Have The Democrats Leapt To Faith?
To read Ruth Marcus this morning, one would believe that the Democrats had begun a revival tour rather than a presidential primary. She describes the latest talk from the campaign trail as a conversion movement that will roll holy rollers to the Democrats, but manages to miss the fact that none of these stories involve any influence on actual policy:
You know it's a different kind of candidate forum when Hillary Clinton allows that she sometimes prays (no doubt, she says, to some divine eye-rolling) "Oh, Lord, why can't you help me lose weight?" and describes how "prayer warriors" sustained her through the public dissection of her husband's infidelity.When Barack Obama muses on the nature of good vs. evil. When John Edwards recounts that he "strayed away from the Lord" in adulthood, only to find that "my faith came roaring back" after the death of his 16-year-old son. ...
For the 2008 campaign, the Democrats have the advantage of -- you might say they are blessed with -- three front-running candidates for whom religion isn't a matter of conversion on the road to Des Moines.
Marcus, not surprisingly, misses the point. No one accused the Democrats of not belonging to a church. Walter Mondale wasn't an atheist, and neither was Michael Dukakis or Al Gore. No one believed any of these candidates had a conversion on the stump during an election year. What they also didn't do was to connect the values of their faith to policy.
Barack Obama may come closest to doing that, but as Marcus notes, not when the brightest lights shine on the campaign. Why? Because a large portion of the Democratic base are agnostic or atheist in temperament, especially when it comes to implementing policy that reflect values shared by people of faith. Whether the issue is abortion, gay marriage, religion in the public sphere, or any other topic, their base accuses anyone defending those values as theocrats who want to create an American Taliban -- and these candidates appease them.
Memo to Ruth: it isn't Republicans accusing Democrats of attempting to make America a theocracy.
Marcus then attempts to cast Republicans as more secular than Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She quotes David Kuo saying that Mitt Romney is "terrified" of discussing his faith, and that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani sound like secularists. I'm not sure where she's been, but the latter two men have talked about their faith rather openly, and Romney has not ducked the Mormon question at all. In fact, he talks of the pride he has in his faith, and how Americans prefer to rely on people of faith for leadership positions. In fact, I've heard him address that in every venue I've seen him speak -- mostly because people want to keep challenging his faith.
It's easy to talk about relying on prayer when husbands stray or tragedies occur in fanilies. In some cases, especially Edwards', it's rather moving. But when these same people support partial-birth abortions, federal funding for embryonic stem-cell testing, and so on, it's obvious that their faith doesn't inform their policy decisions, which is why those who most devoutly pursue their faith overwhelmingly vote Republican.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 6, 2007 9:50 AM | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (28)
Posted by RBMN | June 6, 2007 10:41 AM
The problem is...most Democratic Party leaders view their own personal religion like they view the US Constitution--extremely flexible, and full of handy loopholes.
Posted by James I. Hymas | June 6, 2007 10:56 AM
Cap'n Ed: But when these same people support partial-birth abortions, federal funding for embryonic stem-cell testing, and so on, it's obvious that their faith doesn't inform their policy decisions
You got that one a little wrong, Cap'n! It's obvious that your faith doesn't inform their policy decisions.
Posted by tgharris | June 6, 2007 10:57 AM
Jesus said that people would be recognized for what they are by the fruit of their lives (Matthew 7:16). Talk's cheap. People who are serious about their faith aren't likely to fall for the Dem's new-found religiosity.
Posted by Grace Kelly | June 6, 2007 11:06 AM
Gee, Ed, we all have faith. Peacemakers pray through the daily news,praying for peace. The difference is that my faith is about caring for people not condemning people. Your examples involve you deciding about my life and my body. What if I decided that you had been criminally neglectful in not ensuring that the beginning human life in your body did not make it to human adulthood? Where is your guilt, where is your responsibility? Did you at least name each potential life and have funerals for each one? If your standard is stem cells, then why aren't you holding a mirror up to your own behavior? It seems the application is clear. Or is this just another case of a double standard? Are you as responsible for the human life in your body as the standards that you apply to others?
Posted by Maverick Muse | June 6, 2007 11:18 AM
Politicians will say anything to get ahead.
To substantiate a position, a candidate will say whatever works for the day. Tomorrow never matters as much as today in politics.
But to conservatives, tomorrow matters even more than today.
Ed Meese, no longer running for public office, discussed immigration amnesty this morning. Amnesty did not work yesterday. Amnesty creates more havok, negating rule of law today. The new "Z" amnesty will destroy the lives of US citizens tomorrow, leaving no future means of return to rule of law.
If voting US citizens can not substantiate their own constitutional existence, it is too obvious the straw man results of any US international policy. If we don't know who WE are, how do we know who anyone is?
Color is certainly NOT the issue and never has been, which is why amnesty passed last time in US immigration reform legislation. SUBSTANCE, regardless of color, has always held sway. To date, substance often psychologically equates with material property. SPIRIT, however, is the DETERMINING SUBSTANCE of life. A good spirit conforms to legalities--give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.
If Mexicans want financial security, then Mexicans need to allow international investors into Mexico.
If Mexico, like their South American neighbors, invite Marxists or Socialists, then it was going to happen anyway as things go. (Vietnam went Communist, but like China, invites anyone's money to invest today.) If Mexico aligns itself with its NAFTA neighors, things might be easier for US interests/investors. Even so, with the New World Order, political parties are just fronts to keep the masses in line.
TODAY, our DUTY is to honor the reasons that our men fought at D-DAY. Our military still holds dear allegiance to the USA.
We citizens must express our concerns to our representatives and to our President and Commander in Chief, whoever they are. The vote has yet to occur; the die is not yet cast.
Repeat your call to expose immigration reform for public scrutiny and dialogue.
Repeat your message that amnesty to illegal behavior, no matter its facade, will further the undermining of our Constitutional rights and will destroy any unity in our nation. Repeat your demand to vote now against amnesty.
FAITH MATTERS.
Faith without works is dead.
Your faith has made you whole.
Posted by Grace Kelly | June 6, 2007 11:21 AM
"Thou shalt not kill" seems pretty clear to me, yet we have here, a Republican administration that killed more than a million lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, a Republican administration claiming Christian values. So what happened to "Thou shalt not kill", I guess there could be "flexibility" in a commandment. So how the words of Jesus, "Blessed be the peacemakers". As a country we do not even count the number of civilian dead, nor acknowledge the innocent we kill. Would we allow any police force to do that in this country, what we allow our police forces in Iraq to do?
So where are the moral values here? What would you say on judgment day?
The whole Republican party acts in lockstep loyalty, each voice, each vote, each action of Republicans supporting the leadership. Indeed that is where the current leadership gets its power even when the majority of country wants a change in policy.
So doesn't that make each one of you individual Republicans individually morally responsible for current Republican policy?
So where are the moral values here? What would you say on judgment day?
Posted by bulbasaur | June 6, 2007 11:53 AM
There is a truth, and we have access to it through reason. Sure, there are lazy and incompetent thinkers, but don't blame that on the truth. Blame it on the thinker.
Cap'n Ed, of course you are right. Your faith is the faith. The singular, definite article is appropriate. And we all have the choice to follow it or not.
It's going to take centuries to undo the damage done by the tyrants of relativism.
Posted by Hermie | June 6, 2007 11:58 AM
It's people like Marcus that would then take Romney's faith and twist its history and then attempt to paint him and all Mormons as being secretive and dangerous.
Posted by Dan Collins | June 6, 2007 12:03 PM
"Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he’d never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he’d do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade’s ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he’d never shared the memory with anyone else."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498,00.html
Posted by RBMN | June 6, 2007 12:40 PM
Re: Grace Kelly at June 6, 2007 11:06 AM
Sorry, but the "International Free Church of If It Feels Good Do It" doesn't cut it in this World, or more importantly, doesn't cut it in the next. In fact, that's the "church" that authentic Monotheism replaced a few thousand years ago.
Posted by Kevin T. Keith | June 6, 2007 1:32 PM
You explicitly equate reiligious faith with holding the positions you happen to approve of. You go on to explicitly state that, for anyone who holds other positions, "their faith doesn't inform their policy decisions". It simply hasn't occurred to you that people's beliefs could lead them to other positions.
This is the difference between faith and theocracy, and why those who reject the Republican Inquisition are comfortable with many Democrats' expressions of religious belief.
Read Obama's speech on faith (not the bizarrely garbled AP version). He explicitly invokes religious faith as a reason to include all marginalized Americans, including gays, the sick, the poor, and others, in the network of those we care about. He explicitly declares that faith requires us to establish job training, support for new mothers, veterans, and ex-convicts, and universal health care. He declares repeatedly that "Our God is big enough for that."
If your god were big enough, you'd understand.
Posted by RBMN | June 6, 2007 1:51 PM
Re: Kevin T. Keith at June 6, 2007 1:32 PM
Some of us see a difference between repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners. I guess that's just more proof of our bigotry, huh?
Posted by Ludwig | June 6, 2007 1:51 PM
Anyone who's primary concern is what may or may not happen in some mythological "next world" is simply unfit to be placed in a position where their decision will affect countless others.
Posted by Kent | June 6, 2007 1:52 PM
Kevin, if I didn't know better, I might conclude that you believe God is not big enough to do the many good things you mention without government help.
Of course, God works through human hands, including (where appropriate) the hands of government. The disagreement I see between conservatives and liberals is over which things are best done through government, and which are better done through other institutions.
In my opinion, where Obama really goes off the rails is when he starts saying things like (your words) "faith requires us to establish job training, support for new mothers, veterans, and ex-convicts, and universal health care."
This is not a statement of what moral values should inform us. It is a statement of specific policy on how to achieve certain desired moral ends, a statement which is explicitly tied to his faith. God has told us that the right way to help the sick is through universal health care? Really?
We are nowhere near having a theocracy in this country. When was the last time you heard an American court of law cite any religion's holy writ as reason to override a law enacted by the people's duly elected representatives? I'm delighted to say that I can't think of any example in at least the last hundred years.
Posted by NoDonkey | June 6, 2007 2:43 PM
"He explicitly declares that faith requires us to establish job training, support for new mothers, veterans, and ex-convicts, and universal health care."
Let's see . . . we have "job training". We fund 12 years of public "schooling", billions for free college education, job training out the wazoo. Sorry, but "job training" won't create jobs for people who want to do nothing all day and earn a 6 figure income.
"Support for new mothers'"
We have paid time off requirements, Medicaid, subsidies for childcare, so at some point, we're talking about degree.
"Veterans" - I'm a veteran. I don't need any "support". Combat veterans who were wounded, should get extensive aid, I agree. The rest of us should get nothing more than any other American. I didn't join for socialized medicine or any other pity party nonsense. There's more than enough money for combat wounded veterans, it's being wasted on "veterans" who fell off bar stools instead.
"Ex-convicts"?
Why should we give people incentives to be "Ex-convicts"?
"Universal Health Care"
i.e., universally shoddy care, in practice. All this will mean is that everyone below a certain income will get poor care. Everyone above will go outside of the system, just like in every other country that has "universal health care".
All bad ideas from an unqualified, unaccomplished shallow thinker. The Democrats have two other candidates who are just as devoid in substance as Obama. Don't the Democrats have anyone who is actually worthy of being President of the United States? If so, why are their three front-runners so dreadfully poor?
Posted by Jim | June 6, 2007 2:49 PM
"He explicitly declares that faith requires us to establish job training, support for new mothers, veterans, and ex-convicts, and universal health care. "
I've been searching for the part of the Bible where Jesus reveals himself as an advocate of big government socialism, as opposed to being an advocate of PERSONAL altruism and faith-based behavior, etc.......but dang it all, I just can't find it!
Hilarious article in the (very liberal) Raleigh paper I read (over New Years, I think) while there for a visit. They asked a bunch of local politically correct, liberal clergy (e.g., Episcopalians, etc.) "what Jesus would think" of certain modern events......if was so amusing that ALL of the events they asked these clergy about, were global or national in nature - such as the Iraq War. Accordingly, based on the responses, one comes away with the conclusion that if Jesus had back to earth in 2004, he would have been John Kerry's campaign manager!
Funny how not a SINGLE question posed to these clergy asked how they thought Jesus would feel about anything involving INDIVIDUAL choices/conduct/attitude, as opposed to modern government (evil Bush) policy.....such as:
a) the push for Gay Marriage, or homosexual conduct in general for that matter; WWJD?
b) Not just abortion in general, but abortion on demand, considered as an inalienable "right." WWJD?
c) casual sex outside of marriage, as the accepted societal norm. WWJD?
d) the exponential growth of legalized gambling; WWJD?
d) pornography now considered "healthy" and 'normal' entertainment for adults. WWJD
Etc.
Nope - not a single one of THOSE questions posed to the Kedwards clergymen.....LOL. Gee, I wonder why not?? LOL.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | June 6, 2007 5:26 PM
The Dems proudly trumpeted Jimmy Carter's Christianity as an asset in 1976, too. And look how "great" of a President he turned out to be.
Posted by Jim C | June 6, 2007 5:33 PM
Kevin,
The bible asks us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc...However, it doesn't ask that government do it. That is a request made of believers... not a central government.
Jim C
Posted by docjim505 | June 6, 2007 5:34 PM
The dems are talking about God.
Must be election season!
/sarcasm
Posted by vnjagvet | June 6, 2007 6:33 PM
If you want to guess what kind of denomination favors government solutions to poverty, take a look at its form of leadership.
Churches with bureaucratic leadership structures (Catholic, Episcopal, etc.) generally tend to favor top-down governmental programs.
Churches with congregational leadership structures, not so much.
Mormons, are the exceptions to the above rule. They have a church hierarchy which includes bishops, but tend not to favor bureaucratic governmental solutions.
Posted by Jim | June 6, 2007 9:09 PM
If God knew what Catholic priests were to do with altar boys, He'd have second thoughts about telling people to "take, eat, this is my body" for communion.
Posted by Sue | June 6, 2007 9:24 PM
Way to go Jim. You don't believe so you post an off topic, crude, and inappropriate analogy.
Ways that Catholic clergy have sinned against God have nothing to do with a remembrance and celebration of something God has remarkably done for us.
It's getting so that I expect something like this every time faith and/or religion comes up because it happens again and again. I just shake my head at the ignorance and childishness of it.
Posted by Sue | June 6, 2007 9:29 PM
re: Kevin T. Keith at June 6, 2007 1:32 PM
"You explicitly equate reiligious faith with holding the positions you happen to approve of. You go on to explicitly state that, for anyone who holds other positions, "their faith doesn't inform their policy decisions". It simply hasn't occurred to you that people's beliefs could lead them to other positions."
Please explain where "liberal Christians" get the idea from the bible that abortion on demand and killing babies (embryos) for embryonic stem cell research is OK with God.
Posted by Sue | June 6, 2007 9:31 PM
re: Kevin T. Keith at June 6, 2007 1:32 PM
"You explicitly equate reiligious faith with holding the positions you happen to approve of. You go on to explicitly state that, for anyone who holds other positions, "their faith doesn't inform their policy decisions". It simply hasn't occurred to you that people's beliefs could lead them to other positions."
Please explain where "liberal Christians" get the idea from the bible that abortion on demand and killing babies (embryos) for embryonic stem cell research is OK with God. That belief does NOT come from the bible. God values all innocent life.
Posted by dixie68 | June 6, 2007 10:12 PM
Great Heavens above! My maiden name was Keith, but so far I have not run into any relatives who think as Kevin does. My faith demands that I do for others, but I do it individually and through my church. It is NOT the responsibility of government. Of course, most people who think as Kevin does, would like to see the churches closed.
Posted by Monkei | June 6, 2007 10:20 PM
Have you ever been through the Mormon temple in SLC, have you ever taken the time to invite one of them (or 2 they always seem to go in twos) into your home and discuss their beliefes ... Listened to their history? Listened to how the prophets are chosen, or more to the point, not chosen?
How any Christian who believes in the bible as gods book and is able to turn a blind eye to the angel Mordacai who delivered a book to Joseph Smith on a hillside in up state NY and then took it away from him .... but that the bible could be superceeded by the book of Mormom is incredible. You could go on forever fillin in the holes of this religion, especially if are a true christian.
No wonder Matinee Mitt doesn't want to talk about it.
Oh and also the fact that he could never ever explain the myriad of gigantic flip flops he has taken from his run to the Governorship of Mass to now what is about to be his unsuccessful bid to the WH ... but wait, maybe Rudy will chose you as his VP! Believing the Morman religion would be the same as someone starting a new religion based on the cut of his hair because an angel told him to cut it in a special way and that you encourage others to believe in the Bible, but get them to read and understand the new book of Barber ... a new haircut for the NEW delivered Christians into the Americas albiet with better haircuts,
O happy Days for the Dems! Obama would actually have a chance against this mind and body shaping changing politician they call Mitt.
Posted by onlineanalyst | June 7, 2007 6:16 AM
It's that happy time during campaign season again when Democrats take to the pulpits in various churches to spiel their talking points. Who is more blatant than a Dem in blurring and abusing selective "faith-based" agendas while clutching a Bible in their "righteous" hands as the obliging media provide the photo ops? Can I hear an "Amen" about transparent Dem hypocrisy?
Posted by Kent | June 7, 2007 9:42 AM
Monkei,
If you're going to screed against Mormons, you might want to get a fact or two straight, so you don't embarrass yourself so badly.
Mormon missionaries work in pairs, not for some weird sinister reason, but because it's the New Testament pattern (Paul travelled with a companion whenever he could) and because it's safer.
The only Mordecai in Mormon belief was the uncle of Esther in the Old Testament. A couple of other Mordecais are mentioned, one time apiece, in Ezra and Nehemiah (also in the Old Testament) but very little is said about them. You are possibly thinking of Moroni.
The Book of Mormon is not believed by Mormons to supercede the Bible, but to support its most important teachings -- in particular, to serve as a second witness of Christ.
"Believing the Morman religion would be the same as someone starting a new religion based on the cut of his hair ..."
Obviously most Christians reject the Book of Mormon as a work of scripture, but to liken the production of this lengthy and complex book, which millions do accept as scripture, to inventing a new haircut -- that rivals the shallowness of the MSM.