Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LAT: Evangelicals in heated battle over agenda

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 02:42 AM
Original message
LAT: Evangelicals in heated battle over agenda
Evangelicals in heated battle over agenda
Some conservatives say the focus has strayed from 'home run' issues like abortion, gay rights.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer

A struggle for control of the evangelical agenda intensified this week, with some leaders declaring that the focus has strayed too far from their signature battles against abortion and gay rights.

Those issues defined the evangelical movement for more than two decades — and cemented ties with the Republican Party. But in a caustic letter, leaders of the religious right warned that these "great moral issues of our time" were being displaced by a "divisive and dangerous" alignment with the left on global warming.

A new generation of pastors has expanded the definition of moral issues to include not only global warming, but an array of causes. Quoting Scripture and invoking Jesus, they're calling for caps on carbon emissions, citizenship for illegal immigrants, and universal health care.

The most well-known champion of such causes, the Rev. Jim Wallis, this week challenged conservative crusader James C. Dobson, the chairman of Focus on the Family, to a debate on evangelical priorities.

"Are the only really 'great moral issues' those concerning abortion, gay marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence?" Wallis asked in his challenge. "How about the reality of 3 billion of God's children living on less than $2 per day? ... What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS ... (and) disastrous wars like Iraq?"...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evangelicals10mar10,0,5336382.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. uh oh. Preaching humanist, hippie crap like that doesn't fly with Christians
ironic that they named their religion after the biggest hippie humanist of all time...

Oh well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. What about all the mainline progressive Christian denominations?
We should accord Christianity as much respect as Islam or Judaism...some progressives (I am new here so I am not referring to you by any means) make the unfortunate mistake of singling Christianity out for criticism, even ridicule. This damages our cause. We cannot win votes among groups that view us as condescending toward them. We can see this in play among numerous minority groups who vote heavily against the Republican Party because it has a condescending view toward minorities, particularly African-Americans. It would be fatal to us if the Christian majority tuned us out because of a perception of derision of their faith among the progressive movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I agree
Some other folks may not, unfortunately.

Too many people assume that progressivism
and organized religion don't mix. You could
make the same claim for any number of large
institutions however...

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Do you really think Mario Cuomo has a shot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Mario Cuomo
Edited on Sat Mar-10-07 08:50 AM by draft_mario_cuomo
First, thanks for the welcome. :) Mario Cuomo has essentially dissappeared from electoral politics since 1994, although he has still remained in the public debate through his books, occassional television appearances, and other events such as his recent debate with Newt Gingrich. The idea of drafting him now seems like it is quixotic. There is only one way to find out if that is really the case, though! What I want to do is test the waters on the netroots and see if there is any remaining support for the man who once was the darling of progressives during the height of his political career. I will take this one step at a time and am looking for help from like-minded progressives. If we can generate enough support for Governor Cuomo at the grassroots level we can go to him and make the case that he should run.

I am under no illusions. The odds of this succeeding are low but I must try. This election is the most important one since the election of 1860. I sincerely believe Governor Cuomo is the best candidate we can field. I will outline the reasons for this at a later date. Right now, since I am new to this site, I cannot post threads. I plan on making a thread where I make the case for Governor Cuomo and also plan on making pages on Myspace and Facebook as well as a Yahoo group for the effort. I am just a grad student. I do not have the money to build a fancy website so I will do this by harnessing the power of the internet to reach out to the progressive grassroots.

Anyone who is interested in this should feel free to e-mail me at draftmariocuomo@yahoo.com

Can any present candidate compare to the eloquence emobodied in the following excerpt from his keynote at the 1984 Democratic convention (Cuomo wrote his own speeches)? You can read the entire speech at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mariocuomo1984dnc.htm and listen to it at http://media-nf.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/politicalspeeches/mariocumo1984dnc191919111111111111111111111dfdfdfdf11111111111.mp3 The speech is amazing when you listen to it and it lays out the fundamental values of progressivism that some seem to have forgotten.

...This election will measure the record of the past four years. But more than that, it will answer the question of what kind of people we want to be.

We Democrats still have a dream. We still believe in this nation's future. And this is our answer to the question. This is our credo:

We believe in only the government we need, but we insist on all the government we need.

We believe in a government that is characterized by fairness and reasonableness, a reasonableness that goes beyond labels, that doesn't distort or promise to do things that we know we can't do.

We believe in a government strong enough to use words like "love" and "compassion" and smart enough to convert our noblest aspirations into practical realities.

We believe in encouraging the talented, but we believe that while survival of the fittest may be a good working description of the process of evolution, a government of humans should elevate itself to a higher order.

We -- Our -- Our government -- Our government should be able to rise to the level where it can fill the gaps that are left by chance or by a wisdom we don't fully understand. We would rather have laws written by the patron of this great city, the man called the "world's most sincere Democrat," St. Francis of Assisi, than laws written by Darwin.

We believe -- We believe as Democrats, that a society as blessed as ours, the most affluent democracy in the world's history, one that can spend trillions on instruments of destruction, ought to be able to help the middle class in its struggle, ought to be able to find work for all who can do it, room at the table, shelter for the homeless, care for the elderly and infirm, and hope for the destitute. And we proclaim as loudly as we can the utter insanity of nuclear proliferation and the need for a nuclear freeze, if only to affirm the simple truth that peace is better than war because life is better than death.

We believe in firm -- We believe in firm but fair law and order.

We believe proudly in the union movement.

We believe in a -- We believe -- We believe in privacy for people, openness by government.

We believe in civil rights, and we believe in human rights.

We believe in a single -- We believe in a single fundamental idea that describes better than most textbooks and any speech that I could write what a proper government should be: the idea of family, mutuality, the sharing of benefits and burdens for the good of all, feeling one another's pain, sharing one another's blessings -- reasonably, honestly, fairly, without respect to race, or sex, or geography, or political affiliation.

We believe we must be the family of America, recognizing that at the heart of the matter we are bound one to another, that the problems of a retired school teacher in Duluth are our problems; that the future of the child -- that the future of the child in Buffalo is our future; that the struggle of a disabled man in Boston to survive and live decently is our struggle; that the hunger of a woman in Little Rock is our hunger; that the failure anywhere to provide what reasonably we might, to avoid pain, is our failure.


Now for 50 years -- for 50 years we Democrats created a better future for our children, using traditional Democratic principles as a fixed beacon, giving us direction and purpose, but constantly innovating, adapting to new realities: Roosevelt's alphabet programs; Truman's NATO and the GI Bill of Rights; Kennedy's intelligent tax incentives and the Alliance for Progress; Johnson's civil rights; Carter's human rights and the nearly miraculous Camp David Peace Accord.

Democrats did it -- Democrats did it and Democrats can do it again. We can build a future that deals with our deficit. Remember this, that 50 years of progress under our principles never cost us what the last four years of stagnation have. And we can deal with the deficit intelligently, by shared sacrifice, with all parts of the nation's family contributing, building partnerships with the private sector, providing a sound defense without depriving ourselves of what we need to feed our children and care for our people. We can have a future that provides for all the young of the present, by marrying common sense and compassion.

We know we can, because we did it for nearly 50 years before 1980. And we can do it again, if we do not forget -- if we do not forget that this entire nation has profited by these progressive principles; that they helped lift up generations to the middle class and higher; that they gave us a chance to work, to go to college, to raise a family, to own a house, to be secure in our old age and, before that, to reach heights that our own parents would not have dared dream of.

That struggle to live with dignity is the real story of the shining city. And it's a story, ladies and gentlemen, that I didn't read in a book, or learn in a classroom. I saw it and lived it, like many of you. I watched a small man with thick calluses on both his hands work 15 and 16 hours a day. I saw him once literally bleed from the bottoms of his feet, a man who came here uneducated, alone, unable to speak the language, who taught me all I needed to know about faith and hard work by the simple eloquence of his example. I learned about our kind of democracy from my father. And I learned about our obligation to each other from him and from my mother. They asked only for a chance to work and to make the world better for their children, and they -- they asked to be protected in those moments when they would not be able to protect themselves. This nation and this nation's government did that for them.

And that they were able to build a family and live in dignity and see one of their children go from behind their little grocery store in South Jamaica on the other side of the tracks where he was born, to occupy the highest seat, in the greatest State, in the greatest nation, in the only world we would know, is an ineffably beautiful tribute to the democratic process...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Hi draft_mario_cuomo!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. This is a Western society, Christianity is everywhere in our lives
which is why it gets the most criticism. Its the most common and relevant and tangible religion. If we lived in the middle east, you would see Islam as the common target. Its a matter of proximity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. I don't think anyone should make the mistake of equating "Christianity" to the secular positions ...
Edited on Sat Mar-10-07 01:25 PM by TahitiNut
... espoused by some who claim to be taking those positions because they're (purportedly) "Christians." It's as insane to do that as it is to claim that 9/11 was attributable to Islam. It's bigoted nonsense.

What sane person would agree that Fred Phelps' stance that "God Hates Fags" is a theological tenet? It's not. It's secular hatred and has absolutely nothing to do with theology or legitimate faith - no more so than the claims that slavery was approved by God.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nevernose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Because CLEARLY those are the only 2 issues that matter
A woman's judgment call about when life begins or whether or not to have a baby is really the church's decision. And hell, I just couldn't sleep at night without being secure in my knowledge of a married couple's genitals, because someone else's genitals have such a huge impact in my own life (no double entendre intended).

Of course, there is the third issue: abstinence education. God would surely be unhappy if we told people about an invention called the "condom," wouldn't he? I'm sure it's in the Bible somewhere, right? I mean, the Bible is filled with so many excellent examples of abstinence already, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. This is a golden opportunity for progressives
We should do whatever we can to strengthen the forces of moderation who are attempting to take back their religion from extremist fundamentalists. Yes, we will not agree with every position that the more moderate wing of the evangelical faith takes but we can make common cause with them on several of the key issues of the day, such as global warming and poverty. We should do this because it promotes our progressive ideals. There is also an element of political pragmatism involved, though, as well. If we can broaden the political discussion in the evangelical community no longer will evangelicals automatically vote for Republicans by lopsided margins due to a narrow litmus test based on two or three issues. If more evangelicals take a broader spectrum of issues that are favorable to Democrats into account when deciding who to vote for we will reap the benefits at the ballot box.

It would be very helpful if our presidential candidates made the point to religious audiences that there are issues they should be concerned about other than the two or three that predominated in their minds in the past. We need a candidate to say something along the lines of what Governor Mario Cuomo of New York (1983-1995) said in his famous 1984 "Religious Belief and Public Morality" speech that argued that elected officials should not impose their religious views upon the public in general.

Here are some excerpts from the speech (which American Rhetoric.com includes in its list of the 100 greatest American speeches, with Cuomo's 1984 DNC keynote address ranking 11th http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html ):

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mariocuomoreligiousbelief.htm

"Let me make another point. Abortion has a unique significance, but not a preemptive significance. Apart from the question of efficacy of using legal weapons to make people stop having abortions, we know that our Christian responsibility doesn't end with any one law or amendment. It doesn’t end with abortion. Because it involves life and death, abortion will always be central in our -- in our concern, but so will nuclear weapons and hunger and homelessness and joblessness, all the forces diminishing human life and threatening to destroy it. The "seamless garment" that Cardinal Bernardin has spoken of is a challenge to all Catholics in public office, conservatives as well as liberals.

We cannot justify our aspiration to goodness as Catholics simply on the basis of the vigor of our demand for an elusive and questionable civil law declaring what we already know, that abortion is wrong. Approval or rejection of legal restrictions on abortion should not be the exclusive litmus test of Catholic loyalty. We should understand that whether abortion is outlawed or not, our work has barely begun: the work of creating a society where the right to life doesn't end at the moment of birth, where an infant isn't helped into a world that doesn't care if it's fed properly and housed decently and educated adequately, where the blind or retarded child isn't condemned to exist rather than empowered to live.

The bishops stated this duty clearly in 1974. They said that a constitutional amendment was only the beginning of what we had to do, and they were right. The bishops reaffirmed that view in 1976, in 1980, and again this year when the United States Catholic Committee asked Catholics to judge candidates on a wide range of issues -- not just abortion, but also on food policy, on the arms race, on human rights, on education, on social justice, and military expenditures. That's the bishops teaching us: "Consider all things."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. That was a great speech! Thanks for your post, and welcome to DU!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thank you!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stonebone Donating Member (118 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-10-07 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. it must really suck to know you've sold your soul to politicize your religion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC