As an atheist, I find it stunning that candidates feel they must prioritize “faith” over rational thinking. But whatever it takes to win, I suppose.
The strategy for incorporating faith into politics is simply to stress *morality* rather than religion per se. As for appealing to evangelicals, they are a lost cause.
Ironically, for much of my life (including when I was a Republican, now going on 20+ years ago), I felt it was better to keep the wall of separation between church and state, including that clergy stay in that side of it.
I was very concerned about just HOW Jesus-y the GOP was and was becoming, and it was a very specific flavor of Christianity.
I guess I was ripe to reassess the WHOLE thing, eh? I was always the first to push back that the party and government couldn't be explicitly championing one religion over others (or over no religion... that quote from Jefferson here! 😉). AND that plenty of people who voted differently were just as validly Christian as I was.
Fast forward, and here's another place where my ideals were essentially in the right place, but boy was I wrong on outcomes. BRING ON THE ORDAINED (et al)! This is probably the best way forward, considering where we are. And, for people who might find their lives richer through being part of a faith community, but who have been turned off by the horrendous bigotry of the GOP's chosen "Established Church," makibg a range of alternative theologies and practices TRULY VISIBLE is a different but important ministry.
Molière's play Tartuffe is about the character Tartuffe who won the graces of a wealthy patron by pretending to be a pious man, all the while trying to seduce his patron's wife. When the patron's friend exposed Tartuffe, the patron tried to expel Tartuffe, to which Tartuffe responded by invoking a hidden clause of his contract to seize the patron's home. The friend was able to intercede with the government officials to overturn Tartuffe's machinations.
After the patron regained title to his home, he swore to be done with religion. His friend responded that he should not do away entirely with religion, but simply be more careful as to who he allows to represent religion to him. Such is the manifestation of religion in much of the Right today and the message we should have to the Left in response.
Disclaimer: I am not a Christian; I'm merely an outside observer who usually minds his own business. Today, though, I'm going to put an observation forward, hoping it is useful. Think of me as a devil's advocate in the original sense.
The demonstration at a St.Paul church (that led to Don Lemon's arrest) has been widely decried here at the Bulwark. I agree that it was tactically bad, at least it had a bad messaging strategy. However, I see possibilities in it if executed correctly.
It was essentially a theological disagreement. A group of Christians who object to news events and see them as incompatible with the teachings of Jesus tried to dialog with another group of Christians who openly support Trump. They failed to get a discussion started, and that's the core of the messaging mess.
Question: would it have been better if the demonstrators did not try to talk to them, but instead brought a written version of their argument and nailed it to the door of the church?
Texas: another stunning rebuke of Trump and Trumpism. This was a net 31 point Trump reversal: 17 from his 2024 performance, added to the 14 that is the voters' answer to one year of Trump 2.0. As to Alexander Vindman this guy is a winner. He will have crossover appeal in red Florida, as a serious person and retired colonel, who gutfully told Trump where to go in congressional hearings on DT's attempt to extort Zelenksy. Remember that first impeachment? There's no real side by side comparison with Amy McGrath as she went up against the colossus that is/was McConnell. No, I'd be surprised if Vindman didn't put the fear of god in the GOP by how well he will do, even if doesn't pull out the win. Because next time, he well might manage the win. Progress builds upon build.
If good Christians wish to have a hand in shaping the future of whatever comes after this hellhole we all live in today they'd be best advised to start voting independent or dem about now.
Agnostic who grew up in church and a fan of Talarico AND YOUR NEWSLETTER! please consider providing audio. Also lived in Nashville forever - graduate school at Peabody/Vandy - then Healthcare Industry.
As an agnostic, I would look at this the other way around. The Christian Nationalists have co-opted what it is to be religious in this country but it is surely not the only way. Look at Jimmy Carter, as an example, who was very devout and involved in his church. He didn't force his religion down the throats of the others but truly lived by the teachings of Jesus, unlike the MAGAs. This is how you can be religious and a Democrat. It's long past time that the other White Christian churches come out and engage like true Jesus followers. This is beginning to happen with the ICE protests, ever so tentatively, I think. Clergy were arrested peacefully protesting in Minneapolis and it seems the current pope is encouraging or at least allowing his leaders to speak out here as two cardinals have done so publicly. They must get much louder, much, much louder if they want America to see that Christian Nationalism is not the definition of religion here and if they, like Jimmy Carter, can respect a range of opinions on the issues.
The challenge is to make Christians feel welcome in the party. It doesn’t take much to make them feel like they don’t belong. For some, even the plants that interrupted Kamala’s speech were enough to cause doubt.
As a side note, more content without profanity would help with social media shares. Asking for a friend 😬
A question about one of our most religiously homogeneous states. Why does Utah continue to vote for the greed, cruelty, amorality and corruption embodied in Trump and the Republicans. Utah voters certainly chose them over dignified and capable women candidates. Senators Mike Lee and John Curtis have sworn fealty to Trump lawlessness and inhumanity the Mormon religion abhors, Curtis telling Trump he is "eyes, ears and voice" for him, Lee willing to give away public lands and forests to the highest bidder. Romney, with his weak defiance of Trump, seems to have disappeared without support. Mormons believe the Constitution is divinely inspired, but stand idly by as Trump defiles and shreds it. I suspect another case of "follow the money." Churches must be taxed.
Trump is actually less popular in Utah than most other heavily red states. Senator Curtis has actually shown some independence from Trump. Governor Spencer Cox has shown even more independence.
Still, Mormonism (which dominates Utah) is a very conservative religion and Mormons supporting Democrats over Republicans would be a big reach. Pretty much the best you can expect at this point are Republican politicians like Curtis and Cox who will occasionally stand up to excesses of Trump.
It's the same thing with my home state. Senator Todd Young is far from being the independent-minded Republican that I would like him to be. But he's much better than almost all the other Republicans in the Senate and a heck of a lot better than the other Republican Senator from Indiana. I guess in the end, it's all relative.
Equating Christianity with the anti-abortion movement is wrong, as there is no-where in the Bible any expression of prohibition of abortion, or of categorizing support for abortion as other than "pro-life" (as in, the quality of health and life both for the mother, and for the rest of their families and society).
There are religions on both sides of the abortion debate. For me, it's about science. Pre-natal life is undeniable. The question is always at what point should that life be legally protected. Most countries have chosen to prohibit abortion after 15 weeks, but have allowed for exceptions. Virtually none have drawn no line whatsoever.
If you truly value science, you will value not "life," but consciousness. Neuroscience is clear that there are is not sufficient neural development before 5 to 6 months into the pregnancy for the fetus to possess consciousness at all. Even after that, the developing neurology is heavily sedated until the first breath. At any point before 5 months, the brain is so small, and the later connections within it so nonexistent, that you need to be in the Monty Python "every sperm is sacred" territory to worry about its "life." Those sperm are fully alive!
Getting liberal protestants (meaning theologically liberal: Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, UCC, etc.) is not going to bring in many evangelicals. I would, however, assume it could drive turnout among non-evangelical Christians, and perhaps keep some evangelicals home if they feel less-embattled. I am guessing an even-bigger benefit would be if these candidates can speak with conviction and sincerity. So many establishment dems are easy to paint as corporate shills saying whatever their consultants tell them will help them get elected. Anything that counters that image is a good thing.
There is a parable in which a man who owns a vineyard, one day, asks his two sons to work in his vineyard. The first son refused but the second son agreed, and yet the second son never showed up while the first son came out and worked. Who was the good son and who was not? For many years now, I have heard some of my coreligionists wax eloquently about how our nation was founded as a Christian nation and that we must be a Christian nation. Oh, they want that so very badly, or do they? However, it is in Minneapolis, in its resistance to lawless oppression, brought on, in part by some of these same people who cry out for a "Christian Nation" that we might see what a Christian Community might actually look like. In Minneapolis, people are helping their neighbors. They are bringing food to those who are being hunted and persecuted and they are helping them in other ways. They call it "neighbor-ism". If evil has any value it is when it makes good more apparent. Their work is perfectly described in Matthew 25:35, even though some of them may not have the slightest inkling of that. Many of them have suffered. Two, that I know of, have been killed on public streets in the light of day and then all manner of evil was spoken against them, falsely.
The irony, the upside-down-ness of this moment is almost too perfect. Those who I might not have suspected of being Christians are following some of the most important moral teachings of the Gospels to the letter, far more than I have, while others who have proclaimed their Christian faith from every hilltop now appear to have forgotten those teachings. Before we can have any hope of being a "Christian Nation", that is, a nation that follows the basic moral teachings of the Gospels - many of us will need to decide which son we want to follow - the disobedient one that expresses obedience with the mouth or the one that that practices obedience with actions. But, for the present, I will regard those citizens of Minneapolis who are practicing neighbor-ism, as being Christians, even though some of them might react with hostility at the notion - because - as I have said for many years now - "many of the most Christian people I have met, have not been Christians".
Vindman is Florida’s best chance for democratics to get the Senate seat, but it’s not the story in Florida that reporters should be looking into. I think Governor DeSantis’ focus on moving to the right, if it actually possible, of the Trump Administration on eliminating the constitutional rights of immigrants (driving tests in English only, deputized state and local police to enforce ICE, creation of executive office army, multiple Alligator Alleys, etc.) so he can replace Kristy Noem when she gets fired is the most important story in Florida.
He has no chance to win the presidency in ‘28 and couldn’t even win a Florida primary against Rubio right now, so he needs a job when he is term limited in January. Scandals have eliminated his wife Casey from succeeding him and both of their ambitions won’t let them fade into obscurity. It is Florida Man!
People have been too quick to write off Florida. I think Democrats best chance is to pick up the Governor's Office. (Donalds is not a good candidate for Republicans) But in a wave year, Vindman has a shot at winning that Senate seat
I sure hope you are right. MAGA and hate have ruled too long in Florida. And the grift we are known for used to be from people coming from other states and now it’s homegrown too.
I agree that Donald’s is a poor candidate for the republicans. Despite his endorsement from Trump he has too much past baggage, and he is Black. I hate writing that, but with my MAGA family and friends, it is reality.
for years non-liberal christians have blasted the mainlines religious theology as being ever more heretical, and yet they appear to have happily wedded themselves to the gop political party and look what's happened, theyve undermined their own beliefs ... or perhaps they never really had them? so now what?
I think it is mixture of both. I had very conservative evangelical associates who went from "we can't really support this Trump guy" to "well, we can't let a Democrat win, even if we hate the guy" to "heck yes Covid is fake and the election was stolen". A lot of their theology was about power and wielding it. And while I'll admit there is some really bad theology in some corners of the mainline, most of the people criticizing them are the same kind of people who think most Catholics (heck, most of Christianity up until a few hundred years ago) aren't real Christians either.
everyone is a heretic... except me. actually here's the problem -- if you let your branch of the christianity become politicized to the point that politics drives your beliefs... your doing it wrong.
the mainlines do this a bit... some more than others but nowhere near what the evangelicals and so on have embarked upon.
I think those two things go together to some extent. Like, I have some disagreements with Roman Catholics, which is why I'm not one myself, but I think they are perfectly good Christians.
At the same time, if I go to my old church's website, their "Statement of Faith" has a few things that are important basics of Christianity or points of debate, the vast majority of it is devoted to a number of particular beliefs that haven't even been around for more than a few hundred years. Some of them are "hot topic" political and social issues. There is a bit about how most "Christian" churches out there are bad and wrong. Once you start deciding that most things that have traditionally been considered to be "good faith disagreements" are actually really clear cut issues, you open the door to the beliefs of your political party also being important elements of your faith.
There's a way to appeal to folks on the basis of religion that does not involve throwing some of the party's most vulnerable constituents under the bus, re:
>>> "Democratic operatives told me that the party has not been tolerant of voters who are less comfortable with abortion, gay marriage, and transgender rights—and they said that all too often the party seems hostile to voters who disagree with the party mainstream on these issues"
Look, concern for the stranger/sojourner/foreigner is one of the most common moral commandments throughout both the Old and New Testament. The Catholic church and many other groups are piling on to immigration. There is an extremely Christian message on immigration that is lined up very well with existing party orthodoxy, if not the left-wing insurgency in the party. Lean into that.
Similarly, care for the poor and the hungry and the naked and the imprisoned is also an important Christian message, one that the Trumpists have fully abandoned.
Sometimes I think these talking heads and beltway mouth breathing consultant types who equate Christianity to opposition to LGBTQ+ issues comes from folks who are fundamentally either not Christian or do not themselves understand Christianity. Nonreligious folks who understand the Christian faith only as it is framed through ring wing culture war discourse should not be the ones advising the party on how to make religious appeals.
The party *is* pretty hostile towards folks who want to impose debatable religious views that actively oppress and harm others.
No one is going to debate if murder is wrong or not. They will debate if removing a collection of cells is tantamount to murder. Or if a woman who is told her baby—one that she wants—is not viable is committing murder because she has to have an abortion to protect her life and reproductive health so she can have another child. Insisting on blanket abortion bans, implemented not from compassion and understanding but from self-righteous show-boating—yeah the Democratic Party has every reason to be hostile towards folks like that.
I agree that there are many other good angles to take that could reach the “nones” and even a few evangelicals, which I think Talerico does well because he is genuine and thoughtful rather than operating from a fear-based position. The question is if Christians will recognize their religion from someone who is trying to empower them rather than scare them witless.
I think a lot of it is being proactive versus reactive. And then even in reacting, the utter lack of imagination and focus on the imagined median/mean voter from polling.
If they only ever fight on the ground conservatives choose, then they will lose. This is what happened with Trans youth sports bans. There's a culturally conservative argument about getting the state the hell out of an individual family's parenting decisions and an individual's medical decision with their doctors. But instead, the party fought and lost on the chosen terrain of their opponents.
The other issue is that they overly focus on a mean/median voter who doesn't exist, or else doesn't exist in a meaningful constituency that can be mobilized to the polls. We can imagine a poll question like, "on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being full throated oppression and erasure of Trans people and 10 being fully embracing trans people, where do you fall?" Let's say 10 people take the poll, and you have 5 people say 10, and 5 people say 1 (so: 1,1,1,1,1,10,10,10,10,10). The mean and median result are both 5.5. AND YET the "position" of 5.5 represents literally no one in the sample, it isn't even a valid choice if people had to pick whole integers in the question. Running a campaign on a 5.5 mean/median issue position message will appeal to exactly no one in the real world.
💯and I think that imaginary median voter focus lulls them into thinking they don’t actually have to go talk to people, ask them about their everyday problems, and focus on that. They absolutely let the right run the narrative and it keeps me pisse me off.
As an atheist, I find it stunning that candidates feel they must prioritize “faith” over rational thinking. But whatever it takes to win, I suppose.
The strategy for incorporating faith into politics is simply to stress *morality* rather than religion per se. As for appealing to evangelicals, they are a lost cause.
Ironically, for much of my life (including when I was a Republican, now going on 20+ years ago), I felt it was better to keep the wall of separation between church and state, including that clergy stay in that side of it.
I was very concerned about just HOW Jesus-y the GOP was and was becoming, and it was a very specific flavor of Christianity.
I guess I was ripe to reassess the WHOLE thing, eh? I was always the first to push back that the party and government couldn't be explicitly championing one religion over others (or over no religion... that quote from Jefferson here! 😉). AND that plenty of people who voted differently were just as validly Christian as I was.
Fast forward, and here's another place where my ideals were essentially in the right place, but boy was I wrong on outcomes. BRING ON THE ORDAINED (et al)! This is probably the best way forward, considering where we are. And, for people who might find their lives richer through being part of a faith community, but who have been turned off by the horrendous bigotry of the GOP's chosen "Established Church," makibg a range of alternative theologies and practices TRULY VISIBLE is a different but important ministry.
Molière's play Tartuffe is about the character Tartuffe who won the graces of a wealthy patron by pretending to be a pious man, all the while trying to seduce his patron's wife. When the patron's friend exposed Tartuffe, the patron tried to expel Tartuffe, to which Tartuffe responded by invoking a hidden clause of his contract to seize the patron's home. The friend was able to intercede with the government officials to overturn Tartuffe's machinations.
After the patron regained title to his home, he swore to be done with religion. His friend responded that he should not do away entirely with religion, but simply be more careful as to who he allows to represent religion to him. Such is the manifestation of religion in much of the Right today and the message we should have to the Left in response.
Disclaimer: I am not a Christian; I'm merely an outside observer who usually minds his own business. Today, though, I'm going to put an observation forward, hoping it is useful. Think of me as a devil's advocate in the original sense.
The demonstration at a St.Paul church (that led to Don Lemon's arrest) has been widely decried here at the Bulwark. I agree that it was tactically bad, at least it had a bad messaging strategy. However, I see possibilities in it if executed correctly.
It was essentially a theological disagreement. A group of Christians who object to news events and see them as incompatible with the teachings of Jesus tried to dialog with another group of Christians who openly support Trump. They failed to get a discussion started, and that's the core of the messaging mess.
Question: would it have been better if the demonstrators did not try to talk to them, but instead brought a written version of their argument and nailed it to the door of the church?
Oh man, that would have been something.
Texas: another stunning rebuke of Trump and Trumpism. This was a net 31 point Trump reversal: 17 from his 2024 performance, added to the 14 that is the voters' answer to one year of Trump 2.0. As to Alexander Vindman this guy is a winner. He will have crossover appeal in red Florida, as a serious person and retired colonel, who gutfully told Trump where to go in congressional hearings on DT's attempt to extort Zelenksy. Remember that first impeachment? There's no real side by side comparison with Amy McGrath as she went up against the colossus that is/was McConnell. No, I'd be surprised if Vindman didn't put the fear of god in the GOP by how well he will do, even if doesn't pull out the win. Because next time, he well might manage the win. Progress builds upon build.
If good Christians wish to have a hand in shaping the future of whatever comes after this hellhole we all live in today they'd be best advised to start voting independent or dem about now.
Agnostic who grew up in church and a fan of Talarico AND YOUR NEWSLETTER! please consider providing audio. Also lived in Nashville forever - graduate school at Peabody/Vandy - then Healthcare Industry.
As an agnostic, I would look at this the other way around. The Christian Nationalists have co-opted what it is to be religious in this country but it is surely not the only way. Look at Jimmy Carter, as an example, who was very devout and involved in his church. He didn't force his religion down the throats of the others but truly lived by the teachings of Jesus, unlike the MAGAs. This is how you can be religious and a Democrat. It's long past time that the other White Christian churches come out and engage like true Jesus followers. This is beginning to happen with the ICE protests, ever so tentatively, I think. Clergy were arrested peacefully protesting in Minneapolis and it seems the current pope is encouraging or at least allowing his leaders to speak out here as two cardinals have done so publicly. They must get much louder, much, much louder if they want America to see that Christian Nationalism is not the definition of religion here and if they, like Jimmy Carter, can respect a range of opinions on the issues.
The challenge is to make Christians feel welcome in the party. It doesn’t take much to make them feel like they don’t belong. For some, even the plants that interrupted Kamala’s speech were enough to cause doubt.
As a side note, more content without profanity would help with social media shares. Asking for a friend 😬
A question about one of our most religiously homogeneous states. Why does Utah continue to vote for the greed, cruelty, amorality and corruption embodied in Trump and the Republicans. Utah voters certainly chose them over dignified and capable women candidates. Senators Mike Lee and John Curtis have sworn fealty to Trump lawlessness and inhumanity the Mormon religion abhors, Curtis telling Trump he is "eyes, ears and voice" for him, Lee willing to give away public lands and forests to the highest bidder. Romney, with his weak defiance of Trump, seems to have disappeared without support. Mormons believe the Constitution is divinely inspired, but stand idly by as Trump defiles and shreds it. I suspect another case of "follow the money." Churches must be taxed.
Trump is actually less popular in Utah than most other heavily red states. Senator Curtis has actually shown some independence from Trump. Governor Spencer Cox has shown even more independence.
Still, Mormonism (which dominates Utah) is a very conservative religion and Mormons supporting Democrats over Republicans would be a big reach. Pretty much the best you can expect at this point are Republican politicians like Curtis and Cox who will occasionally stand up to excesses of Trump.
It's the same thing with my home state. Senator Todd Young is far from being the independent-minded Republican that I would like him to be. But he's much better than almost all the other Republicans in the Senate and a heck of a lot better than the other Republican Senator from Indiana. I guess in the end, it's all relative.
Equating Christianity with the anti-abortion movement is wrong, as there is no-where in the Bible any expression of prohibition of abortion, or of categorizing support for abortion as other than "pro-life" (as in, the quality of health and life both for the mother, and for the rest of their families and society).
There are religions on both sides of the abortion debate. For me, it's about science. Pre-natal life is undeniable. The question is always at what point should that life be legally protected. Most countries have chosen to prohibit abortion after 15 weeks, but have allowed for exceptions. Virtually none have drawn no line whatsoever.
If you truly value science, you will value not "life," but consciousness. Neuroscience is clear that there are is not sufficient neural development before 5 to 6 months into the pregnancy for the fetus to possess consciousness at all. Even after that, the developing neurology is heavily sedated until the first breath. At any point before 5 months, the brain is so small, and the later connections within it so nonexistent, that you need to be in the Monty Python "every sperm is sacred" territory to worry about its "life." Those sperm are fully alive!
Getting liberal protestants (meaning theologically liberal: Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, UCC, etc.) is not going to bring in many evangelicals. I would, however, assume it could drive turnout among non-evangelical Christians, and perhaps keep some evangelicals home if they feel less-embattled. I am guessing an even-bigger benefit would be if these candidates can speak with conviction and sincerity. So many establishment dems are easy to paint as corporate shills saying whatever their consultants tell them will help them get elected. Anything that counters that image is a good thing.
There is a parable in which a man who owns a vineyard, one day, asks his two sons to work in his vineyard. The first son refused but the second son agreed, and yet the second son never showed up while the first son came out and worked. Who was the good son and who was not? For many years now, I have heard some of my coreligionists wax eloquently about how our nation was founded as a Christian nation and that we must be a Christian nation. Oh, they want that so very badly, or do they? However, it is in Minneapolis, in its resistance to lawless oppression, brought on, in part by some of these same people who cry out for a "Christian Nation" that we might see what a Christian Community might actually look like. In Minneapolis, people are helping their neighbors. They are bringing food to those who are being hunted and persecuted and they are helping them in other ways. They call it "neighbor-ism". If evil has any value it is when it makes good more apparent. Their work is perfectly described in Matthew 25:35, even though some of them may not have the slightest inkling of that. Many of them have suffered. Two, that I know of, have been killed on public streets in the light of day and then all manner of evil was spoken against them, falsely.
The irony, the upside-down-ness of this moment is almost too perfect. Those who I might not have suspected of being Christians are following some of the most important moral teachings of the Gospels to the letter, far more than I have, while others who have proclaimed their Christian faith from every hilltop now appear to have forgotten those teachings. Before we can have any hope of being a "Christian Nation", that is, a nation that follows the basic moral teachings of the Gospels - many of us will need to decide which son we want to follow - the disobedient one that expresses obedience with the mouth or the one that that practices obedience with actions. But, for the present, I will regard those citizens of Minneapolis who are practicing neighbor-ism, as being Christians, even though some of them might react with hostility at the notion - because - as I have said for many years now - "many of the most Christian people I have met, have not been Christians".
Vindman is Florida’s best chance for democratics to get the Senate seat, but it’s not the story in Florida that reporters should be looking into. I think Governor DeSantis’ focus on moving to the right, if it actually possible, of the Trump Administration on eliminating the constitutional rights of immigrants (driving tests in English only, deputized state and local police to enforce ICE, creation of executive office army, multiple Alligator Alleys, etc.) so he can replace Kristy Noem when she gets fired is the most important story in Florida.
He has no chance to win the presidency in ‘28 and couldn’t even win a Florida primary against Rubio right now, so he needs a job when he is term limited in January. Scandals have eliminated his wife Casey from succeeding him and both of their ambitions won’t let them fade into obscurity. It is Florida Man!
People have been too quick to write off Florida. I think Democrats best chance is to pick up the Governor's Office. (Donalds is not a good candidate for Republicans) But in a wave year, Vindman has a shot at winning that Senate seat
I sure hope you are right. MAGA and hate have ruled too long in Florida. And the grift we are known for used to be from people coming from other states and now it’s homegrown too.
I agree that Donald’s is a poor candidate for the republicans. Despite his endorsement from Trump he has too much past baggage, and he is Black. I hate writing that, but with my MAGA family and friends, it is reality.
for years non-liberal christians have blasted the mainlines religious theology as being ever more heretical, and yet they appear to have happily wedded themselves to the gop political party and look what's happened, theyve undermined their own beliefs ... or perhaps they never really had them? so now what?
I think it is mixture of both. I had very conservative evangelical associates who went from "we can't really support this Trump guy" to "well, we can't let a Democrat win, even if we hate the guy" to "heck yes Covid is fake and the election was stolen". A lot of their theology was about power and wielding it. And while I'll admit there is some really bad theology in some corners of the mainline, most of the people criticizing them are the same kind of people who think most Catholics (heck, most of Christianity up until a few hundred years ago) aren't real Christians either.
everyone is a heretic... except me. actually here's the problem -- if you let your branch of the christianity become politicized to the point that politics drives your beliefs... your doing it wrong.
the mainlines do this a bit... some more than others but nowhere near what the evangelicals and so on have embarked upon.
I think those two things go together to some extent. Like, I have some disagreements with Roman Catholics, which is why I'm not one myself, but I think they are perfectly good Christians.
At the same time, if I go to my old church's website, their "Statement of Faith" has a few things that are important basics of Christianity or points of debate, the vast majority of it is devoted to a number of particular beliefs that haven't even been around for more than a few hundred years. Some of them are "hot topic" political and social issues. There is a bit about how most "Christian" churches out there are bad and wrong. Once you start deciding that most things that have traditionally been considered to be "good faith disagreements" are actually really clear cut issues, you open the door to the beliefs of your political party also being important elements of your faith.
There's a way to appeal to folks on the basis of religion that does not involve throwing some of the party's most vulnerable constituents under the bus, re:
>>> "Democratic operatives told me that the party has not been tolerant of voters who are less comfortable with abortion, gay marriage, and transgender rights—and they said that all too often the party seems hostile to voters who disagree with the party mainstream on these issues"
Look, concern for the stranger/sojourner/foreigner is one of the most common moral commandments throughout both the Old and New Testament. The Catholic church and many other groups are piling on to immigration. There is an extremely Christian message on immigration that is lined up very well with existing party orthodoxy, if not the left-wing insurgency in the party. Lean into that.
Similarly, care for the poor and the hungry and the naked and the imprisoned is also an important Christian message, one that the Trumpists have fully abandoned.
Sometimes I think these talking heads and beltway mouth breathing consultant types who equate Christianity to opposition to LGBTQ+ issues comes from folks who are fundamentally either not Christian or do not themselves understand Christianity. Nonreligious folks who understand the Christian faith only as it is framed through ring wing culture war discourse should not be the ones advising the party on how to make religious appeals.
The party *is* pretty hostile towards folks who want to impose debatable religious views that actively oppress and harm others.
No one is going to debate if murder is wrong or not. They will debate if removing a collection of cells is tantamount to murder. Or if a woman who is told her baby—one that she wants—is not viable is committing murder because she has to have an abortion to protect her life and reproductive health so she can have another child. Insisting on blanket abortion bans, implemented not from compassion and understanding but from self-righteous show-boating—yeah the Democratic Party has every reason to be hostile towards folks like that.
I agree that there are many other good angles to take that could reach the “nones” and even a few evangelicals, which I think Talerico does well because he is genuine and thoughtful rather than operating from a fear-based position. The question is if Christians will recognize their religion from someone who is trying to empower them rather than scare them witless.
I think a lot of it is being proactive versus reactive. And then even in reacting, the utter lack of imagination and focus on the imagined median/mean voter from polling.
If they only ever fight on the ground conservatives choose, then they will lose. This is what happened with Trans youth sports bans. There's a culturally conservative argument about getting the state the hell out of an individual family's parenting decisions and an individual's medical decision with their doctors. But instead, the party fought and lost on the chosen terrain of their opponents.
The other issue is that they overly focus on a mean/median voter who doesn't exist, or else doesn't exist in a meaningful constituency that can be mobilized to the polls. We can imagine a poll question like, "on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being full throated oppression and erasure of Trans people and 10 being fully embracing trans people, where do you fall?" Let's say 10 people take the poll, and you have 5 people say 10, and 5 people say 1 (so: 1,1,1,1,1,10,10,10,10,10). The mean and median result are both 5.5. AND YET the "position" of 5.5 represents literally no one in the sample, it isn't even a valid choice if people had to pick whole integers in the question. Running a campaign on a 5.5 mean/median issue position message will appeal to exactly no one in the real world.
💯and I think that imaginary median voter focus lulls them into thinking they don’t actually have to go talk to people, ask them about their everyday problems, and focus on that. They absolutely let the right run the narrative and it keeps me pisse me off.
You hit that one right out of the park Kotzu.