrant colors, as we have seen on TV, and all who look upon you will be amazed.

---The Heretical Apocrypha of Jeus: Book of Recipes

Just kidding, I'm a lefty Christian. I think its safe to say Jesus (not Jeus ;-) ) was a radical of sorts, as you would expect from anyone who actually had some inkling of the Truth, seeing how corrupt our society is. Gandhi was a radical, too, and most of the people we now consider prophets. But as Mark Twain might say, keep your options open: don't drink artificially sweetened fruit cocktails!

[ourbluenation]

57. Oh my lordy! That was funny - a big OOPs on the Jeus (Jesus) by me!!!!

spell checker - gotta remember the spell checker!

[Leopolds Ghost]

126. Those who worship Jeus are immune from this petty bickering. n/t

:evilgrin:

[jokerman93]

41. There's no point

There's no point in reaching out because the Dominionists would happily dance on the grave of democracy and the constitution if given the theocratic dictatorship they hanker for. They want, and feel they are entitled to, their promised "dominion over the earth". I think some are turning away from Bush now only because it's becoming clear he's taking their agenda into the crapper with him.

[Individualist]

44. ...but, but, DLC wants us to play nice with the fundies.

Maybe I should clarify and say my opinion of DLCers and fundies is about the same. The only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler.

[earth mom]

45. You just can't mix politics and religion...it's a poisonous brew.

That's why the founding fathers wanted to keep them separate. It's just common sense, which unfortunately far too many people in this country don't possess.


A short while ago I saw a great bumper sticker that read:

The last time anyone mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake. :wow:

'Nuff said.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. You don't have to compromise with them on social issues, BUT

the Dems have made a huge mistake in the past 25 years presenting themselves (and allowing themselves to be presented) as being ONLY about behavioral issues while at the same going all "new Democrat" on the economy, therefore hurting poor peope economically and driving them further into the arms of the fundies for emotional solace and confirmation of their cultural norms.

Happy people are less likely to hate. That's one thing I've observed in my 50+ years on this planet. If you observe hardcore bigots closely, you'll find that they're miserable people in general. (I'm not talking about the casual, ignorant bigotry that people pick up from their families and neighbors, which can often be corrected through education and exposure to the despised group. I'm talking about the dittohead rant type of thing.)

I believe that while the sick bigots, the ones who are driven by a deep disfunction of the soul, will always be with us, many of the rank-and-file fundamentalists ARE reachable, without compromising any Democratic behavioral issues.

You see, for the past 25 years, the Democrats have offered them NOTHING. The Dems failed to come up with programs to rescue the farmers who were losing their land and committing suicide in the 1980s. (They could have done so with their majority in the House, and even if Reagan had vetoed it, they could have gotten credit for trying.)

They allowed Reagan to fire the air traffic controllers, not that this group was poor, but the move served as a symbolic "okay" for companies to work harder on union busting.

They co-authored the 1986 tax "reform" bill, which took away tax breaks for poor and middle-income people and gave them not only to the wealthy and corporations but to specific corporations.

They allowed the MSM to frame the issue of poverty so that poor whites came to believe that the Dems cared only about poor African-Americans, not about them.

Clinton promised health care and then failed because of his desire to please the insurance compay vultures. (He caved in so many times on so many issues that the "kick me" sign on his butt grew darker and more indelible.)

Most Democrats not only agreed with NAFTA and the various trade agreements, but actively promoted them and voted for them without insuring protections for workers.

Welfare "reform" left many poor people worse off than before.

And before you come in with your naive, "But the economy boomed under Clinton," let me remind you that from the point of view of a poor person, it was a yuppie boom, giving the greatest benefit to the investor class. Barbara Ehrenreich did her "field work" for Nickel and Dimed, her account of living incognito as a low-wage worker, in 1999 and 2000, the end of Clinton's term.

Without compromising any of the behavioral issues, Dems need to go and talk to poor white and poor blacks and poor everybody else and find out what they need. It's been a long time since anyone did that. Instead of going "bla-bla-bla, policies for working families," they need to get specific. My guess is that a higher minimum wage, affordable housing, a break on FICA for low-income workers (paid for by removing the cap on FICA assessments or raising it to $500,000), and creation of blue collar jobs for repair and modernization of our infrastructure would go a long way toward weaning some of the current Bush voters away from their "hero."

At the very least, it would wake up the huge population of voters who believe that neither party has anything to offer them.

Oh, and by the way, calling poor whites "sheep" and "ignorant" and "trailer trash" perfectly reaffirms the Repubican stereotype of the Democrat party as a bunch of out-of-touch yuppies (which is exactly what the Beltway policy makers are).

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. Great post n/m

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. Thank you, the classism expressed in parts of this thread is

just plain disgusting. It reminds me of high school snobs taunting the kids from the wrong side of the tracks.

One mistake the Republicans never make is publicly dissing working-class people. Their public face is that of regarding working class people as the "salt of the earth." By getting all snide and superior--and I'm sure it happens outside of message boards, too--you are helping the Republicans in their task of hanging on to the NASCAR crowd.

And think about it. This country would fall apart without the backbreaking, boring, dirty, dangerous work performed by the "rednecks" and "trailer trash."

The snobbery and class bigotry on this thread is enough to turn a person into a Marxist.

[ComerPerro]

85. So, in a way, are you saying that, to some fundies

the only difference between Dems and Repigs is that Repigs talk a good game?

If so, do you think that laying out our progressive policies can reach them? I think many of them are so far gone that they won't believe a word we say as long as Republicans keep feeding them the same BS

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. They will believe if the Dems are actually able to

bring these policies about, or even if they start talking about real bread and butter issues in a simple way--without the vague phrases or the policy wonk talk that plague so many Dem position papers--and concentrate on a few platform issues that will quickly change people's lives. It may take a couple of election cycles. However, if the Dems just continue the neo-lib policies of favoring big business and acting as if behavioral issues are their only selling point, they will never win the fundies.

Not all fundies are brain-washed morons, judging by the number who leave and become either atheists or liberal Christians. If someone were to go from earning $5.15 an hour at the convenience store to earning several times that amount building affordable housing or a new transit system, that would make all but the most brainwashed sit up and reconsider their party affiliation. Or if they suddenly had 7% more in their paycheck because the floor on FICA contributions had been raised to 20,000. Or if they no longer had to come up with $100+ just to see a doctor.

[ComerPerro]

90. So then might you argue that now might not be the time

to start reaching out?


I definately agree that once we get things into practice, some of them will be able to get past the rhetoric and see how our positions have made their lives better.

But how should we regard them now, today?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. A very progressive candidate from a working-class background

could do it.

Think Huey Long.

So could a person from an upper-class background who knows how to talk to a wide range of people without either talking above their heads or sounding condescending. Think of FDR or JFK.

But I don't see anyone the Dems are currently putting forward as potential candidates for 2008 who fits either description.

[ComerPerro]

93. Possibly. And, I don't see anyone either

but the problem is finding someone from a working class backgroud with the means and the credentials to run for President who advocates progressive causes.

Last person I knew of like that is Paul Wellstone

[Libby2]

49. Oh, I do!!

I want to reach out and knock them right on their asses.

[fishwax]

51. you can reach out to evangelicals w/o reaching out to RW evangelicals

I don't know the exact percentages, but I know that there are plenty of evangelicals who don't worship bush. Clinton and Gore drew well from the evangelical crowds. (One way Clinton did it was by approaching abortion from the position that it should be "legal, safe, and rare," thus neutralizing the primary objection to the democratic platform.)

The bush worshippers--we're probably never going to get those. We're never going to get (and wouldn't want) the endorsements of those which the media considers the evangelical "leaders"--the dobsons, lahayes, wildmons, falwells, robertsons, etc. But most of the rank and file evangelicals don't follow those leaders blindly. Some do, sure, and we'll never get their support either.

But the majority of evangelicals (like the majority of the rest of the population) don't follow politics particularly closely, including the politics of the evangelical spokesmodels. They simply know that these are the christian leaders--they know that b/c the media says so--and so, when they don't have the time, energy, or interest to investigate a matter fully, the opinions of those called christians in the media hold more sway than most voices.

Evangelicals are really no different than any other voter in this regard. If two average voters, one from each party, both undecided on (or unaware of) a specific issue see Al Gore and Dick Cheney debating the issue on a talk show, the democrat is likely to think Al Gore's position makes more sense, b/c that person gives extra weight to Gore's position as a democrat. The republican is likely to think cheney's position makes sense, and begin to adopt that as his own.

When we don't have the time, energy, or resources to investigate each matter thoroughly, we tend to trust those whom we feel have our interests at heart or whom we've found trustworthy in the past. Even when we do have time to investigate issues ourselves, we use our awareness of the information source to determine which facts/opinions/assertions we accept and which facts/opinions/assertions we challenge.

I think that the democratic platform, as a whole, is more consistent with the values of most evangelicals, and that those elements which evangelicals are most likely to consistently reject (abortion and gay marriage) can be mitigated by framing the issues (abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, and we can prevent more abortions not by criminalizing it, but rather by reducing unwanted pregnancies and by making sure that every mother and child have adequate health care, food, etc.) and pragmatic arguments about the importance of health care, etc. over personal concerns.

I'm not saying the democratic party should make this group their primary market, but I think we can appeal to these voters without alienating our base. Also, left-wing and moderate evangelicals have been attempting for years (with a new attempt underway recently) to raise their visibility. If that attempt is successful, it will go a long way towards that goal, simply because evangelicals will have other "leaders" to look to.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

54. I'm heartened by such a finely reasonable post & other

similar dissent from the OP. Differentiating between the truly lost crazies
and those who are reachable and who share Democratic values is crucial to the health of the party.

[fishwax]

58. thanks ... I've had a couple of friends turn, over the course of this

administration. Most evangelicals had very high hopes for the bush presidency, but the war caused a lot of them to lose faith in bush. Sure, there are still some who may worship his picture, but I think they are in the minority, and that the majority are, as you say, far more reachable.

[ComerPerro]

68. what exactly was the point of this post?

The OP specifically said "RW Evangelicals"

And you and several other people all (quite predictably) jump in and say "Well, screw you, I am evangelical and I am still a good liberal".

Obviously, we don't need to reach out to people like you, so he is in no way slandering left wing Christians.

But maybe you just want to feel attacked and persecuted.

[KittyWampus]

78. But since there are evangelical Christians capable of grasping a message

quite different then what Rove provides for the Far Right Fundies... then perhaps you need to consider that not every evangelical who leans Right is a lost cause.

Many simply haven't heard a message tailored to their own mindset. And I'm not talking about changing the Democratic Platform... just how it is explained and represented using Language and Symbols.

Even though I am not an evangelical Christian, I am very Spritiually oriented and vote Democratic DESPITE THE INEPT MESSAGING/MARKETING that comes from Democrats.

Evangelicals, like most people in the world, care about things like Values more than they do about Money. And yet it's only recently that Democrats even started talking about Values and how their agenda truly reflects things like the Common Good and even Teachings of Peace.

[ComerPerro]

84. Religion should not be in politics. Period.

[KittyWampus]

107. You confuse Principles and Values with Religion

[bling bling]

89. Give the attitude a rest.

Look at post #58. Fishwax said he knows people (presumably rw evangelicals because they voted for Bush) who have turned against this administration.

Your acting like a bully on a playground. Get over yourself.

[ComerPerro]

91. I'm the bully? Seriously, read his first post, then read the OP

The OP says that he doesn't want to reach out to RW Evangelicals, and then this guy comes along and says "not all evangelicals are RW", as though he were the first person to ever come to that brilliant realization.

Well, that was obviously included in the OP, wasn't it?

[fishwax]

108. maybe YOU should actually read my first post

since you seem to have gleaned from it a number of facts and sentiments which simply aren't there.

I didn't attack the OP in any way, nor did I disagree with the OP. I agreed that those commonly considered RW evangelicals are unreachable. And I never claimed to be the first to the "brilliant realization" you mention, but I do think it bears repeating and elaboration.

Perhaps YOU are the one who just wants "to feel attacked and persecuted." Or, perhaps you just didn't read my post particularly carefully, and assumed it was like some other posts which equate the OP with advocating the extermination of Christians. :shrug:

[Bridget Burke]

110. The Democratic Evangelicals can reach out to their misguided brethren....

The OP can reach out to those who share his philosophy. Whoever they are....

[fishwax]

103. Huh? I'm not an evangelical, nor did I say I was, nor did I say

I felt persecuted, nor did I indicate that evangelicals who feel persecuted are justified. So I really don't know what you're talking about. :shrug:

[Tigermoose]

97. Nice post!

nt

[ComerPerro]

61. God, I agree with you completely

All these people who want to reach out to these fundie freaks and include them in our party are gonna be shocked as hell when suddenly these people start forcing Christianity, turning back the clock on social reforms and progress, ban abortion, and start promoting RW Conservative viewpoints.

[Sammy Pepys]

120. "God, I agree with you completely."

Sounds like something a fundie would say :)

[karynnj]

69. A significant part of the evangelical movement backed Kerry in 2004

It was far less than half. Even some of the leaders did.

You shound like Baker speaking to GHWB. "F the Jews, they never vote for us." Only population wise this is a bigger group.

The RW Republicans really DO not share the values of the eveangelicals - they have learned to use the language to manipulate moany of them to think they have shared values. If, without compromising our values, we can speak in a way that shows there is common ground between their values and ours, it can only help.

Take 2004 - whose life shows a person who has a sense of what is moral? I think it may be the one who spoke against the US violating the GC in both 1971, 2004, and 2006, not the one sometimes FOR torture.

[bcb1]

128. Karynnj has a great point

I fully agree! Not all saved, born-again Christians are hard right-wing republicans. I'm a good example. I am a Christian, and I definitely do not identify with the right-wingers. I am middle of the road to slightly left leaning, and I don't like Bush at all.

My son just got back from a year's deployment in Iraq - he's with the 101st Airborne. He said things are worse now than they were in Sept 2005 when he got there! The entire Iraq war thing is a big, dumb mistake.

Anyway...I digress. Please don't automatically write off all born-again Christians. I would expect that many of us are middle of the road, and very tired of the boneheaded Bush administration and very willing to vote for a Democrat.

[dkofos]

73. I will if they renounce their religion!!

[savemefromdumbya]

79. If they want to vote for us they can...

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Here's the answer: Instead of going after the Jesus wing of the GOP

...people who aren't going to vote for us anyway- we go to where the real split is; we go where conservatives acknowledge that there is a real disaffection and dismay with the Republican party.

We go after the Libertarian wing of the GOP, and socially Libertarian minded voters of neither party.

Endless amounts of Jesus platitutes, trying to have it both ways on social issues, and pandering to the religious right aren't going to bring in that many voters- all they (and pushing gays, atheists, pro-choicers and supporters of separation of church to the back of the bus in the process) will accomplish is alienating the base and further convincing people that we don't really stand for anything.

Instead, what we SHOULD be doing is standing up STRONG for things like an end to the Drug War as WELL as an end to the Iraq War. The right of consenting adults to watch, read, or do whatever they damn well please- so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult- in the privacy of their own home. The right of citizens to have FULL control over their bodies and personal decisions, from reproductive to end-of-life. A SPHC system not only because it's the moral thing to do, but the fiscally sound thing to do as well.

We can bring the disaffected, poor heartland voters on board by, again, supporting a SPHC system and the like. Sooner or later they're going to figure out that keeping gays from getting married isn't all that important if they don't have a job or health insurance.

We're never going to out-Jesus the GOP. What we CAN do, however, is win over voters who are sick of control freaks.

[ThoughtCriminal]

99. I want to convince them to stay home

and no longer get involved with politics. As they get frustrated by the GOP, it's a possibility.

[The Backlash Cometh]

100. They'll never know where they went wrong, until we apply

resistance.

[Stinky The Clown]

101. I don't think we can ever reach the religiously insane

You call them right wing evangelicals. I call them religiously insane. I call the Islamic religious extremists the very same term.

Religiously Insane.

The best we can hope to do is keep them in (metaphorical) pens and throw food in once a week. Maybe once a week. Maybe food.

Now .... for other 'people of faith' ...... no problem. It seems to me that so long as they keep their religion to themselves and out of my life .... and out of government ..... we can all get along just fine. I absolutely do NOT begrudge anyone their religion. I DO have a huge issue with it affecting civil government and my rights to do and think as I wish.

[raysr]

102. ALL religion is insanity. nt

[Jed Dilligan]

105. I don't want to screw 'em either.

You can have them. The hair alone is enough to scare me off, and then there's the eyes...

[elehhhhna]

111. I'll reach out. Reach out & give 'em the Minnesota head-push

[RagAss]

112. I know a few...if they ever sense they are in the majority....

They'd kill us and our kids...without blinking....

Fuck them all !!!!....I wish them the horror of horrors......

[kdpeters]

113. I don't for one minute believe you've ever sincerely tried.

I have and have seen many, so many come around full circle on some issues and part way on others, but most important face the fact that a person they know and respect is a liberal and a homosexual and he's not at all like he'd been previously led to believe.

If you weren't successful, then it's obviously not the role you were meant to play. If you've never sincerely made a real considered effort, then how is it you can say everything you've said above when you can't possibly know? Judging everyone in a group based on stereotypes is bigotry.

We don't all have to approach from the same angle or have the same strategy. If you can't be the face to challenge strident religionists, then do something else please. Don't seek to sabotage what some of us know can make a difference.

[Philosoraptor]

114. Then you'd be wrong.

I have this problem with my mom and dad and brother and sister who've all been born again and turned against me, not the other way around. I tried to reason with them for years, over thirty to be exact, with zero results.

I know first hand how difficult it is to reason with these folks, perhaps you are better at it than I.

[kdpeters]

123. No. Not better at it than you at all.

But obviously working with different material. I'm sorry you've had to deal with an intransigent family. I do know that there are many, too many beyond reach, but even the devout aren't easily predictable. You come to the table with your experiences as I do with mine. I was mistaken to assume you were coming from judgment than experience. If they can't accept you, they don't deserve you.

[NotGivingUp]

115. Let them go live on their own planet somewhere.

[GeorgeGist]

117. Here, here...

their insanity is highly contagious.

[MUSTANG_2004]

122. Where, where?

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html

[and-justice-for-all]

124. I agree with you....

I would hope that in the near future, religion is abolished and looked down upon as a set-back and no longer implemented in anyway, shape or form. Religion has shown to be nothing but a human error and used by those only to gain control over masses of fools that fall prey to the shamanist who use the bible(s) as a weapon/tool for their own benefit.

Religion is cancer, lets cure it.

[B Calm]

125. I have a problem with the right wing Evangelicals WAR against our

constitution!

[Leopolds Ghost]

127. My concern is when center-right atheists dismiss left-wing Evangelicals

Or working class Evangelicals whose grandparents were left-wing.

Might as well abandon any sort of economic populism if people
are only concerned about -cultural- liberties.

We have seen that Christian piety certainly hasn't made socially conservative, working-class Evangelicals prone to agree with Freepers on the war effort, so that can't be the bone of contention. Hell, it's a point of commonality.

The war is incredibly unpopular and its support is from jingoism, not religious piety.