"Unity Breakfast" Now on Tap For DNC

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:45:38 PM EST
Tags: Democratic National Convention (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Another press release received today from the DNC announces a "Unity Breakfast." It's an event that marries civil rights and faith.

DENVER – The Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) today unveiled plans for a unity breakfast to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the March on Washington on Thursday, August 28 during the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver. Martin Luther King III will join with civil rights leaders including Rev. Al Sharpton and faith leaders including Rabbi Jack Moline and Sister Simone Campbell to honor Martin Luther King Jr., the message of his “I Have a Dream” speech and the movement behind the March on Washington.

[ More...]

....“During the Democratic Convention in Denver, civil rights and faith leaders will come together to commemorate the anniversary of that historic March that created a tipping point for change in this country and to reaffirm Democrats’ dedication to Dr. King’s dream.”

The convention opens with an inter-faith event.

See how you can join delegates, elected officials, clergy from many communities of faith and special musical guests as we gather in a spirit of unity on Sunday, August 24 at the Wells Fargo Theater in downtown Denver.

< The Anti-PUMAs: The CDS Never Ends | Clark On The Russia-Georgia Conflict >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

"Unity Breakfast" Now on Tap For DNC | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm old fashioned. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by lentinel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:50:51 PM EST

I don't want "faith" mixing with politics.

Me neither, but (none / 0) (#2)
by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:54:21 PM EST

we are a tiny, tiny minority and this faith crap is everywhere now. Far too late to object. And Obama is running on it.

Ya know....'stuff you can BELIEVE in.'


Well, it's never too late (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:24:38 PM EST

to stand up against something that is just so very wrong.

Religion has no place in our government. If it did, we'd be pretty great hypocrits in trying to turn Iraq into a democracy.

Better late than never that we stand firm against this.


Stop complaining (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by Steve M on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:46:04 PM EST

It's a unity breakfast. Can't you just let them eat their waffles?


: I prefer hotcakes (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:20:45 PM EST

but waffles I can believe in!
The rest, not so much.
It isn't complaining to think that religion and politics only mix to the peril of both. Look around you.

: Gladly (5.00 / 0) (#50)
by lentinel on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:53:55 AM EST

They should eat their waffles, pancakes or whatever, and shut the f-ck up about their religious beliefs.
Of course, it is no longer a current view that the separation of church and state is an American concept.

I don't like it (none / 0) (#59)
by Andy08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:06:53 PM EST

either. GWBush run on this idea of extending the Faith based initiatives so that more federal money is funneled to faith based organizations to do "social work". Today, NPR in reporting about today's meetings of Obama & McCain with Warner
reminded me that Obama wants to do exactly the same as GW Bush above. I despise the idea because I think is it a screen to excuse and release the Gov. involvement of its duties to help the poor and other social issues. Why does someone who needs help or welfare has to go to a place that talks about accepting Christ in your heart? What that got to do with that family who is in financial need?


: Correction: Warren (none / 0) (#60)
by Andy08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:14:38 PM EST

not Warner. I meant the Evangelical "interviews" today of both candidates with Rick Warren.

no problem with "faith" in politics.... (none / 0) (#51)
by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:31:31 AM EST

...what I have a problem with is defining "unity" in terms of "faith".

And on a purely "tin-ear" level, making Al Sharpton the big speaker at this little unity breakfast is just plain dumb. Sharpton is the poster boy for black anti-semitism; while Jesse Jackson betrayed anti-semitic attitudes in private conversation, he admitted he was wrong, apologized, and "worked on" his problem. Sharpton engaged in blatant, public, anti-semitic rhetoric during the "Crown Heights" affair in an effort to fire up anti-semitism among blacks, and has never admitted error let alone apologize for those remarks.

Ages ago, when all the Dems went courting Sharpton, I said that the GOP would use pictures of Sharpton with the eventual nominee against the Dems as part of a dog whistle campaign -- and (thanks to his Rev. Wright connection) no one is more vulnerable to that particular dog-whistle than Barack Obama. Inviting Al Sharpton to this "unity breakfast" is the perfect opportunity for the right-wing to not merely exploit Sharpton, but Wright as well.

Obama's team is (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by dskinner3 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:06:27 PM EST

looking more and more like the "god told me to be president" team every day. I find this disgusting. We can honor MLK and other issues without basing everything on faith.

Enough Already (5.00 / 0) (#18)
by Athena on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:54:02 PM EST

Why don't they just hold the convention in a chapel and be done with it? Who needs a platform - just bring a Bible.


: Yes, but they will need (none / 0) (#57)
by Nike on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:31:37 AM EST

not a chapel but one of those high megachurches, a Temple of Mammon.

Jesus, give me a break... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by ap in avl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:29:47 PM EST

No, I mean it.

Seriously, Jesus. Can you come down here and talk some since into these people?

I personally think Jesus was a pretty cool dude. Just my opinion, but I don't think he would approve of such blatant pandering.

: Yeh, it's the pandering part (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:48:26 PM EST

That really bothers me. I HATE to see my party doing this.

: er....sense, not since (5.00 / 0) (#15)
by ap in avl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:51:36 PM EST

Maybe Jesus could send me one of those fancy grammer/spell check thingies too......

jesus put this in perspective a long (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:32:06 PM EST

time ago. render unto caesar what is caesar's and unto god what is god's.(i don't think this is an exact quote). it really very simple. why do these people have to try so hard to be repub lite. it won't work! duh!

This is the country we are leaving to our (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:37:42 PM EST

children and grandchildren. We have enjoyed a long and prosperous run without religion controlling our country. How can religion play such a strong role in a government that is a democracy, anyway? Which religion will run things?

Between the DNC's behavior, and Obama's religious movement, is the demise of our democracy very far behind a democratic win?

Ironic that the religious left is emerging (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:44:45 PM EST

as we have finally come close to marginalizing the religious right. (By that I mean that the religious right did not get the candidate they wanted. Sure, McCain has to pander to them a little, but at least Huckabee didn't win, and won't be VP. )


Most of the religious left I know (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:53:04 PM EST

aren't in your face about their faith. They don't hide it but they don't feel the need to have breakfasts in public to prove their Christianity. I think this is more about Obama pandering and perhaps even countering the "he's a Muslim" claim then some great tribute to the religious left.


Until this one (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:55:45 PM EST

I wonder if these fliers will be distributed at the breakfast. They were a hit the first round of distribution.


: How long before certain folks (5.00 / 0) (#42)
by LatinoVoter on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:18:44 PM EST

start talking up the black Jesus in the stained glass window in that flyer as evidence of a "radical" form of Christianity?

Well, this plus Obama's expansion of the (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:58:35 PM EST

faith-based initiatives has me a little worried. I agree that this event alone is no big deal.


: Depending on who the religious leaders (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:07:13 PM EST

in attendance are. Obama has a collection of busunder ministers who have been a big problem for him.

Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by ap in avl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:58:32 PM EST

You just put words to something that's been bothering me that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Pandering to the religious right has always bothered me, but your point highlights that this could have been the election in which it didn't have to happen. So much for change.


It is like we are 8 years beyond the curve (none / 0) (#22)
by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:01:00 PM EST

All the people who have encouraged the left to 'reach out' to the religious have finally been heard, when really if we had just ridden out the wave and let the religious right implode we would have been fine.


: It is probably the DNC's dumb strategy to (none / 0) (#46)
by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:15:40 PM EST

try and scoop this part of the electorate up since the GOP has tossed them on their ear this cycle. What they don't get is the religious right in all likelihood, rather than join the religious left, would just as soon go to Hades as join us. For this group dogma is everything and the DNC would have to sell it's soul on gay marriage, abortion and a whole host of other things. Oh wait...........Who was it that was being floated around again as a VP pick. Oh that's right a guy who is anti choice and has publically proclained marriage is between an man and a woman. He IS against the death penalty but he hasn't let a petty thing like a belief get in the way of executing people when its come up. How convenient. Meet the new Democratic party boys and girls. It's just like the old GOP party only with the hypocrisy of mouthing the occasional platitude at those special interest groups without deep pocketbooks(how magnamonious of us) come election time. Remind me again why we should vote straight Dem?

The chance of achieving Unity (5.00 / 6) (#10)
by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:47:01 PM EST

is inversely proportionate to the number of events named "Unity ___"

Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Jeannie on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:51:07 PM EST

I needed a laugh!


You are SO right! (none / 0) (#13)
by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:50:17 PM EST

If our party was united, there would be no need for all this phony unity stuff. Do they really think it will change anyone's mind? Of course not.


: Invesco Field has its own Unity Pony (none / 0) (#28)
by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:23:34 PM EST

I forgot about the Bronco statue at the field. Look above the jumbotron
Now the stadium speech makes even more sense.

Fourth Amendment down (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:47:41 PM EST

First amendment up next in the shredder. Perhaps Obama can leave up where Patrcik Henry left us and introduce an amendment to make us a Christian nation for a better pander to the Dobsons and their crew.

I look forward to his referendum on Spongebob, the teletubbies and the EVIL American Girl company. It'll make a welcome break from steroids in sports and post office renaming.

Who does this appeal to? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:53:55 PM EST

Who is the party aiming for with all this faith and unity stuff?

The Church has always been central (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Josey on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:34:48 PM EST

to AAs - including a place to organize politically behind the safety (usually) of church doors.
It would seem impossible to "relive" Dr. King's march and speech at the convention without including Christianity.
imo


Think about the absolute (5.00 / 0) (#34)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05:53 PM EST

intent and reason for the Democratic National Convention. It is not intended for gender, race, religious, age, or other causes separate from creating a party policy for the candidate and party to bring to the people in an effort to gain their support in electing the next POTUS. #1, they barely have enough money to accomplish what they are supposed to be there for.

I have not yet heard they are planning to celebrate the other anniversary happening during those days...the one that honors women.

This is a very bad precendent to set.


: C'mon (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:18:41 PM EST

They are graciously letting Hillary speak with Pelosi and Michelle isn't that enough? I mean how much woman stuff do you want? /snark

Piffle (5.00 / 0) (#53)
by lentinel on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:51:37 AM EST

It would be intensely possible to "relive" Dr. King's march without talking about Christianity.

Don't you know that King named Ghandi as his inspiration?
He didn't preach religion. He preached political action.

Also - it is irritating to me that the great genius Malcolm X is left out of these discussions. To do so is to continually cower to white people and many black people who are scared to death of true Ameicanism. Malcolm spoke of Patrick Henry. Remember him?

No - the whole idea of this is for Obama to establish himself as a Christian. It is something that I care nothing about. I don't care if he worships cats or dogs. I care about what he is going to do about ending these senseless never-ending wars.

They are simply using Dr. King for their own purposes.
The last thing they want is someone to be inspired by King to begin street demonstrations - and other non-violent disruptive behavior - until our rights are restored - or until the troops are withdrawn from Iraq.

The last thing they want is to honor a revolutionary.
That would be too American.


UNITY (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:15:06 PM EST

is a word that will be so worn out by November we'll have to remove it from the dictionary, or change its meaning.

Is it to try to pretend that the gaping hole left by the democratic party members pushed away from the party this primary season is being closed by the loyal, and decent people who see the greatness.

: Heh (none / 0) (#47)
by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:16:55 PM EST

It's the new "change". I almost can't wait for the new catch word.

If there were actual unity, they wouldn't (5.00 / 0) (#56)
by Anne on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:45:08 AM EST

need to keep devising events and activities to prove it exists, to have to decree that it will exist.

I've started to think that "UNITY" stands for:

Uh,
Not
In
This
Year

If that acceptance speech on Thursday has religious overtones accompanied by the Obama Salute, it may mark the death of MY Democratic Party.

Can I tell you how much it ticks me off that it's also my birthday that day?

Do you think (5.00 / 0) (#58)
by Bluesage on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:41:04 AM EST

Anyone will talk about churches being the most segregated places in our country every Sunday?

I don't have any idea what the "new" Democratic Party is thinking these days but I know they no longer represent me and the progressive values I believe in. Trying to appeal to the religious right and promoting faith based anything now trumps everything including working for the betterment of ALL people. But hey, if Obama can convince everyone he is a Christian and next week is all about him then we should all just STFU I guess.

Is there a list of participating ministers? (none / 0) (#23)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:04:24 PM EST

Watch this video as DNCC CEO Rev. Leah Daughtry talks about the first ever Convention interfaith gathering -- the first official event of the 2008 Democratic National Convention. See how you can join delegates, elected officials, clergy from many communities of faith and special musical guests as we gather in a spirit of unity on Sunday

The video doesn't say who will be there. Obama has many religious leaders as his close friends and I wonder if any will be there. If an empty bus shows up, but hundreds of people come out from under, we'll see the Unity, for sure.

come on now... (none / 0) (#24)
by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:04:42 PM EST

There is a big difference between legislating religious dogma and honoring the role that churches played in the civil rights movement.

I see this breakfast as the latter.

But, that still doesn't excuse Obama's expansion plans for faith based initiatives.

I see your point but (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by ap in avl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:10:37 PM EST

there's a history here. Much like "playing the race card". If Obama had not actively worked so hard with the faith-based initiatives, the private meeting with the evangelicals, the Joshua Generation stuff, etc this could be seen purely as an homage to the role of religion in the civil rights movement.

Religion and race have become a meme that has been exploited throughout this campaign, imho.


Totally agree -- (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Josey on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:38:04 PM EST

but also agree with Tim (above) that the event is basically -
>>>honoring the role that churches played in the civil rights movement.


You and Tim are right (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by ap in avl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:50:48 PM EST

Maybe I'm just too sensitive about the way religion has been injected into this campaign. I do see your point.


: i totally agree (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:58:18 PM EST

with you on all of Obama's other mixing of religion into the process. It is way out of bounds. And, I can see why you would feel the way you do about this bk'fast at first glance because of all the other stuff.
I will never undertsnad why the religious zealots can't just be happy to lead their own lives by their own values and leave the rest of us alone.
I'm perfectly capable of leading a good moral life without joining an organized religion.

That still doesn't belong at the (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:00:42 PM EST

Democratic Convention. If religious leaders want to gather in celebration of the anniversary, they can do that away from the government convention intended to use its time and resources designing a party platform and selection the nominee for POTUS.

Foot in the door concept.


if this were actually intended (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:07:44 PM EST

to be a NOMINATING convention, the Obama campaign wouldn't be scripting it, would they?

This is nothing more that a 4 day campaign commercial. And, that is the reason network TV doesn't cover it anymore except for selected prime time speaches.


Are you okay with that? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:17:29 PM EST

I want the party to continue as a democratic organization behaving democratically.

Obama didn't get the pledged delegates he needed to win this nomination, and the SDs haven't voted yet.

Is that the democracy you want?


: no, not ok with it (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:22:45 PM EST

and then couldn't you also (5.00 / 0) (#37)
by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:09:05 PM EST

argue that there is no reason to have Tuesday night honoring the anniversary of women getting voting rights?


: Haven't heard about it, but (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:21:21 PM EST

voting rights is more closely aligned to the convention purpose than religious leaders celebrating their role in anything.
It would be nice, though, if the entire country celebrated both anniversaries. Have you heard of anything being planned for them?

And how about the role (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:32:34 PM EST

many of the churches have played in denying those same civil rights to women, to the gay/lesbian community.

While SOME leaders of the civil rights movement happened to be ministers or priests doesn't equate to the churches being the ones leading the movement. In fact, many churches remained against integration for years. In fact many today still oppose inter racial socializing. And many, many churches do not view women as equals nor do they openly welcome gay people.

So honestly it seems like hypocrisy to say we should honor the role SOME churches played in the civil rights movement while ignoring the role some churches played in trying to prevent in the past and in the present civil rights being given to all.


: Good Points! (none / 0) (#49)
by hairspray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:43:45 PM EST

The DNC UNITY breakfast (none / 0) (#36)
by codekeyguy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:07:52 PM EST

So now this "Religious interfaith" breakfast has aggrivated the athiests. They weren't included in this RELIGIOUS INTERFAITH meeting. Go figure. I always thought that to be included in ANY "religious" event, you had to have some RELIGION?

No candidate would be caught dead at an (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:14:11 PM EST

Atheist Breakfast. That's the point.


I doubt even I have the guts (5.00 / 0) (#54)
by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:19:51 AM EST

to be caught dead at an atheist breakfast :)


: Ha - me neither! (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by ruffian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:29:46 AM EST

I'm not particularly faithful, but why take chances? ;-)

Supporting the separation of church and state (5.00 / 4) (#40)
by ap in avl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:17:03 PM EST

equals atheism?

That's a big leap. Maybe some of us want to protect our system of government from the influence of organized religion. And protect our practice of religion from government intervention. Just a thought.....


Not the point (5.00 / 0) (#52)
by lentinel on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:37:56 AM EST

It's supposed to be a "unity" event.

One would assume that the idiots in charge were interested in uniting the democratic party.

They are not. They are interested in pandering to the religious right.

If they were interested in uniting democrats, they would leave religion out of the event. Religion has never been a uniting force.

The issues the democrats should be discussing should be war and peace - ending a confrontational foreign policy, how to help the millions of Americans who need health care, how to take care of veterans of these "dumb" wars and so forth.

They should also be talking about how to get religion out of our politics, instead of proclaiming how Christian they are.
