Sunday, November 07, 2004

Will they get religion?

After my failed attempt here finding a pundit that wasn't talking about religious people as if they were idiots or Martians, I had a little more luck with this article from Slate.com. The cautiously-worded advice that it might be prudent to consider the Christian vote doesn't sound like rocket science to us, but then ... we're Christian. We're aware of the fact that our churches aren't actually filled with bigots, prudes and morons. If that one tidbit of information can be leaked plausibly to the left, my heart will be glad.


Democratic politicians should never forget something simple: Most Republicans and most Democrats are religious. Using faith language is not just about sucking up to their voters, it's about talking to your own base, too—and those Catholics who abandoned the party this year.

On some level, the hardest thing that Democratic leaders, activists, and journalists have to do is honestly ask themselves this: Do you hold very religious people in contempt? If you do, religious people will sense it—and will vote against you. And there are more of them than there are of you.



And by the way, if an article like this ever mentions the Orthodox, I think I'll just die a happy woman. But one thing at a time ...

On this same note, Peter Alexis talks about a little of the one-way street Christians encounter in trying to dialogue with the faith-impaired, and ends with this excellent point:
We are forty percent of the population. We are not shrinking and we are not growing more liberal. They need to deal with us. We hope they do. It is not wholesome that three-quarters of traditional Christians are in one party.

BTW, I'm still thinking about how to talk about the relationship between Christians and the two parties. I understand the sensitivity some feel to the labels, because it can come off sounding as if God abides with one people and not with another, which is insulting, ridiculous and may even be heretical. I trust that none of the people in my religious blogosphere would hold such an opinion, but it may be a time be sure to use the most accurate words. That's something for another entry.

2 Comments:

Blogger Firehand said...

One of the things I've noticed about the, for lack of a better term, hard-left types in this is that pagans are somewhat more tolerated because they are so often of hard-left political beliefs themselves, but 'tolerated' is the word. Their religeoous beliefs are discarded because they otherwise follow the line.

With a lot of the people in question, it's not just Christians and Jews they don't get; they don't get Muslims and Pagans and whatever, either. Which is why when you try to explain to them that some Muslims really do want us all dead because of their religeous beliefs, it can only be two things; 'Unbelievable' and you're just making it up, or 'That is just what they say, not what they really believe'. Having little or no religeous beliefs of their own, they just can't believe that someone REALLY believes that. Makes for a large part of the disconnect between people.

November 13, 2004 at 1:52 PM  
Blogger Grace said...

"Having little or no religeous beliefs of their own, they just can't believe that someone REALLY believes that. Makes for a large part of the disconnect between people."

That's what I'm starting to notice. It's not just that they don't believe in God, they don't even believe that other people believe. Which just seems weird.

November 13, 2004 at 5:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home