Religiophobia: lets talk about it

[undeterred]

I heard this word used on the AAR program "State of Belief" this afternoon.

The Left and the Democratic party are accused from within and without of being unable to talk about spiritual values in a coherent way which attracts voters, and of a demeaning attitude towards spirituality, which reduces all spiritual consciousness to either new age trivia or reactionary politics.

Religiophobia allows no room for the possibiity of a spirituality which is committed to inclusiveness and social justice.

I heard this concern in Lakoffs commentary after the 2004 election regarding the 'framing' of issues.

Has the left made any progress on this?

[Warpy]

1. Has most of "the left" ever been GUILTY of this???

Good grief, beyond a few newly minted atheists (who are rather like new ex smokers in the strength of their convictions and a little like newlyweds in thinking the world should join them in bliss) the left has always been mostly MADE OF relgious people!

Stop buying the horseshit from the right wing propaganda machine that "the left" is some sort of godless communist monolith.

Thank you.

[Solon]

2. Hard to come out with a coherent message when the opposition controls...

the media and all the airwaves.

[bryant69]

3. Well I'm as vigorous in defending religion as anybody

and most of this is crap. The left talks religion fine, and the people who are upset about how Democrats talk about religion aren't going to be won over no mater what we do. These are people who think we are one step away from satanist

As for people within the Democratic party who are pissed off about how we talk about religion, most of them are opportunists (like the DLC or zell miller) who see a means to power or money by parroting Republican Attacks from within the party.

That's not to say that every liberal or every leftists handles religion well, plenty don't. And plenty of Conservatives tell racist jokes - but somehow that's not really a problem, apparently.

That's my take, anyway.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TallahasseeGrannie]

27. The writer has been reading too many

blogs and boards. This is not the real world. I have never felt that Democrats were "godless." I think the RW has exploited religion in unfortunate ways.

[Orsino]

4. The Left occasionally gives in to those fatuous phrases...

...if that's what you mean. The Right beats the drum about God and gays, but not for ant reasons that could be called "spiritual," and when they manage to force the Left to mumble something about respect for Christianity, it's only to promote the oppression of women and gays, or to force conformity--never to advocate real charity, liberty or love. These last are the values that the Left should be pushing, but they find this difficult when competing for corporate donations.

Big Money doesn't like freedom, and never has.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. I think the Dems have always been religious,

but the MSM has done their part in painting them otherwise. I know here in Arkansas, our Democratic leaders have often gotten on local talk shows and spoken about faith and the need for social justice as is preached in the Bible. But when the only state-wide newspaper (the misnamed Democrat-Gazette) is in the hip pocket of the neocons (it is owned by WalMart, I found out today), it gets hard to get the message out. I know in 2004 I regularly visited Democratic headquarters in Boone County, and ministers and their spouses were usually there, shaking their heads in disgust over the rw spin and wondering how in the world they could get the message out. They sold "I'm Christian and a Democrat" tee shirts. But the ministers actually believed in seperation of church/state and so wouldn't make political speeches from the pulpit. I don't want to see them try it, either-but we need to figure out a way to go around MSM with our message.

[undeterred]

9. Its the perception that matters- peoples reasons for voting

for one party or another are often based on perceptions which don't carry much understanding of what goes on behind the packaging. I agree with you that many Dems do talk about this - but the media and the folks on the right do an even better job of laying claim to things like 'family values', whatever that is. In Wisconsin the debate is not between "Defense of Marriage" or "Sanctity of Marriage" and "Fairness". I guess I would have gone with "Marriage Equality" or "Sanctify all Marriages" to make the point.

I am afraid that there will be a repeat of 2004 because the conversation is already being framed in exactly the same way.

[xchrom]

6. i find it interesting that amid increased reports of

the religous left speaking out against the religous right this comes out.

damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[W_HAMILTON]

7. Democrats need to champion:

All the non-Christians, and the moderate Christians. Screw the hardcore religious right, let the Republicans have them.

I believe most moderate Christians would be tolerant of other religions, as well as those that don't believe in religion. They are usually the type that worship in their own way, and don't force their beliefs on others. So that would allow room for all the non-Christians out there, which the Republicans pretty much shun.

And I believe the more secular Democrats would be glad to welcome in moderate Christians, because they aren't as "out there" as the evangelicals, and they wouldn't be trying to impose the entire nation under Christian law, so they would fit under the Democratic umbrella too.

So how do you do this? By pointing out that Jesus was all about love and compassion, not about death, and hatred, and bigotry -- all the ideals that the fundy-types believe in. Marginalize those fundy-types, and show that -- not only do they not represent America -- they represent a perverted sense of Christianity, not the true essence of Christianity.

I think a message like that would appeal to a lot of the moderate religious types, which I have to believe is a majority, even if a silent majority. Use the true tenets of Christianity against the Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell, and Santorum types. Gladly bring up the whole "WWJD" line. Who would Jesus torture? In their time of need, who would Jesus let die on their roof? What little village would Jesus unleash a hell-fire missle on? And so on and so on....

Use their religion against them, and stop letting them use a perverted version of their religion against us.

[Solly Mack]

8. There are religious people on the left who do not want religion

in government in any size, shape, form or fashion. For anyone to claim such people don't exist is a lie and it's an intentional lie meant to attack - and not at all a case of someone being misinformed.

It amazes me that people do not seem to realize that when they make statements like "democrats need to speak more about religion" that they are allowing the right to frame the debate. The right wants to keep religion in the spot light and as long as democrats and people on the left buy into it, the right is still directing the issue. They're the influencing factor in the debate.

The right claims: "democrats/the left don't like religion"

so democrats/ the left gets on the defensive and shouts: "Yes, we do!"

It then sounds as if the right struck a nerve ...when they haven't - unless you play into the trap. And it IS a trap.

Fact is, religion and state should be separate and ANY response contrary to that IS playing right into the right wing's hands.

The right doesn't need to keep the issue going - one untruthful accusation and the issue is kept going by those constantly defending against it.

Why not try the Constitutional approach instead? I know the Constitution is worth less than toilet paper these days but I happen to still think it has merit.

[Berry Cool]

10. I don't think so.

I'm reading a book on it right now: "The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right" by Michael Lerner.

The thesis of this book (written by a rabbi) is this:

The reason the Republicans and the religious right have coopted America as successfully as they have is because they have found a way to address the spiritual needs all people have for something beyond money and the accumulation of worldly goods. All people have these spiritual needs, whether or not they choose to believe in any kind of deity at all. However, the religious right is the only segment of American society successfully addressing these needs for some people. That is why Republicans have been so successful.

Democrats, on the other hand, claim to be the party that is about inclusiveness and social justice, but they also have steadfastly refused to couple these values with any kind of spiritual values. Quite the opposite--they have maintained that spiritual values do not belong in the political arena at all. As a result, they tend to alienate those seeking a place to exercise their spiritual values, whereas the Republicans welcome such people with open arms--or at least make them feel welcome for a while.

He says the only way Democrats will be able to turn things around--and it won't happen overnight--is if they decide to embrace spirituality (even if not "religiosity") as a core value and the source of the values they promote (resting on the worth of all human beings) in opposition to the values Republicans promote (resting on the values of the corporation). They need to do this even if it loses them some elections, rather than trying to be "Republican Lite," straying from their own values and pretending to share the values of the Republicans in order to put up viable candidates and win elections. I.e., he believes the only way they will ever get anywhere is to be brave enough to provide a clear alternative. Not candidates who claim to stand for certain values but then modify their stances when they see their poll numbers go down.

He also points out that it's entirely possible to be spiritual, or religious, and to still believe that the natural world is run by the rules of science. In other words, God and Darwin are not necessarily two mutually exclusive concepts.

I think he's got some excellent points. So long as some Dems regard religion and spirituality as the enemy, or as standing in opposition to reason and rationality, it's going to be very, very hard for the whole party to communicate its values successfully. It will continue to be regarded as "the party that has no values" (not true) while the Republican party takes the credit for having all the values--when the truth is, so many of their "values" are mere biases, superstitions and hatreds cloaked in the guise of religious faith.

on edit: To make it clear where this author is coming from: he is NOT a Republican and NOT conservative. He is FOR the values Democrats traditionally espouse. He just thinks they're going about it the wrong way and they are not sticking to their guns when it comes to their own values. And I'm inclined to agree. As for all this supposed "religion" in the Dems, I sure don't see it. What I see just from reading DU--in other words, not from those right-controlled media--is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to be more popular and easier to express a belief in than any sort of deity at all. In the eyes of some, to believe in a deity is to be superstitious and stupid.

As long as that kind of attitude thrives in progressive people, it's going to be hard for them to get together and fight for the values they have in common, whether they believe in deities, or the same deities, or not.

[undeterred]

11. Thank you. This is the author who was talking about it on the show.

I was bringing this up as an issue of how to win elections.

Unfortunately, some people on the left are so angry at fundamentalist religion that they pounce on anything religious and rip it to shreds.

[Berry Cool]

12. Tell me about it.

I think he's right: some people are so anti-religion, ANY religion, that they cannot even pause to see that it is possible for people's religious values to point them in the direction of what Democrats want and value. They don't see how these people can be taken in and cultivated and appreciated and become part of a base of support. They put up a sign that says "Welcome to the Democratic Party. Please Park Your Religion At the Door." As a result, people whose religion is precisely what causes them to believe in peace over war, gay rights over gay discrimination, etc., feel that they are not welcome.

[Mass]

15. It goes both way - I heard him and Jim Wallis several times and

they seem to disregard the possibility that somebody or an organization that is not religious can have the same goals they have without being religious. It is not even the issue of being of the same religion than them. It is the fact that they refuse that some things and organizations can work without being faith-based.

As long as they and other will continue to assimilate "no values" and "no religious values", they will be a terrible disconnect.

I am not an ennemy of people who have a religion, but very often, I am tired of the judgement they have on me because I am not religious. I have even heard some Democratic pols (not in my part of the country, but still) complaint that some people who go to church every Sunday are poor (as if there was a relationship).

[DanCa]

13. Personally I think its all blown out of proportion.

According to the latest statistics 80 percent of American believe in god. Now the media and the powers want to be love to stereo type and portray the Dem's in the worst light possible. It's the rumor mill that is our worst en enemy. Plus than theres a myth that everyone whose a christian is against gay rights, stem cell research, and against abortion. Hogwash. It's just more of the brain dead can't think for yourself type of thinking created by Hannity and Limp-nuts and their ilk to make the Dem's look bad.

Now what "some or most" Democrats are against are pro-lifers, people blurring the line of separation of church and state, and making pro life the national church of America, and saying that Democrats can't attend church unless they agree to the republican social agenda. And on a personal note I am against anyone who want let me walk, and live a normal life because their against stem cell research. Of course their are Democrats who disagree with me on this and that's cool.

Also, I for one, am sick and tired of the Republicans being labbled as religous. There pro rape, want to screw the poor, walk the streets armed to the teeth, dont give a damn about the sick, and dont care about the people lost in Katrina. It's time to stop believing that the republicans are so fucking pure.

[undeterred]

16. Remember that the masses of voters are very superficial

They did not understand that Repubs make us infinitely less safe even though all the evidence shows it. The Dems have an image problem to overcome with superficial voters- mostly because the other side has worked so hard at it and become so good at creating their image, however ridiculous we know it is.

Dems are hopefully more inclined to worry about substance than image. BUT we need the votes of the less informed masses to win back power... and to do that we need a better image.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Yeah, that statistic is a fave for fundies but you know what? When my

pastor's wife sent a chain letter to me quoting that and a lot of other more dubious "facts" I had to reply. (You probably saw this before way back when I first wrote it.)

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. I generally don't feel attacked for my religion. Only once in a great

while do I get, "Why aren't you fixing everything that is wrong with your faith?!" I do also get talked down to now and then for believing in "magic sky daddies".

But other than that I find people aren't really in a frenzy to "unconvert" me or anything like that, at least as far as being on DU goes. Pretty much as long as I don't push my beliefs on others they don't push theirs on me.

[BooScout]

18. WTF....

...does spirituality have to do with attracting voters??? I frankly don't give a shit whether a politician is spiritual or not.....I want to know whether he can run the damned government (at any level) in an efficient and ethical manner. I don't care whether or not he's religious, gay, black, white or purple....or whether he's a she. Give me a politician who is honest and will do his/her best at running things.

I'm not scared of religion......mostly I'm just sick to death of some folks trying to ram their version of their religion down my damned throat. Religion has not fecking place in the political arena....it should be kept in the home and in the respective church.

[HockeyMom]

19. of the generation

where religion was a private matter to be keep to oneself. I have absolutely no desire to even KNOW, never mind listen to, how good a Christian (or whatever) Politician A, B, or C is.

Irrelevant to ME.

[Mass]

20. Happy to hear that - I thought for a moment I was alone.

[sui generis]

21. what the hell does religion and spirituality have to do with government?

it's not a phobia, it's just common sense. Government is administration of resources. What on earth does that have to do with "spirituality"?

It's not downplaying it or ignoring it or even bashing it -- religion just has no place in administration. Saying there is a "phobia" is like saying somebody who's not even married beats his wife.

[Wonk]

23. Historically, quite a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

^^^ Good reading for those who want to know more about the issue before engaging in a flame war on the subject.

If church and state become too intertwined, it's bad for both, and by extension, bad for everyone else.

[sui generis]

30. but if you kow-tow to the religious leadership

by bringing up those issues you're not being a strong political leader. If you have vision, charisma and the strength of your convictions you don't need to borrow by pandering to religion.

And once you do, you're in thrall to them - so of course they have a prurient interest in getting "godly" folk into politics.

[Kare]

25. The point is

that there are a portion of voters who think that whether or not their
leaders have a relationship with god is important to them. They think
that you have to go to church, have to believe in god, and have to be
getting your orders from god.

I agree completely that this has no place in government. But as long as
this is what swings some (and I think this is a majority in some states)
then we have to address the issue. If these people think that the dem candidate
is not a religious person and the rep candidate is then regardless of what
the issues might be they will vote for the religious one.
The extreme religious people who think that a candidate doesn't believe in
religion is of course going to assume that that person is against god and
has no values whatsoever.

Intelligent people can look beyond any religious views and see the issues,
but when the minister is up there at the pulpit telling them to vote for this
guy because god told him it was right, how do you think they will vote?

It should be a non-issue but instead it is an issue and I don't think it
can be ignored. :shrug:

[skooooo]

22. Phobias are irrational --

-- fears of religious influence in gov. are not irrational.

[mandyky]

24. I see religion and spirituality as different things

The fundie Christians are religious, not spiritual. They have a pastor that tells them what the bible means, and what they should do about it.

While I steer clear of religion, I consider myself spiritual, and I am offended when I am told I am not moral or don't have "values" because I interpret the bible and other "holy" books in nontraditional ways. I do not consider anything that is fear or guilt based to be spiritual.

I am fine with religion as long as it doesn't try to usurp science.

I really disagree with this "Religiophobia allows no room for the possibiity of a spirituality which is committed to inclusiveness and social justice" since I see religion and spirituality as not the exact same thing.

[AndyTiedye]

26. Theocracyphobia is More Like It

"Religiophobia" is Rovian framing to bash the Democrats
for being insufficiently Christian. It is meant to
divide us by driving out many of our core consituancies.

We are not afraid of anyone else's religion,
as long as they don't try to impose it on us by force.

We are afraid of religion being used as a political tool.

The Dominionists have a stated goal of establishing a theocracy.
They have considerable influence in our government.

The alliance between the neocons and the Catholic Church
is at the highest level, Pope Maledict himself and all of
his staff and retainers, and extend down to all of his
appointments. This is likely to become worse as Rat Zinger
replaces more of the hierarchy with his own people.
The concentration of Opus Dei members on the Supreme Court
is a matter of great concern.

We should be able to divide their coalition here too.
If there is to be a theocracy, who runs it?
The Fundies, or the Catholics?

The possiblity of a single religious faction gaining control
of the government should be of even greater concern to religious
people. Atheists don't believe in any god, so they won't be
offending any god by participating in any mandatory religious
observances. They are not risking everlasting damnation, as
some religious people might feel they would be.

[NoodleyAppendage]

28. Democracy and fundamental Xtianity are INCOMPATIBLE

Why should we tolerate people who believe in fascist theocratic ideals?????

JB

[undeterred]

29. You should read the post so you know what you are responding to.

[Toucano]

31. "Religiophobia" does not exist.

It isn't even a word. I guess it isn't just Bush who invents words to suit his purposes.