A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From SillyWabbit's workspace   

Can You Say "Phony"?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_democrats_faith

Democrats open faith-filled convention with prayer
By ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer Sun Aug 24, 10:48 PM ET

DENVER - At the first official event Sunday of the Democratic National Convention, a choir belted out a gospel song and was followed by a rabbi reciting a Torah reading about forgiveness and the future.
ADVERTISEMENT

Helen Prejean, the Catholic nun who wrote "Dead Man Walking," assailed the death penalty and the use of torture.

Young Muslim women in headscarves sat near older African-American women in their finest Sunday hats.

Four years ago, such a scene would have been unthinkable at a Democratic National Convention. In 2004, there was one interfaith lunch at the Democratic gala in Boston.

But that same year, "values voters" helped re-elect President Bush, giving Democrats of faith the opening they needed to make party leaders listen to them.

The result was on display at Sunday's interfaith service, staged in a theater inside the Colorado Convention Center, and will be evident throughout the convention agenda and on the sidelines.

There will be four "faith caucus" meetings, blessings to open and close each night, and panels and parties run by Democratic-leaning religious advocacy groups that didn't even exist in 2004 — not to mention protests from religious groups and leaders opposed to the Democratic platform.

Other challenges may come from within. At Sunday's service, Bishop Charles Blake, head of the predominantly black Church of God in Christ and a self-described pro-life Democrat, said Barack Obama should be pressed to "elaborate upon his stated intention to reduce the number of abortions by providing alternative programs."

One hallmark of Democratic faith efforts at the convention is diversity, which might soften objections from party activists wary of the Christian right or any mixing of religion and politics. Behind the scenes, efforts to attract the religious vote will concentrate largely on Christian "values voters."

"If we create or become a mirror image of the religious right, we have failed," said Burns Strider, who ran religious outreach for Hillary Clinton's campaign and now does faith-based political consulting. "But if we have increased the number of chairs around the table, ... then we've succeeded."

One reason religion is playing such a prominent role at this week's convention is that Obama has made faith outreach prominent in his campaign.

"People of faith are being engaged in the convention in a new and robust way ,and it's because of Senator Obama's acknowledgment that people of faith and values have an important place in American public life," said Joshua DuBois, the Obama campaign's religious affairs director.

The campaign is giving a platform to people who otherwise would not have been invited to or attended a Democratic convention. One example is Joel Hunter, a moderate evangelical megachurch pastor from Orlando, Fla., who will offer the benediction Thursday, the night Obama accepts the nomination.

"Now there's a genuine interest in speaking with groups and religious groups who were previously considered enemies," said Rachel Laser, who works on culture issues for the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way.

Laser helped broker compromise language in the Democrats' abortion platform that acknowledges the need to help women who want to keep their pregnancies. Hunter and liberal evangelical leader Jim Wallis were involved, as were new groups such as Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

Despite all the effort, there is little evidence religious votes are shifting. A Pew poll released last week showed the political preferences of religious voters, including highly sought Catholics and white evangelicals, have scarcely budged since 2004.

Catholics are up for grabs, but white evangelicals have become so solidly Republican, Obama has little chance of carving too deeply into the Republican lead, said Allen Hertzke, a University of Oklahoma political scientist.

"There still is a possibility that Obama will chip into the Republican advantage with this religious outreach," Hertzke said. "Even if he gains just a few points, that could be decisive in a close election."

created by SillyWabbit on Aug 25, 2008 at 12:00:54 pm     Comments: 29

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

So the Dems decided they needed to start pandering to those crazy religious folks?

Am I confused or isn't this the same party that tries its damnedest to suppress the rights of those religious people or at least tries to shut them up?

I guess they figured if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 25, 2008 at 12:05:05 pm     #



It's amusing. Especially when the Dems take a page right out of the Republican playbook. The Republicans have done it for years and the crazy religious folk bought it, so why not? Read "Tempting Faith" by David Kuo. Phony? You bet!

posted by holland on Aug 25, 2008 at 12:25:36 pm     #



Am I confused or isn't this the same party that tries its damnedest to suppress the rights of those religious people or at least tries to shut them up?

To answer your question, you must be confused. How do the Democrats "suppress the rights of those religious people"?

posted by pink_slip on Aug 25, 2008 at 12:27:10 pm     #



i love how sillywabbit is always the first comment on his own posts so it looks like he is generating buzz - i assume you are being paid by some org for all your rants; if not, get a bike or go to a bar or read some quality fiction - but stay away from the purple juice.

posted by enjoyeverysandwich on Aug 25, 2008 at 07:22:44 pm     #



Does someone feel threatened? The bad America hatin' Dems have a realistic shot at the White House and now your scared. Now you know how I've felt for the last eight years. We wouldn't want anyone to suppress our right's now would we. Except for the Patriot Act or military tribunals... no those are perfectly okay.

posted by hunkytownsausage on Aug 25, 2008 at 07:23:22 pm     #



That was one of the most awkward prayers I've ever heard. It sounded more like a political speech than a prayer. And I've never heard a more politically correct prayer in my life.

posted by HeyHey on Aug 25, 2008 at 10:41:51 pm     #



http://toledotalk.com/cgi-bin/tt.pl/article/22066#22093

Hey Ass Hat, I posted my comment after the article so it wouldn't get mixed in with the article.

BTW I'm not a guy, Genius. Why would you assume I am? Because I don't post fluffy talk?

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 26, 2008 at 09:22:29 am     #



are you getting paid by an org or a volunteer for a campaign?! how about answering pink_slips question? deal with the substance instead of getting worked up about an ambiguous pronoun.

posted by enjoyeverysandwich on Aug 26, 2008 at 10:48:03 am     #



Thanks for clearing your sex up. All along I was calling you the wrong name under my breathe.

posted by Ryan on Aug 26, 2008 at 11:37:14 am     #



Getting paid by an org or campaign!? LOL That's hilarious. Am I that good? Nah.

Ok, I'll answer pinkster -
Democrats have a long standing love affair with the ACLU. The ACLU makes it their mission to remove all references to Jesus, God, whomever from anywhere they feel they should. They do this in the name of the 1st Amendment but in actuality the only reason is to eventually remove all religious influences.

I'm not defending any wrongdoings that have been committed by "religious" people through our country's history. God knows there's been plenty.

I just don't feel that anyone has the right to tell anyone else when, where, or how they can talk about or say the name of their God.

When the politicians stop submitted to the influence of the ACLU, I'll back down off my statement.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 26, 2008 at 02:12:45 pm     #



How do the Democrats "suppress the rights of those religious people"?

By espousing a government that forces citizens to work for the charity it (the government) decides thereby reducing the ability of citizens to use thier own life's work as an expression of their own moral, ethical and religious convictions.

posted by babbleman on Aug 26, 2008 at 02:26:34 pm     #



Ah ha, so you feel the "religious people" have a "right" to use tax payer money to support certain religions? I believe these are the cases the ACLU gets involved in.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 26, 2008 at 02:28:24 pm     #



Ah ha, so you feel the "religious people" have a "right" to use tax payer money to support certain religions?

If you were referring to my comment, I have no idea how you got from there to here. I said the government supresses the rights of religious people by removing their ability to direct their life in ways consistent with their religion. I said nothing about religious people having a right to use tax payer money.

If the government wasn't involved in charity or other areas of social life, the problem would go away immediately.

Below is an image of Piss Christ. It is a statue of Jesus submerged in urine. Because the government is involved in funding arts, Christians were required to pay for this. Whatever Christians payed for this, represents work that they did.

By any rational standard, making a Christian work for to pay for Piss Christ is supressing religious freedom.

posted by babbleman on Aug 26, 2008 at 02:41:57 pm     #



Lest you still don't understand my point - I am not saying that NEA money should be used for Christian art. I am saying that the NEA has no business existing because its mere existence gaurantees to trample on someone's morals, ethics and or religion. That's why government cannot be so involved in society while still having a free society.

It is one or the other:

1) Free society

2) Government involved in society

Take your pick.

posted by babbleman on Aug 26, 2008 at 02:45:04 pm     #



Sorry babbleman, I was responding to sillywabbit. I don't understand your answer at all. I know what your beef is with income taxes and welfare, etc...but I don't see how religious people are singled out in this equation. Sorry.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 26, 2008 at 02:45:16 pm     #



With babbleman, as always, it's the case of "I've got mine and I have no obligation to assist someone less fortunate", this time cloaked in a religuous wrapping. Or, you could say, not good at sharing and feel's that's OK. Taxes and welfare force sharing.

posted by holland on Aug 26, 2008 at 02:54:08 pm     #



...but I don't see how religious people are singled out in this equation...

Well, I don't know how it could be put any simpler terms: we live in a country where Christians are forced at gunpoint to pay for statues of Christ being submerged in urine and proudly displayed in museums while liberals pump their fists in celbration of their victory in having made it happen.

With babbleman, as always, it's the case of "I've got mine and I have no obligation to assist someone less fortunate"

My position is that government should not be a provider of welfare. How is it that you come to the conclusion that I don't think welfare should exist?

Is it because you think government is the only entity capable of providing welfare?

posted by babbleman on Aug 26, 2008 at 03:02:18 pm     #



Ah ha, so you feel the "religious people" have a "right" to use tax payer money to support certain religions? I believe these are the cases the ACLU gets involved in.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 26, 2008 at 03:28:24 pm #

See, this is why I don't answer leading questions. YOU said that...just now. I NEVER said that.

Nice try. C'mon you can do better than that pinkleton.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 26, 2008 at 03:04:53 pm     #



No where will you find that I said that a society can exist without people helping each other. Of course welfare is absolutely essential. But providing welfare is inherently an ethical and religious expression. That, among many other reasons, is why government cannot provide welfare while at the same time protecting freedom. They are mutually exclusive.

posted by babbleman on Aug 26, 2008 at 03:06:09 pm     #



If I thought that Microsoft shouldn't make software then, by your logic, holland, it would mean that I don't think that software should be made.

posted by babbleman on Aug 26, 2008 at 03:28:41 pm     #



Taxes and welfare force sharing.

HA! Yeah, and Taxes/Welfare have done such a great job of keeping generations of families off of the saggy, drying up teat of the hardworking, tax-paying CITIZENS.

No, Holland. Hunger and need for shelter forces people to find work - no matter how crummy that work is as long as it pays a fair wage.

Sharing and giving a HELPING HAND are done out of love and charity. Helping hand is capitalized because that's the key - HELPING. It implies that it is temporary until one is able to provide for themselves. And if someone is not able to ever provide for themselves again (as in a valid medical disability), then great - the government can help out if families cannot.

NEED is the motivation to improve...no matter what the subject be.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 26, 2008 at 03:41:43 pm     #



Babbleman, I understand your point completely. The Piss Christ is a good example to back up your point. But not everyone interpreted the painting the same way you did. According to a wikipedia article on this:

"Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents."

In this regard, it can just as easily be asked "why should non-Christians support this religious point-of-view" with their tax money.

You will never get rid of taxes (short of living in chaos). That being said, the above example can rear it's ugly head even in situations where gov't is only minimally funded. If you say the only role for gov't is defense (for example), what would prevent someone using that defense as an offense in the name of religion? For instance, when President Bush called the struggle against terroism a "crusade", does that make his illegal invasion of Iraq a religious war that taxpayers are funding?

posted by pink_slip on Aug 26, 2008 at 03:44:49 pm     #



Just as any software company could charge any price the market would bear for it's software, if all welfare or other assistance were privately provided, so could the private religion based providers attach religious covenants to the receipt of such assistance. Hence conservative religious providers could turn away those who didn't meet their criteria, leaving those organizations more tolerant to shoulder the load. It happens now. Close to me is a wonderful gym/basketball facility touted when it first opened to serve all community youth and kept open late hours to keep kids off the streets in the summer time. It was initially quite a gathering place, until the kids were told they had to attend a church/prayer service first. Now the facility is used only by church members. The church has the right to do that. But it appears that they never really intended to "serve all community youth".

posted by holland on Aug 26, 2008 at 04:16:04 pm     #



Just like people, not all churches are the same. However, all politicians are the same.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 26, 2008 at 05:46:56 pm     #



Pinkles said: For instance, when President Bush called the struggle against terrorism a "crusade", does that make his illegal invasion of Iraq a religious war that taxpayers are funding?

Ummm, doesn't Congress declare war?
If so, doesn't that make it legal? Or are you saying it was an illegal war because some charges are pending against Bush for breaking a law? Do you mean illegal in a law enforcement kind of way or morally illegal? Clarification please.

Hey, I'm not defending the Iraq war. I just don't think throwing out the same tired old rhetoric about "illegal war" and "crusade" is kind of...well...boring.

Oh hey, everyone? Can we pleeeeeze not have a 48 hour, 100+ postings discussion (rehash) of the friggin Iraq war? I'm sooooooooo sick of it and I'm sure you are too. ughh.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 26, 2008 at 06:15:37 pm     #



Yes sillywabbit, it's the responsibility of Congress to declare war. However Bush has violated the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 26, 2008 at 08:53:29 pm     #



Let me try to summarize SillyWabbit's position, which I hope I can do fairly -

Permanent welfare is bad.
Helping out should be a temporary thing, and should not be permanent welfare.
Permanent welfare should be made available by the government only to the permanently disabled.

Isn't that the situation now, thanks to legislation signed by Bill Clinton, who was a Democrat? Conservatives keep hitting Democrats over the head with welfare, when a Democratic president ended it over ten years ago. I don't hear Barack Obama talking about bringing back permanent welfare.

Maybe if conservatives didn't create straw men to attack, they would actually have to defend the indefensible positions of the Bush and McCain camps.

(If you could figure out what the positions of the McCain camp are - it seems like the Straight Talk Express is on both sides of almost every issue.)

posted by ifXthenWhyNot on Aug 27, 2008 at 11:48:17 am     #



ifX - not sure where you get the idea that Clinton "ended" welfare ten years ago.

Half of our government spending is social programs and that only counts the actual transfer of cash - that does not count laws are regulations that affect indirect transfers of cash.

posted by babbleman on Aug 28, 2008 at 12:09:00 pm     #



Maybe if conservatives didn't create straw men to attack...

The primary motivation of the left is to transfer wealth from portion of the population to another. While some swear it is because they have "compassion" for the transferees, there are certainly plenty that are driven more by an animosity for the transferers.

This is hardly a strawman. It is the left's raison d'etra. But, ironically, they are always trying to mask it, distance themselves from it and claim that it doesn't exist. So while welfare is their primary purpose, dishonesty (to both themselves and others) is their primary behavior.

posted by babbleman on Aug 28, 2008 at 12:14:08 pm     #