April 27, 2004

God and Democrats and stuff
Posted by Jon Henke

Kevin Drum has a very good guest post by Clinton's chief domestic policy advisor Bruce Reed. Bruce writes...

I'd feel a lot better if our side spent less time running down the religious right, and more time building a religious center-left. After all, those who fought for civil rights in the '60s saw standing up for their political convictions as a natural extension of their religious convictions.
There seems to be a widening gap between the theists and atheists on the political landscape, and it's polarizing the rhetorical landscape, too.

We've all seen and heard the "they must hate god" rhetoric from the Robertson/Falwell brigade for years now. Lately, though, that rhetorical excess is becoming more and more common on the other side. Opponents of the religious right don't just "disagree with the FCC ruling on Howard Stern". No, that would be letting them off too easy. Instead, they argue that it starts with not allowing boobies during the Super Bowl, and...boom! Suddenly, you've got a theocracy.

Now, rhetorical red meat will make for good radio...maybe even popular blogging. What it will not do, however, is win you votes among the people who haven't really ever been dragged off to be baptized by roaming lynch mobs of Christianistas. Those people tend to think of Christians as "the guy next door", or even "themselves", rather than the cartoonish images so often portrayed.

And this isn't a fringe issue. This widening gap is making itself apparent in the Democratic Party, where pundits use patronizing language like this on a regular basis...

It's no secret that George Bush intentionally laces his speeches with evangelical code phrases; expressions that don't mean much to ordinary people, but that scream "I believe in Jesus, too!" to those Christians in the know.
And that was in a post suggesting the Democrats should NOT belittle the language of religion.

The point? It's a bit surprising to me, because I thought the Republicans would have fractured over religion first - the fiscal conservatives and libertarians telling the social conservatives to get bent - but the Democratic Party is the one experiencing a fracture here. And until the atheists learn to live with the fact that some people have religious beliefs, it's going to be hard to reconcile their bitter, cynical distaste for any mention of "God" from Republicans, with the desire of many Democrats to, you know, believe in God.

TrackBack

Comments

"It's no secret that George Bush intentionally laces his speeches with evangelical code phrases"

Probably because Bush is an evangelical...

As for the center-left christians, part of the problem is that there has been a strong population shift away from those denominations for a generation or so. There just aren't as many center-left christians as there used to be.

Posted by: MrAcheson at April 27, 2004 05:01 PM

Ask yourself: which party is more tolerant of religion?

Hands down, the answer is the Dems.

We just happen to believe religion has no place in public policy. And we certainly don't believe religion ought to be used to justify bigotry.

Posted by: JadeGold at April 27, 2004 05:58 PM

We might disagree on some of that, JG. Though, I would agree that religion has no place in making laws.

We would likely disagree on what constitutes an injection of religion into public policy.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 27, 2004 09:06 PM

"Which party is more tolerant of religion? Hands down, the answer is the Dems. We just happen to believe religion has no place in public policy."

I would disagree. The problem with Democrats is not that they are tolerant or their position on religion in public policy. Republicans Christians don't want to combine church and state, they just want freedom of religious expression. The problem is that in practice Democrats tend to take the stand that religion has no place in public, not that religion has no place in public policy. Keep your God inside your churches please.

Posted by: MrAcheson at April 28, 2004 08:38 AM

I respectfully disagree, Mr. A.

Dems have no problem with religious expression. However, if you insist that we must utilize public resources for that expression--I think that's where we have a problem. To my mind, it's fairly clear that I (or anyone else)should have to pay for or subsidize someone's religious views or expressions.

Frankly, I believe a lot of this is a myth. For instance, prayer in school; there has never been any prohibition barring students from praying in school. It is only when you compel students to participate in organized prayer that you run up against church-state issues.

Posted by: jadegold at April 28, 2004 09:29 AM

I agree with your last paragraph, Jade. I'm firmly against most "prayer in school" initiatives, since they are little more than an attempt to use tax dollars to promulgate one religion or another.

The Democrat-divide with religion that I have a problem with is more closely related to the criticisms of Bush with respect to his expressions of faith, etc. An individual has a right to express his faith, even if he is a public figure. If the President prays to Jesus, Allah, or an obscure tree-god, he should be free to say that. It has no policy-impact.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 28, 2004 09:44 AM

Mr. Henke: Bush is free to express his views and beliefs on religion. However, when he uses my tax money to reward his religious friends or states that his policy is based on religious beliefs--that's a problem.

I think much of the criticism of Bush isn't pointed at his religious beliefs. It's that his actions and policies don't coincide with those beliefs.

Posted by: jadegold at April 28, 2004 10:39 AM

Its funny that democrats can use prayer for campaigning or during presidential speeches without being harassed, but if a conservative does it, "lets kill 'em". W 04

Posted by: redlinedRU at August 19, 2004 10:17 AM