The Rise of the Religious Left

[Fireball]

People who plan on voting Democratic in the 2008 presidential elections should peruse the article below. It discusses how left-wing liberal Democrats are becoming increasingly religious to gain political power.

Can the religious left sway the '08 race?

John Edwards spoke about how prayer helped him get through the death of his son and his wife's cancer diagnoses. Barack Obama repeatedly invoked the biblical phrase "I am my brother's keeper" as he spoke about poverty and injustice. Hillary Rodham Clinton credited her faith with getting her through her husband's infidelities...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070606/ts_csm/areligileft_1

[hunterrose]

Talking religion isn't exactly the same thing as becoming religious. I think it's just lip service... but it does bear watching.

[Robert J. Kolker]

John Edwards spoke about how prayer helped him get through the death of his son and his wife's cancer diagnoses. Barack Obama repeatedly invoked the biblical phrase "I am my brother's keeper" as he spoke about poverty and injustice. Hillary Rodham Clinton credited her faith with getting her through her husband's infidelities...

Hillary Rodham used to be a Goldwater Girl in the Old Days (preBill). Beneath all that left-liberal glitter is the soul of a Conservative. The worst of both worlds I would say.

By the way Barry Goldwater was about two light-years ahead of his Conservative supporters. He was the closest thing to a real libertarian in Republican politics. He was the last Republican I ever voted for. That was back in 1964.

Bob Kolker

[Fireball]

Talking religion isn't exactly the same thing as becoming religious. I think it's just lip service... but it does bear watching.

Here is a CNN transcript excerpt of Hillary Clinton calling for collectivism and sacrifice in the name of religion (using the strong arm of government):

"...I think you can sense how we are attempting to try to inject faith into policy and also to elicit from people a sense of our common humanity and how we have to be in this together as a nation... you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people."

Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/070...sitroom.03.html

[~Sophia~]

Hillary was raised in a conservative environment and that is why her first interest in politics was as a "Goldwater Girl" but she has long moved away from this position.

In her speech on "shared prosperity," Hillary proclaimed that:

"it's time to replace the conservative notion of an "ownership society" and economy with one based on communal responsibility and prosperity."

[The Guru Kid]

She actually said the word communal? So I guess she's not a socialist but a communist. whew.

Guru

p.s. how can you have communal responsibility AND prosperity?

[~Sophia~]

She actually said the word communal?

I don't know if in fact she used that particular word (I got that fragment from another site). I found this recolection from other sites re: the same comment:

Hillary: "it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity."

(To me the meaning is one and the same).

Edited June 9, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[softwareNerd]

She actually said the word communal? So I guess she's not a socialist but a communist. whew.

She's been pretty explicit about glorifying the collective over the individualism. She thinks "It Takes a Village".

[Fireball]

More evidence that Democrats are working to integrate religion with politics comes from Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...42649-1,00.html

Democrats are not as willing as Republicans to use religion to drive political agendas. But the above article reveals a frightening trend of Democrats such as Hillary to enforce, as one example, global warming laws in the name of God.

[K-Mac]

More evidence that Democrats are working to integrate religion with politics comes from Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...42649-1,00.html

Democrats are not as willing as Republicans to use religion to drive political agendas. But the above article reveals a frightening trend of Democrats such as Hillary to enforce, as one example, global warming laws in the name of God.

It IS scary and serious and all, but I love that graphic. Too funny!

[hunterrose]

Talking religion isn't exactly the same thing as becoming religious. I think it's just lip service... but it does bear watching.

Another thing is that there isn't a real religious movement being this "religious left" I.e. there are blocks of people and massively organized groups who will vote against abortion because it is some god's will. Not so much with affirmative action or cradle-to-grave health care.

Some of the loonier Dems may be trying to create a voting bloc that will save the trees because it's WJWD, but the difference IMO is that such a group doesn't exist at present, at least not in power and numbers comparable to religious right organizations.

[DarkWaters]

Another thing is that there isn't a real religious movement being this "religious left" I.e. there are blocks of people and massively organized groups who will vote against abortion because it is some god's will. Not so much with affirmative action or cradle-to-grave health care.

Some of the loonier Dems may be trying to create a voting bloc that will save the trees because it's WJWD, but the difference IMO is that such a group doesn't exist at present, at least not in power and numbers comparable to religious right organizations.

I think you are absolutely right, but I also fear that the religious left will become very powerful over the next decade. Hillary Clinton is probably just pretending to be religious. John Edwards seems to be a little more sincere about faith than Hilldog. I think Barack Obama is very serious. I attended a Barack Obama rally that began with a five minute opening prayer.

Furthermore, Christianity will mesh well with many of the political left's altruistic ideas. The Jesus of Christian mythology would want his followers to erect and maintain a welfare state (with universal healthcare, public education and a massive social safety net), be a good custodian of the environment and always turn the other cheek when it comes to foreign policy. Jesus probably would not be so keen on the Republican ideas of alienating homosexuals or closing the country's borders to Mexican immigrants.

Hopefully we will not be governed by waves of Jimmy Carter clones until 2020.

Edited July 13, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Atlas51184]

Hunterrose is right. There is a difference between being religious and being inspired by your faith on the one hand, and trying to turn scripture into law on the other. If the article is correct, and if this is sincere and not just lip service, all it tells us is that the country as a whole cares more about religion than in the past, and that the Dems are finally picking up on this.

Hopefully, if the Dems win both branches of government and appoint some new judges, they can roll back some of what the Bush administration did, e.g. money to faith based charity groups. I'd also like to see challenges to what the religious right has done on the state level. The Christian controlled rehab/prison system in the south would be a good target. It's a system that comes pretty damn close to forced conversion (either complete this rehab program which requires conversion to a religion, or go to this Christian run prison for five years). Yup, that stuff exists.

[Mammon]

Well, the Democrats figured out the magic word in politics -- God!

Say "God" -- get elected, it's that simple folks. Why do you think Bush got elected? Because he said God more times then Kerry or Gore did.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Mammon

[Fireball]

I'm not so much worried about leftists, liberals and democrats becoming Christian or using Christianity to gain political power. Their past words and actions have all but divorced themselves from the Christian mainstream of society. Most ardent Christians will not buy into their political pandering to the religious right.

My worry, and this scares me, is democrats' willingness to support and advance OTHER religions, particularly Islam, in an attempt to gain political power. I regularly observe leftist/liberal/democrat intellectuals side with Islam in debates when it's the West versus Islam. Now leftists via the ACLU are forcing taxpayers to fund Muslim prayer sessions in public schools while banning Christians from doing the same.

And what's with Harry Reid holding a Hindu prayer service in the Senate yesterday? If leftists are supposed to be secular, I would expect them to reject all religions -- not just Christianity.

[Qwertz]

The Left rejects principles, and religion is all about principles, albeit freakishly warped ones. When a "religious Left" arises, it will be through the assumption of traditionally Leftist causes by the religious Right - environmentalism in the form of Creation stewardship, universal health care in the form of Christian altruism, affirmative action in the name of pious charity. The truly powerful "religious Left" will arise through a gradual sinistral shifting of the religious Right, not as a spontaneous adoption of religion by Democrats. One of the core absolutes of Leftism is that there are no absolutes; any apparent adoption of religion by a true Democrat will be a vote-garnering move and ultimately pose less of a threat than those on the Right, who are truly committed to their principles.

-Q

[John McVey]

My worry, and this scares me, is democrats' willingness to support and advance OTHER religions, particularly Islam, in an attempt to gain political power. I regularly observe leftist/liberal/democrat intellectuals side with Islam in debates when it's the West versus Islam.

You'll be happy to know that Ahmedinejad and the rest of that mob were recently stupid enough to rebuff the leftists rather than use them as useful idiots. Dr Locke once quipped "If only they knew..." and, evidently, at heart they still don't!

JJM

[Fireball]

You'll be happy to know that Ahmedinejad and the rest of that mob were recently stupid enough to rebuff the leftists rather than use them as useful idiots.

Ahmedinejad parroted liberal Democrats during his speech at liberal Columbia University -- denouncing Bush and the Republicans for domestic spying, taking away privacy rights, keeping everyone in fear and the rest of the nonsense uttered in left-wing media.

As a side note, which might as well be a main note, Hillary has been a long-time advocate of using tax dollars to advance faith-based social services. See this Washington Post article. The problem here is electing a liberal Democrat like Hillary will increase religion in government AND undermine private property rights in the name of egalitarianism.

[Mammon]

You know, I've seen a lot of Christians moving to the Left economically recently. They can't defend capitalism with Christianity so they choose Christianity and sacrifice capitalism.

Not the most scientific observation ever, but just something I've noticed in my personal life.

[DarkWaters]

Hillary has been a long-time advocate of using tax dollars to advance faith-based social services. See this Washington Post article.

There are no facts in the linked article that corroborate your claim: "[senator Clinton] has been a long-time advocate of using tax dollars to advance faith-based social services." If you have facts to support this, please do so.

Senator Clinton will probably do several bad things if elected President. Most notably, champion single-payer health insurance. However, despite her pretending to be religious during the election season, I see no reason to conclude that she will increase religion in government, especially compared to some of the other candidates.

There might be a good case you can make to vote for a Republican over Hillary Clinton. However, such a case should not rest on misinformation.

[Fireball]

There are no facts in the linked article that corroborate your claim: "[senator Clinton] has been a long-time advocate of using tax dollars to advance faith-based social services." If you have facts to support this, please do so.

From today's Washington Post article:

"She has joined congressional efforts against human trafficking and was an early supporter of public funds for faith-based social services."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2501754_pf.html

[DarkWaters]

"She has joined congressional efforts against human trafficking and was an early supporter of public funds for faith-based social services."

I missed that statement. Anyway, this suggests that she voted for faith-based initiatives, probably only during the past seven years. This quote does not suggest that she spearheaded such initiatives or was enthusiastically outspoken for them.

Did she champion faith-based initiatives while she was First Lady?

Either way, by itself this is still insufficient evidence to conclude that she will attempt to increase religion in government if she becomes President.

Needless to say, voting for public funding of faith-based initiatives is still bad.

[Fireball]

I missed that statement.

That's okay. I posted the article not to dissuade people from voting for Hillary, but instead to remain aware of all ideas and actions of potential presidential candidates. People can change across time, from bad to good and vice versa.

Particularly worrisome is Hillary's statement a few years ago in a Tufts University speech when she said, "No one can read the New Testament of our Bible without recognizing that Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat the poor..." Portentous indeed.

[softwareNerd]

Particularly worrisome is Hillary's statement a few years ago in a Tufts University speech when she said, "No one can read the New Testament of our Bible without recognizing that Jesus had a lot more to say about how we treat the poor..." Portentous indeed.

This is the way the left is trying to woo evangelicals, and it will not work. An argument that gives altruism primacy will not be too effective, because this is not what the evangelicals see as primary. To them, the important issues are abortion, gay-marriage, prayer in school.

The problem for the left is that they cannot give in too much on those core evangelical issues, without alienating many existing supporters; but, they can give in somewhat, based on the idea that their supporters have nowhere else to turn. This is what brings the two parties to the middle of American politics, despite their rhetoric.

It is going to be interesting to watch how it all plays out.

[Fireball]

On March 3, 2008 Obama declared his loyalty to Christianity:

"I pray to Jesus every night."

"I am a devout Christian."

"I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can."

Source: http://www.nypost.com/seven/03032008/news/...ords_100255.htm