More Faith Events Added to Democratic Convention

Yesterday the DNCC announced an Unity-Faith Breakfast in addition to the Interfaith event that will open the Convention.

Today, they announced interfaith caucus events. In addition, the release says:

Senator Obama is a committed Christian, and he believes that people of all faiths have an important place in American life,” said Joshua Dubois, Obama For America Director of Religious Affairs. “He's proud to work with the Democratic National Convention Committee on a Convention that fully engages people of faith in dialogue, celebration and prayer. We are honored that so many religious leaders are reaching across partisan and ideological lines in this Convention to address the values that matter to Americans."

Every night, the release continuess, the convention will begin with an invocation and end with a benediction. It stresses the evangelicals included [More...]

Each night of the Convention, the official program will begin with an invocation and end with a benediction delivered by a national faith leader or an individual who is active in their local faith community. Among the group selected to deliver these opening and closing prayers are a Republican pastor of a leading Evangelical church in central Florida, a major young Evangelical leader, a nun from a diocese in Cleveland and a Methodist couple, both ordained ministers from Arvada, CO.

Update: Commenters here assume Muslims are being left out of the interfaith events. That's not true. If you follow the links, particularly the one to the Interfaith event that opens the Convention Sunday night, you will see:

Interfaith Gathering to Open Convention Week on Sunday, Aug. 24th, featuring Local Clergy Imam Abdur-Rahim Ali, Rabbi Steve Foster, Reverend Lucia Guzman, University of Colorado Student Kathryn Ida.

My point is not that certain religions are being excluded, it's to highlight the emphasis of the convention on religion as a whole -- and, in particular, the reach-out to evangelicals.

< DNCC Adds Nine More Speakers to Tuesday Night | Final Report on Injustices in 2008 State Caucuses vs. Primaries >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh goody (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    (rolling eyes).

    I would sure like to reopen the discussion (none / 0) (#118)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:44:02 PM EST
    of yesterday with all those who excused the unity breakfast as a mere celebration of what the churches did to assist MLK in his quest.

    Foot is in the door.

    This could be the loudest of all the reasons why Obama will not get a bump after the convention.


    Avoiding the Muslim label (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    This a positive way of doing that--instead of saying I'm not a Muslim, he says he is a Christian.

    Does this mean Muslims are not welcome? (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by stefystef on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:42:13 PM EST
    Why such the emphasis on evangelical and fundamentalists?  I thought the Democrats was a party that promoted secular government.

    Obama is a PanderBear.


    It is also who Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    And given the attack that Obama is an unknown, the Democrats had better define Obama first and favorably--or let the Republicans do that unfavorably the following week.

    evangelical or fundamentalist? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:50:58 PM EST
    Labels (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:56:36 PM EST
    clearly not a fundamentalist.  

    And Evangelical depends on the definition.  The Pew poll this year shows "Evangelicals" as comprising at least 25% of the population.....

    ....and there are different kinds of Evangelicals....


    They are voting for McCain (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Prabhata on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:58:07 PM EST
    Every poll confirms it.

    Of course they are (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    The idea is to lessen the motivation to organize against him and to garner a few votes along the way.

    Appparently, Obama leads among those who self-identify as "born again," as Carter did.


    Well, if Obama can (none / 0) (#35)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:06:52 PM EST
    stay away from Playboy and not give an interview about having lust in one way or another the evangelicals just might just buy it.

    But then again, I see the GOP running an ad where Obama proclaims his Christianity, and they cut to one Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  This would coincide because the good Reverend has a book coming out this fall.  And since his ego is about as big as Invesco Field, surely he will be out promoting it.

    Battle of the Network Christians!


    Are you saying this is one big pander? (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    Unequivocally and postivitely.  I have a very devout Christian friend here who was very open to voting for Obama.  But when he said that bitter gun religion comment, she told me, "A real Christian would never say something like that because we seek God out of our belief, love and devotion, not because we are bitter."  

    Lotsa Christians may think like that.


    No, because Obama (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:17:10 PM EST
    is a Christian....Nothing phony about it....

    This is snark, right? (none / 0) (#167)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    It will not matter (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    The NRA is just chomping at the bit to define this guy.  I have read that they have millions waiting to run ads against him.

    Obama's pandering will get him no where fast. People like Dobson are already firing up the troops against McCain. Dobson tells the evangelicals to not liken themselves to AA's who Dems take for granted.

    I have an uncle that is a white, middle-aged, conservative, evangelical Baptist.  And in his church, their pastor is telling them that Barack's middle name means "the destroyer".

    If the evangelicals do not vote R, they sure as heck aren't go over to Obama.  Dobson and that gang will make SURE of that.  

    Man I am such a NOBODY in the realm of politics and even I can SEE that.  Wonder if that little group of almost 18 million voters who went HRC could use a little TLC to vote for BHO?


    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:21:30 PM EST
    Someone should ask the pastor what his first name means.

    Motivation (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:20:23 PM EST
    The religious right is not as motivated....Rick Warren is far more influential with the voters that Obama has a chance at--and I would label them (as reductionist as it may be) as casual Evangelicals--so, if he gives Obama some cover as he probably will today, then Obama has helped to blunt the attack.

    Isn't this airing at the same time (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:30:40 PM EST
    as the Olympics?

    Yup (3.00 / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:33:54 PM EST
    But Warren and Obama and McCain--that's a draw.  The fight for tickets ($2,000 a pop) was fierce.......

    And MSNBC (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:35:15 PM EST
    has at least five hours of live coverage planned...It had been carrying the Olympics....

    Gotta (none / 0) (#156)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:16:37 PM EST
    have a link for that.  I am surprised no one has called you on it.

    Maybe its because we all know how to Google (none / 0) (#164)
    by tree on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    Three words "NRA Ads Obama". 66500 hits. Top one here:

    NRA to target Obama in ad blitz


    I was talking about (none / 0) (#177)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:45:39 AM EST
    I have an uncle that is a white, middle-aged, conservative, evangelical Baptist.  And in his church, their pastor is telling them that Barack's middle name means "the destroyer".

    You want a link (none / 0) (#186)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:10:43 PM EST
    to something some obscure pastor said in his church?
    This may come as a surprise to you, but all words spoken in life do not appear by magic on the internet.

    If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound even if it never gets a mention on someone's blog.


    If you'd like (none / 0) (#190)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:15:15 PM EST
    I will give you his contact info(/s).

    If this is what Obama is... (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    ...then he will lose on it.  The American people need him to define himself on ISSUES, on how he DIFFERS from St. John McCain-Bush, not on how he is similar.  And so far, he has failed miserably on that score.  He has simply reinforced the notion that there is little difference, on issues, between the parties.  Not exactly a recipe for change.    

    Problem (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:43:42 PM EST
    is that they've already been defining Obama. Obama has been negatively defining himself for quite a while now. And the GOP has been helping him along.

    The answer to your question is (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:21:11 PM EST
    "yes". It does mean Muslims are not welcome. At least not in the front seats of the bus where anyone can see them.

    But the athiests and agnostics will not be allowed onto the bus at all.

    It's funny how the Republicans have been trying to change their image by having people of color up on stage with them and the Democrats are trying to change their image by having all the Christians on stage with them.

    Just think what it's going o be like at the White House next year.


    Obama has done damage (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:24:16 PM EST
    to all forward thinking Muslims when he listed his being a Muslim on his 'Fight The Smears' website.  Many Muslims were like, "Is it a smear to be called Muslim?"

    I was absolutely thrilled that Obama was called on that.  Pretty offensive if you ask me.  I may not be a religious person (recovering Catholic here), but if someone called my belief system a smear, I would TOTALLY take exception.  Maybe that's why BHO's numbers are down in MN.


    Is this a surprise? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    I said from the beginning that calling out Kerrey (the other one) for using the whole name of Senator Obama, i.e. Barack Hussein Obama, as a bigot was a mistake.  The Obama campaign should have made it clear that Senator Obama has no reason to deny his middle name, who his father is, and why, in America, it is not acceptable to deny one's heritage because of religious discrimination.  He should have made it clear it was his name and he wore it proudly.  Sure he would never get die hard evangelicals who hate anyone not like them, but he won't anyway.

    But this is the same campaign who considers being compared to a black man and insult and racist, as if there is something wrong with the accomplishments of someone like Jesse Jackson.  THAT is when I started losing any hope of being able to support this candidate, other than possibly holding my nose and voting.

    This thing tonight is an insult, a mistake and a very slippery slope.


    Believe me (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    Every Muslim in America is noticing.

    Which will bring us back to Rev Wright (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:11:58 PM EST
    and the church he says he was a member of for 20 years. Quite frankly I was almost as apalled at Rev. Wright's version of "Christianity' as I have been at Dobson's.

    Almost? (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:30:30 PM EST
    I, for one, do not 'believe' that Obama is a Christian...a converted believing Christian.

    Just don't buy it.


    I don't seem to (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:40:28 PM EST
    recall the part where Jesus told us to ridicule people or condemn them for their skin color. I miust of missed Bible study that day.

    Whaaa? (none / 0) (#166)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:05:51 PM EST
    You think I'm talking about skin color?

    Now that you mention it though, the Mormons (until recently) had a view on that subject.

    I am not a believerperson, so I have no view of it relative to religion.  Nothing to defend...


    Perhaps calwaltz (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by tree on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:04:43 PM EST
    was referring to Rev. Wright?? I agree it makes no sense as a response to something you said.

    Frankly I don't care (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:41:24 PM EST
    whether he is a Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist.  It's should be private.  When I was a little kid and such a big deal was made of JFK being catholic, I didn't get it.  Even at 14 I was under the impression that one's religion was private.  I went to catholic schools and back then even the nuns never wanted the state interfering with religion and vice versa.  

    My how things have changed and not for the best.  We have literally regressed over five decades.


    And what would he be then? (1.00 / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    He's (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    an adherent of Black Liberation Theology would be my best guess. It's an offshoot of Christianity.

    Absolutely no evidence of that (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    Republican talking point being true.  No red states, no blue states, but the United States of America--how one can get Black Liberation theology out of that is anyone's guess.

    Guilt by association is not an attractive trait and is generally thought to be uncharacteristic of progressives.


    You (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    aren't familiar with TUCC and Rev. Wright then. The church adheres to black liberation theology. The RNC talking points are that the church is "anti american" and "racist". Obama CHOSE to go to that church and it tells us what he believes. That or he's really a shyster who used the church for it's political influence.

    No, most religious folk (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:18:02 AM EST
    are cafeteria believers...at least in the U.S.

    Given what Obama has said and done, there is no basis to say he is for Black Liberation Theology.


    TUCC Is, Though (none / 0) (#184)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    But I don't see this as a problem. As defined on the web site, it's not the scary sounding belief system the term might imply. And voters who are bothered by this are going to be scared off by other things about Obama anyway--his race or the nonsense implications about his heritage.

    From their web site:


    "...The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology."

    "Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology."

    "* African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior."


    We should have supported Liberation (none / 0) (#187)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    Theology in Central America....We, however, did not.

    Agreed (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:17:54 PM EST
    Part of my tolerance of the current politics/religion bond is my anticipation that some day progressive religious folk will return in droves to the arena. We need them.

    Let me ask (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    you this then? There are plenty of other churches who don't adhere to black liberation theology. He could have chose one of them could he not? Like I said above, he either agrees with their theology or joined for their political influence in the AA community. It's something that he's never answered.

    He probably joined (none / 0) (#191)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:25:40 PM EST
    for a combination of reasons--social grounding among them....It was by all accounts a prominent church in Chicago....He was in his 20s and looking for an African American community in the Midwest, where is mother's family was from....He joined a prominent church in Chicago that was helping the poor...

    And, it was not all G-D America all the time.

    Whatever ills were in Wright have not afflicted Obama--looking at what Obama has said and done...


    An opportunist. (none / 0) (#165)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:03:00 PM EST
    Yes, exactly (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by nell on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:41:07 PM EST
    A huge problem I had with President Bush beyond the fact that he supports republican policies I do not agree with is his excessive mixing of religion and politics and his association with some very controversial religious leaders. It bothers me when politicians on the right try to mix religion and politics, and it bothers me just as much when politicians on the left try to mix religion and politics. And Bush certainly mixed with his share of right wing pastors, but I don't really see how their version of Christianity is any better or worse than Wright's....I think all of these things kind of happen around a circle. The far right and far left of political ideology as it mixes with religion are actually quite close together. Wright may not hate gays the way some of the right wing pastors do, but it certainly seems that he dislikes white people and thinks their only purpose is to oppress minorities, for example (US of the KKK-A). The hating and the blame some other group for all the world's problems present in both ideologies is really quite similar.

    Muslims are included in other events (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    Don't assume Muslims are being left out of the interfaith events. That's not true. If you follow the links, particularly the one to the Interfaith event that opens the Convention Sunday night, you will see:

    Interfaith Gathering to Open Convention Week on Sunday, Aug. 24th, featuring Local Clergy Imam Abdur-Rahim Ali, Rabbi Steve Foster, Reverend Lucia Guzman, University of Colorado Student Kathryn Ida.

    My point is not that certain religions are being excluded, it's to highlight the emphasis of the convention on religion as a whole -- and, in particular, the reach-out to evangelicals.


    Since Obama seems to (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    stand more on ceremony than substance, he may think that this action will pull it off with the evangelicals.

    Time will tell.  But it didn't work for Lieberman in 2004.  AND he didn't have the ties to the kind fo church Obama went to.

    I heard Newt Gingrich tell Fox News that they were hoping for Obama to be the Dem nominee because "it would be sad to see all that Rev Wright footage go to waste."

    Oh. My. Gosh.


    oops! (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:49:30 PM EST
    Lieberman in 2000!  We've lost so many in a row I lose count/what year!

    So... (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by TomStewart on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:38:51 PM EST
    There is a religious test for the presidency? What happened to the separation of Church and State? I know it's a silly question, but injecting religion into politics doesn't have a great track record...

    What's really funny about this... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:39:00 PM EST
    is I know this atheist couple who support BO because they are certain he is a closet atheist.  I have no idea why they believe this.  

    thanks for the chuckle! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:42:03 PM EST
    that's def a new one :)

    I guess he's really good at letting people project what they want on him. I must be broken because I can't seem to get him to be what I want . . . .


    For the same reason I (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:35:21 PM EST
    think so.

    His Christianity is not believable.

    Follow the bouncing ball and connect the dots.

    There is no evidence that I can see that he is a believer.  How cautiously he talks around it when questioned.  Tonight's 'forum/non-debate' may be revealing...watch him stammer and uh stutter as he searches, searches for the 'right answer.'

    Hope he spent some vacation time rehearsing plausible responses but he's not THAT good an actor, actually.


    I know plenty of Christians whose (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:41:37 PM EST
    Christianity isn't believable.

    There is no faster way to get a big audience than to get inside the churches of the country. I think Obama joined the church because of the network it provided to him, and he stayed there because of the political and financial connections he acquired.

    I have no idea what he believes in for his faith, though. Nor do I care. I strongly advocate for separation of church and state.


    Yeah, no I've thought that, the Chrisitan bit (none / 0) (#174)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:59:59 AM EST
    is essential in Chicago politics.  I wouldn't say atheist though, maybe just run of the mill Christiany/Ignostic like lots of people.  My sister says not so fast.  She says no one thought Bush was a believable Christian and it turned out he thought he was divined by Christ to be President.  She says that's Obama.  Who knows?  I like my pols to not wear their religiosity on their sleeves.  Hillary creamed him in the Catholic vote, and won evangelicals in states like Tennessee, and she did it without screaming "I'm a believer".  Pols can do that by simply respecting the voters and speaking to the issues, like poverty, economic justice, the environment.  

    Well that's just silly..... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    ...I have no idea what anyone actually believes. Even when they tell you they might be lying to themselves. But that is one of the silliest reasons I've ever heard for supporting a candidate. LOL.

    I know, but they are dead serious about it. (none / 0) (#175)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:01:51 AM EST
    What I always wonder is if you are an atheist, why on earth would you want a closet as Pres?  Like closet gay pols are almost always absolutely the WORST on gay issues, because they are always trying to prove they are not gay, think Lindsay Graham.

    I feel like I'm going back to grade school (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    when I was required to take bible classes and memorize verses once a week.

    With the awful rumors still being repeated about Obama, I can understand that they want to emphasize that he is a Christian but the people who don't believe that won't be changing their minds.

    I looked for the email a "friend" sent (none / 0) (#105)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:21:35 PM EST
    me but I guess I deleted it. I mean the rumors that he is a Muslim now, etc. I don't know of the document you have seen. I have plenty of problems with Obama but I don't think the nasty emails and the new book written about him are necessary or justified.

    There is some form (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:22:45 PM EST
    that his stepfather filled out for him when he was in grade school in Indonesia.  Pretty much a yawner.

    Thanks Steve. I don't know how I missed that. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:29:48 PM EST
    I don't have any issues with his childhood...we don't get to make choices for ourselves then. I do have issues with some of his grownup decisions as I'm sure all of you know.

    Hee! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    I was just over at Amazon reading the reviews for the new book.  

    The reviews are totally split between 1's (awful book) and 5's (terrific book).  

    What's really funny though, is this:  You can look at other reviews the reviewer has written.  So, I've been clicking to look at their other reviews.  

    Some of the top "1" reviewers have never reviewed another book.  In fact, one had reviewed the game "Grand Theft Auto."  Another reviewed some musical thing about Sex & Depression.  Another had reviewed an iron (you know, the kind some voters wanted Hillary to use).  

    The few top "5" reviewers I clicked on appeared to be actual "book readers."  One had even reviewed the Kerry Swiftboat book written by the same man and had given that book a "1" but gave the Obama book a "5."

    I don't know what to think of all this but it certainly was entertaining.  ;-)  

    I don't plan to read the book.    


    I am for ecumenism, but am not comfortable (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by magnetics on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM EST
    with a Republican pastor at a Democratic national event.

    I suppose they are trying to inoculate Obama against attacks on his middle name.  Maybe the DNC should have thought of this before diving into the tank.

    I think it cuts two ways, both negative.  It offends church against state voters like myself, who have had enough religion in politics over the last 7 years; and it just makes him look silly, rushing to cover what he perceives to be a large and vulnerable spot on his butt.

    And putting too much attention on it will only (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:47:37 PM EST
    remind people of the particular church he attended for 20 years.

    Possible danger (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:52:15 PM EST
    but it will also highlight that Obama's religious beliefs are separate from and independent of other influences.

    What/which religious beliefs? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    His Christian beliefs (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:57:54 PM EST
    The Repug is probably one of the guys... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Shainzona on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:51:27 PM EST
    who now appears in BO's "I am a Christian...do you hear me...I AM A CHRISTIAN" commercial.

    Well, I'm Jewish so maybe that doesn't make me feel so warm and fuzzy.


    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:54:02 PM EST
    He has an ad about being a Christian?

    A 527 ad (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    that includes the minister who married Bush's daughter praises Obama--and makes a veiled referecne to McCain's less than stellar treatment of his first wife.

    That's awful. Wow. Ok. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    That's "new politics" I guess.

    It's put out by a group (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by byteb on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    named Matthew:25.

    Matthew 25? Scary. Ever read that passage? (none / 0) (#56)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:19:52 PM EST
    I checked their web page. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by byteb on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:28:42 PM EST
    although the group is called Matthew 25, according to their web page, they base their outreach on Matthew 25:40..whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me.

    Matthew 25:40 (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Nadai on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    It's "Whatever you do for..." not "to".

    Of course, considering how much more often religious nuts do to instead of do for, perhaps your version is more appropriate.


    I must have somewhere (none / 0) (#61)
    by byteb on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:21:56 PM EST
    along the line, but for the life of me, I couldn't tell you what it said.

    (What does it say?)


    It's about the social aspects of Christianity (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:32:54 PM EST
    For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.

    It is meant to emphasize that Democrats stand for the things that people of faith should care about -- not just abortion or gay marriage.


    BUT - it's a religious group put... (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Shainzona on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:11:25 PM EST
    together for a POTUS candidate.  I have no problem with doing unto others...I wish we all do/did.

    BUT this is a political organization to sell a POTUS candidate to fundies!


    It's a 527. (none / 0) (#116)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    No different from other 527s--all of which have a particular area of focus.  This one happens to be focused on emphasizing Obama's faith.  It's not running his campaign--or even an official part of the campaign.  Obama is encouraging people not to give to them (not Matthew 25 specifically--all 527s).

    I just did a quick google (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    thanks. :) (none / 0) (#75)
    by byteb on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:30:25 PM EST
    I First Saw This Ad By Them (none / 0) (#123)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    at Politico, but I also found it at another web site here:

    Obama Ad

    It features religious people but they're more soft peddling Obama's strong family ties etc.

    I'm not sure how effective it is but I like the way it reclaims 'family' from the religious right.

    I think I heard it will only (or was produced to be) be shown at the Rick Warren thing tonight.


    I thought of the Dema as the (none / 0) (#176)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:24:49 AM EST
    we are all human Party.  So I detest any ad that goes after McCain's divorce.  It's utterly repugnant.

    Maybe You're Referring To The Other Ad (none / 0) (#179)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:34:10 AM EST
    that people were discussing above?

    I never saw that one.

    The one I linked to has no reference to McCain, divorce or otherwise. It is reinforcing the image of Obama's own personal family values as evidenced by his marriage etc.

    I agree with you. I'm not interested in McCain's first marriage or the circumstances of his divorce.


    Yup - that group he put together... (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Shainzona on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    to "speak" to fundies - I think it's called Matthew 25 Group.

    The ad is so disgusting, it's unbelievable.


    I Googled (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Nadai on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:43:18 PM EST
    The Matthew 25 Network was started by Mara Vanderslice, John Kerry's "Faith Outreach Director", and has endorsed Obama.  It appears to have been set up specifically to support Obama.

    According to an information sheet given out a PAC fundraiser, the group's purpose is to target "religious communities that are key to electoral success for Senator Obama, including Catholics, moderate evangelicals, Hispanic Catholics and Protestants."

    The other group Obama started is the Joshua Generation Project.  Pretty soon I'm going to need a crib sheet to keep up with all of Obama's religious groups.

    Almost all of the articles listed under the "Press" section are about him, not the group itself.


    Is the Matthew 25 group (none / 0) (#103)
    by Nadai on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:19:24 PM EST
    his, too?  He's got that Joshua group thing that seems to be aimed at riling up young evangelicals, but I thought the Matthew 25 people were independent.

    I should probably Google that.


    So I was a Dem but now cannot be (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:33:39 PM EST
    a Dem, because of what this campaign did to the party.

    I still am a Christian, hard as it has been at times to be in that tent with some of the Repub types.

    But after this convention, this campaign, I may have to be an agnostic.  I feel like everything I knew has gone rightward.  


    Just got the text message (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by ap in avl on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    God for VP

    Looks like it's official

    With all this inclusion going on (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by Rhouse on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    can't we just change the symbol of the Democratic Party to an elephant mounting a donkey and get it over and done with.

    We Need High Priests (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    Almighty God Himself has appointed our new leader. Predicting an eclipse would drive the point home. Be back later, I think I am having another epiphany...

    Such diversity (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    among those giving the invocations!  Multiple denominations of Christianity!

    when i first started reading, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cpinva on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:53:00 PM EST
    i just naturally assumed this to be about the republican convention.

    imagine my surprise. NOT!

    where the hell is franz kafka, when he's really needed? oh, wait, he's still dead!

    darn it!

    Obama is mistaken (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Prabhata on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    The fact that his step-father was Muslim and the fact that some of his papers as a child identified his religion as Muslim, and the fact that according to Univision, Obama recited the call to prayer in Arabic to NYT Kristof, will not put behind the rumor that Obama was raised Muslim.  I don't care one way or another, because religion is not important, but to mix religion with politics simply to bury a rumor, will not help or bring right wing Christian voters to Obama.

    But white voters in (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    Ohio who are Democrats.....

    will be less concerned about (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:08:51 PM EST
    his professions of faith then what he brings to their economic well being.

    That's what you would think... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    but many voted for Bush--twice.

    and they voted for him (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:17:27 PM EST
    because of Kerry's faith? I think not. Do you really think that Obama's Reverend for almost two decades version of Christianity is going to play well in Ohio? That's what he's opening himself up to. Quite frankly he'd be smarter to go another route. He's missed some opportunities. He ought to be talking to Ohioans about how he plans on getting them back to economic prosperity and reminding them that the "national security" party screwed up royally to the tune of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

    We Have A Couple People On This Very Thread (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    bringing up some alleged Indonesian/Muslim identity of Obama's as a young child, as if it's something real or relevant to him today, to his candidacy or presidency.

    Doesn't that suggest part of the reason his campaign and the convention are bringing religion into the picture? Not to mention that religion is already in the picture for many Americans and that the Republicans have reaped benefits from wrapping themselves in a faux Christian mantle for decades now.

    I'm not a religious person. I have no problem with this. In fact, I welcome the idea that progressive Christians may finally re-frame the discourse from the judgmental/punitive Old Testament focus to the compassionate and generally more humane New Testament. If we are going to have Christianity in the political mix--and for a long time now, we have--that's a long overdue course adjustment.


    Absolutely not (none / 0) (#132)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    Nothing gives a legitimate reason for injecting this much religion into the Democratic National Convention. This event is political, and this country divides church and state.

    These rumors for most, beliefs of others, over Obama's religious or national attachments has nothing to do with the DNC, and these events will do nothing to change the minds of people who think they know something about him no matter how false it is.


    I Prefer Separation of Church and State (none / 0) (#152)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:47:51 PM EST
    Not that we've ever had that in my lifetime. There have long been pragmatic collaborations between the state and religious groups in providing social services, for example.

    But I long for the days when once again NO ONE is talking about their religious beliefs in the political arena, because I remember when that was the norm.

    But it's there now, whether you or I support it or not. I'd rather the DNC ratchet back some of this religious showmanship, frankly. But if it proves at all effective in countering the toxic sewage some people are spewing at Obama and helps him get elected, I have no problem with it.

    I believe he's a person of faith. I also believe this is political showmanship and I don't think the two are mutually exlusive.


    Okay (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:38:06 PM EST
    the 1992 GOP convention was a great success wasn't it with Pat Robertson having a prominent place?

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:41:26 PM EST
    Is that really your argument?

    So, I guess the Republicans have kept religion out of their discourse since then and that's how they  won Congress in the '90's and W' re-election in 2004?

    And it played absolutely no part in the 'Reagan Revolution' etc.

    I've never suggested religion would miraculously win the election for the Dems. I'm saying ceding issues of faith identity to the Repubs and not even trying to re-frame them in a progressive manner has done damage to the Dems electorally.


    Shorter (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:33:08 PM EST
    you: if you can't beat them join them right? Do you realize that the whole political religious movement was decimated with the Terri Schiavo incident?

    You are talking about the past. Yes, all that worked in the past. However, people are moving away from fusing church and state hence McCain actually doing better than Obama in a lot of states.


    Pragmatic Me (none / 0) (#180)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:43:03 AM EST
    vs. idealistic me.

    I wish I shared your certainty that the Schiavo atrocity jettisoned the influence of the religious right. I'm not sure that it did.

    Religious people have stood in the forefront of progressive change in this country for centuries, in abolitionism, civil rights, anti war mobilization, the environment and in women's and children's rights. Not to mention their place in the contemporary tensions around immigration.

    I'd rather the need for candidates' over identification with faith would fade away. But I have no problem at all with the Dem party working to empower progressive people of faith to step up and be heard, especially when they can counter the distortion of religion as a right wing talking point.


    No, they voted for him (none / 0) (#62)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    , at least in part, because of Bush's faith--or professed faith.  Kerry, in this case, is more like McCain--he wasn't comfortable speaking about his faith or competing for "values" voters.

    Hard to be comfortable (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    speaking about your faith when the cardinal (or was it the bishop?) suggested that Kerry couldn't take communion, should be excommunicated re abortion votes and shunned by Catholics who were told not to vote for him.

    I wouldn't bring it up either...

    Damn.  This religious crap is a minefield and Obama and the Dem leadership are taking the country further and further into dangerous territory.

    Hillary would never promote this...go along with some of it, probably...use it?  Never.


    It was a bishop (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:47:58 PM EST
    the bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin, then -- and now of St. Louis, thank heavens.  We were glad to see the guy go.

    Anyway, that means that the interdiction only had effect in his bishopric, i.e., La Crosse.  He tried to get other bishops on board but they ignored him, as I recall.


    And (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:36:48 PM EST
    the problem is that Obama is a day late and a dollar short in this issue. Evangelicals are a spent political movement post Schiavo. Obama could get many of these voters like Clinton did by appealing to their economic sense instead of using religious pandering. Hillary was getting all these voters because she spoke their language. He's doing the same thing that the GOP does to AA voters.

    Obama is trying to get permission from the (1.00 / 0) (#137)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:42:52 PM EST
    country to inject the TUCC commitments and doctrine into what his Administration would put in high priority.

    Rev Moss (Wright's Jr Rev) will tell everyone about it on Thursday at 1:00 pm.

    That surprise VP choice.....Jeremiah Wright.


    So one would hope (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:13:38 PM EST
    but Thomas Frank has a point....

    If the issue is economics, then Obama should have no problem....But he first has to cross a cultural threshold.....


    and you think (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:18:36 PM EST
    Rev. Wright will get him past the cultural barrier? I don't.

    No, of course not (2.00 / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    Wright is already out there....

    Might as well accentuate what he has in common with most voters, which is his faith (separate from Wright).....


    You really think (none / 0) (#108)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:31:20 PM EST
    the right is done with Wright? That's pretty naive.

    Did you read what I wrote? (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    I said that Wright is already out there.  He will be an issue no matter what Obama does.....If Obama never says one iota about his faith, Wright will still be out there...

    So, there is no downside in talking about his faith, because Wright is already an issue...



    Obama isn't done with Wright, (none / 0) (#139)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:44:13 PM EST
    either. To think he is will be at our peril.

    Ummm...right... (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    Maybe that's what should be held at Unesco Stadium to make sure that more paths are represented...

    Beyond triangulation and (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    all the other memes spoken by the Huffpo and Kos crowd on Clinton.  Talk about pandering.  As a secular humanist, this just SOLIDIFIES my move away from the Democratic party.

    The Dems are becoming everything they were fighting against with Bushco.  WHY is this NOT being mentioned?  I am sure that Donnie McClurkin, Obama's gay-bashing vote getter from SC will be there in one form or fashion.

    Gays who support Obama might as well become Log Cabin Republicans.  At this point, I see NO visible difference from the two.

    None. What. So. Freaking. Ever.

    And seems counterproductive (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ap in avl on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:11:46 PM EST
    I can't imagine that such transparent pandering to the religious right will garner any votes but even if it does I would think they would be more than offset by the loss of support from those who are angered by this injection of religion into politics.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    once he puts Kaine on the ticket, it can be the signal to the rightie Dogma nuts that he is willing to toss women and gays under the bus for their vote.

    Meet the "new" Democxratic party, it looks alot like the "old" GOP party. Isn't it wonderful?


    The old GOP (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    party, I believe, were more progressive.  Socially/liberterian liberal, fiscally conservative.  Correct me anyone if I'm wrong.

    You're wrong (none / 0) (#97)
    by Claw on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    Unless you mean "old" as in Lincoln.

    Who's wrong? (none / 0) (#126)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:16:50 PM EST
    See Roosevelt, Teddy or Eisenhower, Dwight for more recent examples.

    Oh okay (none / 0) (#169)
    by Claw on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:47:33 PM EST
    I was actually just making a joke...I didn't realize you sincerely meant to pursue this.  The republican party you're remembering died quite a while ago.  The figures you listed are, it's true, more recent than Lincoln, but all this hand wringing and calling the dems indistinguishable from the repubs is (in large part) how we ended up with Dubya for 8 years.
    The greatest trick the republicans ever pulled was getting the media and the nation to buy into the myth that republicans are pretty much the same as democrats.  It causes real progressives to vote for 3rd party candidates with absolutely no shot, and helps middle of the road folks vote for the person they like best.  I realize Obama is not a popular figure here, but most of his reaching-across-the-aisle BS rhetoric is an attempt to appropriate that myth, making it work for a democrat...a la Bill Clinton.

    The Dem party (none / 0) (#112)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    is exploiting the fissure between the religious right and the conservative right is how I see it. McCain is nothing but pragmatic, he knows that during an economic downturn his best hope to fix the budget is to cut social spending anyway. He also seems to signaling with Ridge to the conservative branch that the end of the religious right at the reins is nigh.

    My largest problem with appealing to the religious right is they are steeped in dogma and there is no way they would resist the urge to force that dogma on others. THAT isn't in keeping with Democratic ideals and it is an insult to some of the Democrats most loyal constituents.


    Agree. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by sarahfdavis on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    The "New Dem Party" just seems to want us back in the closet. No photos with Gavin Newsom please. I don't want the slightest whiff of anything homo near me. As a matter of fact, let me get my antihomo groove on with the black preacher man.I don't know what the fr*ck this guy is so yes, I do project something onto him. Rhymes with 'broad' and starts with an "F".

    Thinking cynically now... (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    Obama could, by default, start a whole new gay political movement. Just like Reagan did with his "I don't wanna know nothin' about no AIDS" attitude back in the 80's.

    OMG do NOT get me (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    started on that.  I start to cry out of anger and get so incredibly upset over that.  When Obama praised Reagan I was in complete shock.  Reagan didn't address the issue of HIV/AIDS until 25,000 Americans died of it.  Completely unexcusable.  Damn those Moral Majority types!

    The inaction of Reagan with regard to the AIDS epidemic can be completely tied to the type of people BHO is trying to pander to right now.  I cannot use enough profanity to display my disdain over this.

    Anytime someone mentions any praise of Reagan I just have to shut up and leave the room.  My blood pressure shoots way up.  I came out in 1984 (at 17) and will not let Obama try to shove me or my cohorts back in the closet.


    Well, if You Say So (none / 0) (#144)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:05:15 PM EST
    "Gays who support Obama might as well become Log Cabin Republicans.  At this point, I see NO visible difference from the two."

    You're entitled to support whoever you want. But there are differences between McCain (who the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed in the past and who they seem poised to endorse again, judging by their web site praising him) and Obama.

    Log Cabin

    Obama Pride

    They both oppose the so called federal marriage amendment. And they both oppose marriage for same sex couples.

    The Log Cabin site describes McCain as expressing support "for allowing gay couples access to some benefits short of a civil marriage license."  

    Obama supports "full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples...giving same sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples...including equal access to health insurance, employee benefits, and property and adoption rights...And would ensure that the 1100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions."

    McCain opposes hate crime legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

    Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes law to include crimes committed because of sexual orientation or gender identification.

    He also "...believes the Employment Non Discrimination Act should be extended to include sexual orientation and gender identity, and he sponsored legislation in the Illinois state senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

    McCain "supported Arizona's 2006 effort to ban marriage equality and roll back domestic partner benefits offered by some municipalities in the state."

    McCain supports continuation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. Obama advocates repealing it.


    You don't get it do you? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:37:05 PM EST
    Obama and Donnie McClurkin on stage to a thinking gay person would be like seeing Obama on stage with David Duke and you're black.

    They are both rabid bigots with hate-filled speech and a narrow and dangerous agenda.  Donnie McClurkin has said that gays " are full of pride and are akin to prostitutes."

    Obama and gays who support that kind of partnership are prostituting themselves and compromising their own integrity.

    Hence, the log cabin reference.  Being in TX, I meet a lot of self-loathing gays who are LCR.  I just concluded that they are happy in an abusive relationship.  I will NOT support a candidate who has an anti-gay agenda.  That's why I have said on this blog before that I will vote Cynthia McKinney.  Greens have an impressive platform concerning gay rights.

    Not interested in being relegated to second-class citizenship again ala Reagan.  I fought in the 80s and will be ready to fight again:  Obama OR McCain.


    Not Here to Tell Anyone to Vote For Obama (none / 0) (#181)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:54:42 AM EST
    Or for that matter, not to vote for McCain.

    Or McKinney.

    But you're right. I'm not getting it.

    When you continue to refer to Obama's 'anti gay agenda' in the face of information to the contrary about his stated policies and legislative voting history, I'm not getting it.

    Maybe in the GLBT community, Obama's association with McClurkin outweighs his advocacy of so many other important policies. So be it. I didn't think my sharing that info would change anyone's mind. I only wanted to dispute your mis-characterization of his positions.


    Okay, then get this: (none / 0) (#189)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:06:37 PM EST
    There's an old saying in Spanish:  "Dime con quien te juntas y te digo que eres."

    "Tell me who you hang around with and I will tell you who YOU are."


    For you I simply point to this post from (none / 0) (#154)
    by Rhouse on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:55:04 PM EST
    Angalachel's Journal ( scary smart ). The last line of this short post is most telling:
    It is as profound a change in this party as the Republican abondonment of its abolitionist roots.

    and here's the link to  the Alegre's Corner post that inspired it.

    So This Is About Changing A Term in the Platform? (none / 0) (#157)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:17:01 PM EST
    Am I reading that right?

    I'm not part of the LGBT community and I don't presume to tell ANYONE what they 'should' prefer to be called or how they 'should' prefer to be addressed.

    When I see someone's good record on rights stacked up against the wording(gay and lesbian couples out, same sex couples in) on a political party document, I say HOORAY that we have a candidate who is mostly on the right track and has a proven record of that, and okay, sorry the wording isn't better.

    If wording would take someone to McCain with his record on GLBT issues, well, that's...strange.


    And so you miss the point of the Anglachel (none / 0) (#158)
    by Rhouse on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:27:35 PM EST
    I'm disturbed by the langauge that replaced "gay and lesbian". Why? Because it talks about a particular condition for receiving rights, being a couple. I don't like or trust the retreat from defending individual rights, the inherent rights of human beings, independent of a particular institution or social construct besides that of citizen.

    I want to know which people decided to change this language. Was it a compromise? Was the original removal just an interim draft while new language was crafted or was it an actual attempt to remove defense of non-heterosexuals from the platform? The attachment of rights to marriage for anyone, not just same-sex couples (And where are bisexuals and transgendered citizens positioned in this rather rigid construct?) also leaves me suspicious.

    I am watching the retreat of the Democrats from civil rights as such. Women of all socio-economic statuses are having their reproductive control bargained away. GLBT rights are being rejected as "politically unviable" even as individual states push forward. The rights of working class and poor men and women, regardless of color, religion, sexual orentation, etc., such as a right to health care or Social Security, are treated as "bi-partisan" bargaining chips. Privacy rights? Fuhgeddaboudit...

    It's not the words themselves, it's the meanings behind them.

    You're Right (none / 0) (#182)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:12:29 AM EST
    I guess I did miss the point.

    I'm glad these conversations are taking place. I'm a voracious participant in face2face settings discussing the meanings and derivations and underpinnings of policy--not to mention demanding precision in language.

    I also want to see the candidate with the best record and stated policies elected. For me, the two things are not mutually exclusive.


    Sounds like people not "of faith" have (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:08:36 PM EST
    a lesser place in American life. Sorta insulting. I know the Dems think they have to be more faith-y to get votes, but they may only be getting them to replace the ones they are losing.

    And just think (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    They even didn't bother to pander to the Jews with this one. No rabbis invited.

    Ah (none / 0) (#77)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:30:35 PM EST
    There are rabbis as panelists for the discussions.

    So, they can take questions, they just can't (none / 0) (#122)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:02:34 PM EST
    ask any?

    S'ok, they can answer a question with a question. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:42:33 PM EST
    Heck (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    forget about "not of faith" and move into "mainline christianity". It seems we get no respect either. Don't feel left out.

    Blech. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:09:28 PM EST
    The Democratic Party is now the Party of the Jesus People.

    Count me out. Forever.

    Remember the map? (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    The United States of Canada and Jesusland?

    Gonna hafta redraw those borders again, looks like.


    But people of no faith... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    ...at least no faith in a supernatural being, well, screw you.

    Agnostics and atheists not welcome, no matter what these faithniks might suggest otherwise.

    More proof the Democratic Party is losing whatever legitimacy it once had.  After all, we're in a time, logically, of declining belief in organized religion.

    Oh well, I'm used to feeling this way, it's nothing new.  And this from the guy who graduated from the largest evangelical high school in the nation.

    What about the Apathists? (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:17:17 PM EST

    The simple theory of the apathist:

    Perhaps there is a god, or gods, or goddesses, or higher powers.
    Perhaps not.
    It's irrelevant.
    You do the most good you can with what you have.
    If you get help from somewhere else, that's just icing on the cake.

    I have NEVER (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    heard of that.  I LOVE that.  My philosophy in life is just the golden rule:  Do unto others as they would do unto you.

    My other philosophy is "Figure it out or suck it up"


    I just learned the word yesterday (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:22:50 PM EST
    from the Facebook profile of a prominent media person. I had to look it up.

    I've always heard (none / 0) (#101)
    by Nadai on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    that the "creed" of the apathetist is "Don't know, don't care."

    Where are the Catholics? (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:23:26 PM EST

    Confession (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:26:03 PM EST
    It's Saturday and they are getting ready for Mass tomorrow.

    LOL (none / 0) (#72)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    Sorry...I found them (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    a nun from Cleveland.  

    Wow, 3 Birds With One Stone! (none / 0) (#185)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    A Catholic, a woman and from a battleground state!

    Considering the (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    PUMA movement at this point, don't underestimate that move hasn't been made.  Man it is really sad how many Dems have moved away from the party and are actually working against the Dem nominee.  I have never seen anything like it.

    I was the biggest Deaniac ever.  I was in charge of Hispanic outreach for 11 states for his national campaign, but we all came together in 04 to support Kerry.  

    My old party is broken.  I doubt God himself or herself can fix it at this point.

    The Dem party (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:49:36 PM EST
    created this and they will continue to see this as long as they ignore the desires of the base constituency. It's okay to try and reach new voters. It ISN'T okay to jettison core ideals in order to do so or throw loyal voters under the bus in an effort to reach those new voters.

    The Reverend Moon (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:55:01 PM EST
    isn't speaking?

    Perhaps he is the 'surprise!' veep pick.

    He is, after all, the reincarnation of Jesus.

    And by the way...what about the RonLHubbardtypes?

    Seperation of Church and State, please (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by nell on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:36:49 PM EST
    I respect people who feel strongly about their faith and I admire how much so many people I know seem to get out of their faith. Personally, I am not religious and I am not Christian. I really resent the way Senator Obama has decided to turn the convention into a platform for religion. I do not like god mixing with my politics. Sometimes it feels like he is worse about this than McCain!

    I come from Australia, (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by camellia on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:43:22 PM EST
    and early in the Bush Maladministration my cousin emailed me "thank goodness we got the convicts instead of the Christians".  

    I see no reason to disagree.

    Beyond politics, there be policy clues here (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    ... and not just on the hot-button "social issues".

    Obama does not have faith in government to address public problems, nor faith in politics to select among government alternatives.

    He is Bush's compassionate conservative, who will depend on faith-based organizations to manage health, educations and welfare.

    Yes and this really is a (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:49:59 PM EST
    faith-based approach because as I pointed out numerous times when the Obama fan club were defending Obama's expansion of Bush's faith-based initiatives - there ain't no politician or police force in this country that is going to investigate a church or religious group who are mis-spending the government money they will get.  It is just too politically and legally dangerous.  So we will all have to have faith that these people will do the right thing with our tax dollars.  Extremely troubling imo.

    Where's the Wiccan???? Prejudice, much? Huh? (none / 0) (#33)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:06:05 PM EST


    shhhh (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    they dropped through that crack over there.

    ::points to crack in the "unity-faith" floor::

    Druids and Fam Trad witches went down there too...


    I agree--the NRA is very effective (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    in getting conservative Republicans elected....

    Atheists not included / opium of the people (none / 0) (#102)
    by Andreas on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    While the Obama campaign states "that people of all faiths have an important place in American life" the Obama campaign ignores or deliberately excludes atheists.

    As Karl Marx wrote in Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:

    Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man--state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

    Religion in America (none / 0) (#104)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    I keep hearing how religous we are as a country. And people throw out percentages of surveys. (But then survey also show 10% of country is gay and nobody panders to them!) I just wonder if people answer the survey with what they think people want to hear? (They chose to not enter into a religous discussion). In my little suburb we've had 3 churches close in the last 5 yrs because of attendance. It would be interesting to know what attendance is nationally. And what the trend really is over the last 5 yrs.

    The Pew Foundation tracks all of (none / 0) (#128)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:22:30 PM EST
    that information.  They have scores of surveys and information on religion in America if you really are interested.

    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#135)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:41:12 PM EST
    But I can do without the attitude. If I didn't want to know I wouldn't have asked the question. Your name is deceptive at best. If you're really interseted in selling Obama I would suggest you save the attitude for another site.

    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    I was honestly just directing you to what I think is the best centralized library of survey data about Americans' attitudes and involvement in religion in answer to the questions in your original comment.  I wasn't trying to offend you; and just for the record I'm not all that interested in Obama or his religious initiatives.  I'm a Democrat and have to live with him as the choice, but this mix of religion and politics among a good number of other things make that difficult most days for me.

    Oh and also when I said, (none / 0) (#163)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:54:17 PM EST
    "if you really want to", I meant that in the sense that your question had a lot of parts to it which probably would require review and synthesis of several different polls conducted over the past five to ten years to answer it - which is why I didn't just produce a link to one poll for your reference - that and I find linking hard to do on this site.

    I Don't Know About Pander (none / 0) (#145)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:29:45 PM EST
    But Obama has a good record with regards to LGBT issues.

    Also, your question made me think of how we are all part of MANY interest groups--you can be gay and female and religious and a veteran and a union member and a business owner or a retiree etc.

    So perhaps if a given candidate isn't 'pandering' to one facet of a person's identity, they hit a couple of others?


    TUCC (none / 0) (#130)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 03:26:29 PM EST
    Faith in 2009: How an Obama Administration will Engage People of Faith
    Time: 1:00 PM MT
    Location: Colorado Convention Center
    Moderator: Rev. Jim Wallis

    Rabbi David Saperstein
    Prof. John Dilulio
    Rev. Otis Moss, Jr.

    TUCC minister (AKA: Wright, Jr) will be telling us about a future under Obama. Why don't the democrats just go ahead and film the Republican campaign ads?

    I Don't Get This (none / 0) (#146)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:34:51 PM EST
    Are you saying, with this post that one of the people on this panel is from the Trinity United Church of Christ?

    Presumably, not Rabbi Saperstein.

    Does that automatically make him "Wright, Jr"?


    Are you unfamiliar with (none / 0) (#171)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:35:44 PM EST
    Rev Otis ?

    He's the new pastor of TUCC.


    Yes, I Was n/t (none / 0) (#183)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:15:06 AM EST
    Faith Based Initiative= (none / 0) (#143)
    by tek on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:03:05 PM EST
    buying votes.

    The Neighborhood Project=buying votes

    The middle classes will get to pay for these programs along with all Obama's othere giveaways.

    We get it. (none / 0) (#155)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    Obama is a Christian.
    Obama is a "committed" Christian.
    He is not a Muslim.

    Good point (none / 0) (#170)
    by DaleA on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:17:03 PM EST
    My impression is that most Wiccans are Democrats. At least the ones I know are. So too with the New Agers. Where are we in this? What about Buddhists? This looks like an outreach to skygod followers, not an interfaith effort.