Maybe I 'm looking at this wrong, but it seems to me the candidate to run is the one who best reflects the community. If the community is deeply religious, and the candidate can speak to them as a fellow traveler, then that person is probably a better fit. I'm sure the candidates for Pelosi's seat in SF are going to be very different from the ones running in IA, but each might be right for that community.
I can't think of a better summary of my belief system than that of the Rabbi's, and the last time I attended church was during all the mass meetings during the civil rights movement. The first time I heard that quote, in fact, was at a mass meeting where the late James Farmer was the main speaker. It's stuck with me ever since.
I might also add that many Catholic priests and Cardinals, not to mention the Pope himself, are among the most vocal defenders of immigrants. We don't need to agree with them on other issues in order to welcome their voices. Right now we need all the allies we can get.
You can call it what you like, but that quote has been cited over and over by both religious and secular leaders for more than 20 centuries. I'd call that pretty good staying power.
A good example of someone who walks in faith and science is leading climate scientist Katherine Hayoe. She’s said it’s rare for a scientist to take issue with her being a Christian, but often Christians rebuke science. Yet with conformity in church folk getting them to be stewarts of the earth can very much help the planet.
I had the opportunity to hear James Talarico speak at a recent conference and also talk with him. He’s thoughtful, deeply caring, empathic, and terrific at messaging. I think his faith is part of how he sees the world and is part of who he is. He’s a truly refreshing voice and because of his true Christian faith he puts to shame these corrupt unchristian Christian Nationalists.
The White evangelical vote was a primary driver in 2016 after the access Hollywood tape they stuck around when others wouldn’t.
Mormons were the one hard Republican voting group that went against Trump compared to their usual level of support for Republicans. But even that gap has been reduced.
Catholics & Jewish religious voters are the groups that Democrats could try to recapture. The pro-immigrant message appeals to both those groups of voters. Catholic charities along the border have done so much to the point where trump is trying to stop them. And Jewish voters might see the parallels between this administrations tactics and the persecution they studied and remember.
I suppose I'll catch hell for writing what I'm about to write. But, that's okay.
First, I don't ask anyone about her or his political conviction or commitment to the multi-consonants in L, G, B, T, Q, I or +.
For me, the Declaration - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [persons] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - settled the matter from 1776 to now.
Secondly, why would a political party set or encourage a religious litmus test?
Consider this: The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is not an "evangelical" church body in the sense of, for example, Primitive Baptist congregations. Communicants share core beliefs but are doctrinally different in their approaches to community and practice.
It's almost trite to point out that Lutheran churches (ELCA, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, etc.) fundamentally differ from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic church bodies.
But, who cares about this? As Brother Martin pointed out, there exists two kingdoms in which we live: the Temporal and the Spiritual.
The governing authority is established is to foster peace and justice. Regardless of one's personal and individually accepted faith, that person should be asked if the current governing authority fulfills that institutional responsibility and how or how not.
By the way, our Republic has been actively supported in blood and treasure from our Revolution through our 21st century conflicts by non-Christians, including Deists, Jews, Muslims, and (GASP!) atheists and agnostics.
I have long thought that it is critical to upend the c-nat, republican, dare I say it evangelical support of this administration. If by running these candidates it will influence the Church to re-assess their support for the current regime, then so be it. The Church has been corrupted as well as our constitution and it needs to do some serious examination on what exactly we, the Church stand for.
Liberal Demoncrat from Jacksonville; Living in Boca Raton — Floridian wants to know from Candidate Vindman how he plans to appeal to: (1) the many many normie Republican folks who moved to my home state of Florida from Maryland, PA, NJ, NY since 2020; and (2) the Latino center-right US citizen community in Central and South Florida.
I don't equate Alexander Vindman to Amy McGrath's run in Kentucky. While a long shot, Vindman is running against a senator appointed to the position, not against Mitch McConnell as McGrath did.
if you return to this subject would be a good idea to talk to Doug Pagitt, who runs Common Good, an org that helps Democratic candidates learn to talk to faith voters. they got something like 171 candidates around the country that they're working with. Pagitt lives in Minneapolis and is in the thick of things right now, but Common Good has been around for several years and has been covered by national outlets.
I’m a Christian and activist living in Texas and have no problem talking about abortion, especially to GOP legislators. When asking them their basis for first trimester personhood, they have no response. I’ve asked the same of John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life. Again, crickets. I, on the other hand, can easily demonstrate that the three verses always cited by those who oppose abortion to have nothing to do with abortion or when “life” begins biblically. I frequently interact with “abortion abolitionists” on social media. They rely on editing scripture while you watch, then announce that they’ve delivered “the truth.” Yes, some Democrats can be cynical about religion, but others appreciate that we can join with secular activists to cover all the bases. And on immigration, some of us are not afraid to remind Christians that oppressing immigrants leads to “the eternal flame reserved for the devil and his angels.” (Mt 25:31-46)
Please stop writing stuff like this. We already have a de facto religious test for public office.
Consider the federal level. Zero avowed atheists have ever entered Congress as such: Pete Stark came out in his 3rd term; Kyrsten Sinema carefully listed herself as "unaffiliated." Zero presidents and vice presidents, and zero SCOTUS justices have ever admitted to atheism.
When Kamala was nominated, many non-white women cried: "Little girls like me finally see someone who is like them having a shot at the presidency"
Atheist kids have never seen such a thing. Candidates know it is the kiss of death in our supposedly enlightened country.
My district is 70+% Christian, not just religious, and I’m an independent Christian. This is a problem for some democrats here being resistant to talking about their religion, which I believe cedes the ground to “Christian” nationalism. I was at an event tonight where one of the other candidates (a democrat) relayed to me there is a portion of the democrats even here in Alabama that got offended when the candidate said God Bless you and God bless America. This has made him feel like he has to avoid talking about his faith or couching it in terms to not offend people which has been part of the perceived “spinelessness” and “anti-Christian” views of Democrats I have seen and been told about.
“ Twedt-Ball, the United Methodist pastor running for Congress in Iowa, told me that “there’s been some hesitancy and skepticism toward the church among some people in the Democratic party.”
This is me. I am uncomfortable with this new emphasis on religion; it already plays too big of a role in politics, IMO. Still, I understand the need to counter the crazy Christian Nationalists. It’s probably a smart idea. And I don’t have to pay attention to it, so there’s that.
I do like Talerico. He’s smart, a good speaker, and he seems to have thought long and hard about how to win, and priorities on policy. His religious background will probably help him in Texas.
I think the Democrats have an excellent opportunity here to take the moral high ground. It doesn't matter how many of us are religious or not, we can certainly elevate the Christian view of things like shooting, beating and incarcerating innocent people and wave it around for all to see. One of our most obvious failures is NOT calling the GOP out enough on their blatant hypocrisy. Look at what the Vatican is doing, i.e., Pope Leo and his bishops--they've been hammering at the totally un-Christian cruelty of what the right is doing. We need to hoist those images up in full view and remind them of that fact. The point is, they call themselves a Christian movement, we need to remind everyone how wrong that claim is.
I was going to reply in a similar vein. I see the Dem party as one with many members whose ethics align with the teachings of Jesus, even if they are not religious... And many more "fundamentalist" Christians seem more ethically aligned with the Old Testament... probably not the most tactful way to say it, but...
Maybe I 'm looking at this wrong, but it seems to me the candidate to run is the one who best reflects the community. If the community is deeply religious, and the candidate can speak to them as a fellow traveler, then that person is probably a better fit. I'm sure the candidates for Pelosi's seat in SF are going to be very different from the ones running in IA, but each might be right for that community.
I would probably be a centrist Democrat if the party had room for pro-lifers. Lots of young people name abortion as their main issue.
"If I am not for myself, who will be?
"But if I am for myself alone, what am I?
"And if not now---when?"
---Rabbi Hillel
I can't think of a better summary of my belief system than that of the Rabbi's, and the last time I attended church was during all the mass meetings during the civil rights movement. The first time I heard that quote, in fact, was at a mass meeting where the late James Farmer was the main speaker. It's stuck with me ever since.
I might also add that many Catholic priests and Cardinals, not to mention the Pope himself, are among the most vocal defenders of immigrants. We don't need to agree with them on other issues in order to welcome their voices. Right now we need all the allies we can get.
It sounds more like late 20th century self help. It sounds egoic. It doesn't sound like deep Jewish wisdom.
It’s very well known. I’ve heard it and I’m not Jewish.
It sounds like 20th century self-help speech. It doesn't sound wise.
You can call it what you like, but that quote has been cited over and over by both religious and secular leaders for more than 20 centuries. I'd call that pretty good staying power.
A good example of someone who walks in faith and science is leading climate scientist Katherine Hayoe. She’s said it’s rare for a scientist to take issue with her being a Christian, but often Christians rebuke science. Yet with conformity in church folk getting them to be stewarts of the earth can very much help the planet.
I had the opportunity to hear James Talarico speak at a recent conference and also talk with him. He’s thoughtful, deeply caring, empathic, and terrific at messaging. I think his faith is part of how he sees the world and is part of who he is. He’s a truly refreshing voice and because of his true Christian faith he puts to shame these corrupt unchristian Christian Nationalists.
The White evangelical vote was a primary driver in 2016 after the access Hollywood tape they stuck around when others wouldn’t.
Mormons were the one hard Republican voting group that went against Trump compared to their usual level of support for Republicans. But even that gap has been reduced.
Catholics & Jewish religious voters are the groups that Democrats could try to recapture. The pro-immigrant message appeals to both those groups of voters. Catholic charities along the border have done so much to the point where trump is trying to stop them. And Jewish voters might see the parallels between this administrations tactics and the persecution they studied and remember.
I suppose I'll catch hell for writing what I'm about to write. But, that's okay.
First, I don't ask anyone about her or his political conviction or commitment to the multi-consonants in L, G, B, T, Q, I or +.
For me, the Declaration - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [persons] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - settled the matter from 1776 to now.
Secondly, why would a political party set or encourage a religious litmus test?
Consider this: The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is not an "evangelical" church body in the sense of, for example, Primitive Baptist congregations. Communicants share core beliefs but are doctrinally different in their approaches to community and practice.
It's almost trite to point out that Lutheran churches (ELCA, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, etc.) fundamentally differ from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic church bodies.
But, who cares about this? As Brother Martin pointed out, there exists two kingdoms in which we live: the Temporal and the Spiritual.
The governing authority is established is to foster peace and justice. Regardless of one's personal and individually accepted faith, that person should be asked if the current governing authority fulfills that institutional responsibility and how or how not.
By the way, our Republic has been actively supported in blood and treasure from our Revolution through our 21st century conflicts by non-Christians, including Deists, Jews, Muslims, and (GASP!) atheists and agnostics.
Dogma unsupported by fact is tough to defend.
I have long thought that it is critical to upend the c-nat, republican, dare I say it evangelical support of this administration. If by running these candidates it will influence the Church to re-assess their support for the current regime, then so be it. The Church has been corrupted as well as our constitution and it needs to do some serious examination on what exactly we, the Church stand for.
Liberal Demoncrat from Jacksonville; Living in Boca Raton — Floridian wants to know from Candidate Vindman how he plans to appeal to: (1) the many many normie Republican folks who moved to my home state of Florida from Maryland, PA, NJ, NY since 2020; and (2) the Latino center-right US citizen community in Central and South Florida.
I don't equate Alexander Vindman to Amy McGrath's run in Kentucky. While a long shot, Vindman is running against a senator appointed to the position, not against Mitch McConnell as McGrath did.
if you return to this subject would be a good idea to talk to Doug Pagitt, who runs Common Good, an org that helps Democratic candidates learn to talk to faith voters. they got something like 171 candidates around the country that they're working with. Pagitt lives in Minneapolis and is in the thick of things right now, but Common Good has been around for several years and has been covered by national outlets.
I’m a Christian and activist living in Texas and have no problem talking about abortion, especially to GOP legislators. When asking them their basis for first trimester personhood, they have no response. I’ve asked the same of John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life. Again, crickets. I, on the other hand, can easily demonstrate that the three verses always cited by those who oppose abortion to have nothing to do with abortion or when “life” begins biblically. I frequently interact with “abortion abolitionists” on social media. They rely on editing scripture while you watch, then announce that they’ve delivered “the truth.” Yes, some Democrats can be cynical about religion, but others appreciate that we can join with secular activists to cover all the bases. And on immigration, some of us are not afraid to remind Christians that oppressing immigrants leads to “the eternal flame reserved for the devil and his angels.” (Mt 25:31-46)
Please stop writing stuff like this. We already have a de facto religious test for public office.
Consider the federal level. Zero avowed atheists have ever entered Congress as such: Pete Stark came out in his 3rd term; Kyrsten Sinema carefully listed herself as "unaffiliated." Zero presidents and vice presidents, and zero SCOTUS justices have ever admitted to atheism.
When Kamala was nominated, many non-white women cried: "Little girls like me finally see someone who is like them having a shot at the presidency"
Atheist kids have never seen such a thing. Candidates know it is the kiss of death in our supposedly enlightened country.
My district is 70+% Christian, not just religious, and I’m an independent Christian. This is a problem for some democrats here being resistant to talking about their religion, which I believe cedes the ground to “Christian” nationalism. I was at an event tonight where one of the other candidates (a democrat) relayed to me there is a portion of the democrats even here in Alabama that got offended when the candidate said God Bless you and God bless America. This has made him feel like he has to avoid talking about his faith or couching it in terms to not offend people which has been part of the perceived “spinelessness” and “anti-Christian” views of Democrats I have seen and been told about.
Yes, the hardcore atheists don’t want to hear anything linked to religion.
“ Twedt-Ball, the United Methodist pastor running for Congress in Iowa, told me that “there’s been some hesitancy and skepticism toward the church among some people in the Democratic party.”
This is me. I am uncomfortable with this new emphasis on religion; it already plays too big of a role in politics, IMO. Still, I understand the need to counter the crazy Christian Nationalists. It’s probably a smart idea. And I don’t have to pay attention to it, so there’s that.
I do like Talerico. He’s smart, a good speaker, and he seems to have thought long and hard about how to win, and priorities on policy. His religious background will probably help him in Texas.
Christian Nationalists are not Christian, at least, not as Christ defined His followers.
I think the Democrats have an excellent opportunity here to take the moral high ground. It doesn't matter how many of us are religious or not, we can certainly elevate the Christian view of things like shooting, beating and incarcerating innocent people and wave it around for all to see. One of our most obvious failures is NOT calling the GOP out enough on their blatant hypocrisy. Look at what the Vatican is doing, i.e., Pope Leo and his bishops--they've been hammering at the totally un-Christian cruelty of what the right is doing. We need to hoist those images up in full view and remind them of that fact. The point is, they call themselves a Christian movement, we need to remind everyone how wrong that claim is.
I was going to reply in a similar vein. I see the Dem party as one with many members whose ethics align with the teachings of Jesus, even if they are not religious... And many more "fundamentalist" Christians seem more ethically aligned with the Old Testament... probably not the most tactful way to say it, but...