There is an article in Mother Jones seeking to explore Hillary Clinton’s religious beliefs and the somewhat strange way in which she happens to worship with some of the people considered her idealogical enemies. What is a little strange is that it’s co-written by Jeff Sharlett, who I ate lunch with once (he contextualized for me the idea that the religious left in the black church is key to Democratic success) and is one of the few people writing on religion in a non-ridiculous way (his article on Ron Luce’s Battlecry is a must-read). But it has this passage:
These days, Clinton has graduated from the political wives’ group into what may be Coe’s most elite cell, the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast. Though weighted Republican, the breakfast—regularly attended by about 40 members—is a bipartisan opportunity for politicians to burnish their reputations, giving Clinton the chance to profess her faith with men such as Brownback as well as the twin terrors of Oklahoma, James Inhofe and Tom Coburn, and, until recently, former Senator George Allen (R-Va.). Democrats in the group include Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, who told us that the separation of church and state has gone too far; Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is also a regular.
The way that is worded makes it seem as if the prayer breakfast is a hub of conservative pols - because clearly Mark Pryor and Joe Lieberman wouldn’t attend otherwise. By association this seems to say Sen. Clinton is as conservative as they are. But there is another Democrat currently running for president who was regularly an attendee at the Senate Prayer Breakfast.
John Edwards. And I don’t think anybody is arguing that Sen. Edwards is conservative. In fact, there’s something of a case to be made that he’s the most left-leaning of the mainstream Democratic field (I happen to think that on policy there isn’t an inch worth of daylight between the Democratic frontrunners). So this idea of the prayer breakfast as the hub of Sen. Clinton being a right-winger is kind of a misnomer, I think.
I think conservatives go too far when they want to impose religious law on all the rest of us, but some liberals can be similarly silly when they want liberal pols to excise all their religious beliefs in favor of some kind of purity.
Oliver;
Give us your opinion as to why Edwards has gotten no traction.
Why have his debate performances been so lackluster?
The way that is worded makes it seem as if the prayer breakfast is a hub of conservative pols - because clearly Mark Pryor and Joe Lieberman wouldn’t attend otherwise. By association this seems to say Sen. Clinton is as conservative as they are. But there is another Democrat currently running for president who was regularly an attendee at the Senate Prayer Breakfast.
I didn’t read it that way. I read it as a illustration where despite the chasm that exists politically between people like Hillary Clinton and Sam Brownback for instance, that this prayer breakfast is a time when those things are pushed to the side.
I think the media has been responsible in part of putting together this canvas whereby we’re to believe that ideological opposites in Washington DC circles hate each other and that line between the two exists even outside ‘the office.’
Granted, I am sure that in many cases, some of them do hate each other, but I also believe that it’s a stereotype for the most part.
Look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. We’re talking about polar opposites on the ideological globe. But they are very good friends. Their families have vacationed together, play cards together and spend New Years Eve together each year.
Give us your opinion as to why Edwards has gotten no traction.
The public and the media only have space in their heads for two candidates. Right now that means Hillary and the Anti-Hillary, and to most people Obama is the anti-Hillary and not Edwards. As a result, he ends up trying to stick his face inbetween the two but its for naught when the larger narrative is between the two.
Furthermore, the Edwards team has been craptacular at cultivating any kind of momentum from the grassroots support they’ve had, and they have almost no message discipline to fight back a lot of the damaging stuff that’s been pushed out in the press about their candidate.
I look forward to a time when religion is no longer a factor in choosing elected officials.
As an atheist I would like a professed atheist to stand up for his or her non-belief while running for office. An atheist from any party would get my vote on that basis alone, because it would show courage and rationality, both in short supply in Washington.
As an atheist I look forward to the day when magic and invisible magicians are no longer given political authority. Does our political court STILL require a Merlin, casting spells, I mean, praying for stuff?
Religion will no longer be a factor in politics only in societies where religion is no longer a factor. Look at Turkey.
Does our political court STILL require a Merlin, casting spells, I mean, praying for stuff?
Therein lies the reason outspoken athiests don’t win elections. As long as you ridicule the beliefs of others, you’ll have a hard time winning respect for your own.
Quaker,
I second that. I don’t presume to know everything and mistake atheist belief in “nothing” as silly. In the context of the article, I actually tend to agree with Jay. Its easy to label political opposites as mortal enemies destined for never ending conflict. If anything is clintonesque it having a particular faith and not SHOVING it down someones throat. Your actions always speak better to you as a person than claiming to be double-dog christ-e. I think that most but not all Republicans allow themselves to become caricatures because it gives them an identity, however alot of times the media helps this silly process along. That is why it is a “shock” that Democrats can have faith in ANYthing. Too bad people still buy into these caricatures.
That is why it is a “shock” that Democrats can have faith in ANYthing. Too bad people still buy into these caricatures.
So right you are. And what’s especially damaging is when Democrats buy these spurious tales about our own party. The Democratic Party has been a welcoming home for people of faith for…well, for as long as the party has existed. OW is on the mark when he says that some liberal activists “want liberal pols to excise all their religious beliefs in favor of some kind of purity.”
Why do they want that? For exactly the reason you named, Whale–as a mark of identity.
What it comes down to is this: when you find a candidate with whom you’re completely comfortable, you’ve found a candidate who will get just one vote.
Edwards has no ‘traction’ because he has “Kerry ‘04″ all over him. Plenty of people remember the pledge to leave no stone unturned– and no penny of the enormous campaign war chest unspent– in making sure every vote was counted fairly. Still, we had Ken Blackwell running wild in Ohio and Kerry/Edwards capitulating without so much as a whimper. Edwards can wax on like the Second Coming, but he can’t shower off the ‘04 capitulation.
If anyone thinks the ‘prayer breakfasts’ have anything to do with ‘faith,’ I’ve got a basilica to sell you. Look at the very quote OW highlights:
It has little (if anything) to do with their personal faiths, and everything to do with keeping up appearances for the ignoramuses in the electorate who give weight to public piety over policy substance. (Just so you know, Jesus Christ has my back on this issue.)
Again, it ain’t about faith. If I want to put any candidate to a litmus test of their values, I’ll look at their record: Did they oppose the illegal, murderous, avaricious Iraq adventure with all their power (including voting to cut the funding)? Are they promising a universal health care plan that will take profit out of medicine (Jesus never charged a dime for any of his healing)? Are they fighting against the Bushies’ genocidal plans to carpet-bomb Iran? How about fighting to end the racist, self-defeating War on Drugs?
If the candidate answers any of those questions with NO, then he/she can give mass to Beelzebub for all I care, but ain’t going to get my vote.
Thanks for the plug, Oliver. Funny you should mention that about the black church–since we met, the Christian Right has really figured that out in a big way, too, and is putting big resources into it. I don’t mean Karl Rove’s vote-getting hand-outs, but rather long-term ideological alliance building. Too soon to say what it’ll amount to.
But as for your comment about Edwards, yes, you’re right. The Senate Prayer Breakfast is by far the least ideological activity of the Fellowship, though it still tends to be very minority Democrat. Real fellow travelers, tho, don’t just go to the Senate breakfast; they meet separately with smaller cells (their word, not mine) of like-minded folks. Hillary had such a cell at one point, as we write. Edwards, to the best of my knowledge, didn’t. I’ve never spoken to Edwards, but I asked Bob Moser, who wrote a great profile of him for The Nation, about those religious connections. In Edwards’ case, he said, it really was just politics — which is fine.
Look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia.
Keep in mind that their positions are far more ideological than they are political. For the record, Scalia is probably the conservative I’d most like to have dinner with.
There’s good reason to believe that political opposites really aren’t friends, or at least shouldn’t be. If a politician I supported told me that he or she is good friends with the same politician calling her supporters traitors and patsies for Osama bin Laden, I’d probably distrust the judgment of that politician. If you actually believe it, you’re a sleazeball who needs to be opposed. If you don’t believe it, you’re a liar and shouldn’t be rewarded with good company in private by saying, “oh, this is all in good fun. it’s just politics.”
As long as you ridicule the beliefs of others, you’ll have a hard time winning respect for your own.
Help me out then. What is the difference between prayer and casting a spell?
I think that to you a “spell” would be a prayer to a god you don’t believe in, which is exactly what it is to me.
Help me out then. What is the difference between prayer and casting a spell?
It has nothing to do with explaining the difference between a spell and a prayer.
It has to do with concept that we were taught as children: “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything.”
Whether you don’t believe there is a difference between casting spells and praying, doesn’t mean anything. Other people do believe there is a difference. As long as atheists such as yourself continue to speak condescendingly about others, then you’ll never realize your dream of getting an atheist into a major office.
Jay - While you’re right about an atheist candidate having to be careful of using the sort of rhetoric that disparages people of faith, I have to wonder: if an atheist candidate actually ran for office, would his opponents, if they were religious, be able to resist cheap attacks on the atheist just as condescending?
I think not. And so it’s a lose-lose situation for that atheist candidate. Which is why their tactics won’t ever matter until society in that district or state decides that their atheism isn’t relevant. (Hell, it’s the same reason that Keith Ellison’s victory was such a big deal…society in his area had finally agreed that being a viable candidate didn’t require him to be Christian or Jewish.)
It has nothing to do with explaining the difference between a spell and a prayer.
Indulge me. Describe the difference, since apparently you believe there is one.
It has to do with concept that we were taught as children: “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything.”
Not a popular concept in any part of the blogosphere I inhabit. You should get out more.
Whether you don’t believe there is a difference between casting spells and praying, doesn’t mean anything. Other people do believe there is a difference.
And I don’t. How do we resolve this?
As long as atheists such as yourself continue to speak condescendingly about others, then you’ll never realize your dream of getting an atheist into a major office.
I see. As an atheist I have no right to cast aspersions on the beliefs of those casting aspersions toward me and everyone else whose form of worship does not exactly match theirs.
This argument would be laughable if it were not taken so seriously by so many.
As an atheist I have no right to cast aspersions on the beliefs of those casting aspersions toward me and everyone else whose form of worship does not exactly match theirs.
The vast majority of religious people aren’t doing this. That’s the problem with a lot of atheist folks. They’re saying that Pat Robertson (for instance) automatically equals the religious. It’s a minority view, amplified by the media to sound like a majority one.
An atheist candidate who makes disparaging remarks about the religious is not likely to win, much for the same reasons why candidates largely try not to offend any significant voting bloc (that’s also why the GOP strategy to attack Hispanics will backfire).
Help me out then. What is the difference between prayer and casting a spell?
Perhaps there is no difference at all.
Personally, I know people who preactice each of these things–and I’d bet that someone among my acquaintances actually does both.
Before we dive down the rabbit hole of speculating about the nature of reality, the universe, consciousness, and the Diety, let’s finish the point at hand–the country is filled with voters who hold some form of religious belief, and they hold those beliefs dearly. Any candidate who derides those beliefs will receive a frosty reception on election day.
Repack, if you really do want to pursue all that other stuff, let me reveal my own starting point, just in the interest of saving time. I’m a Universalist.
An atheist candidate who makes disparaging remarks about the religious is not likely to win, much for the same reasons why candidates largely try not to offend any significant voting bloc (that’s also why the GOP strategy to attack Hispanics will backfire).
I may be “casting aspersions,” but I am not running for office.
I would expect an atheist candidate to ignore the subject of religion, and if asked, to say that according to the First Amendment religion is unimportant to the conduct of any public office and therefore not worthy of discussion. Then I would expect the candidate to ask whether the inquisitor had any substantial questions.
And then he or she would lose, because religious beliefs are important and worthy of discussion.
the country is filled with voters who hold some form of religious belief, and they hold those beliefs dearly.
What I don’t get is why those beliefs determine how a person should vote. Why should it even matter in a secular government?
What I don’t get is why those beliefs determine how a person should vote. Why should it even matter in a secular government?
I think it’s because most folks don’t compartmentalize their morals and ethics into public and private spheres. Religious conservatives certainly don’t–the drive to apply theology in public life is the animating force behind the movement.
Democrats have been painfully slow to counter religious conservatism on either level. They won’t say that religion has no place in public life, yet they’re reluctant to challenge the conservative brand of Christianity.
Where the heck are all the MLK Christians?
I think it’s because most folks don’t compartmentalize their morals and ethics into public and private spheres.
Bingo, and many don’t even compartmentalize morals and ethics into religious and secular spheres. Don’t believe in God? Oh, you must not have morals or ethics, because all morals and ethics come from religion.
Indulge me. Describe the difference, since apparently you believe there is one.
Why? What difference does it make to you? You don’t believe in either one, so why waste time?
Not a popular concept in any part of the blogosphere I inhabit. You should get out more.
Well, we’re not talking about the blogosphere. We’re talking about atheists that want to run for public office and it is a popular concept in mainstream America. Cripes, I saw a few people get snippy about a local mayoral candidate because he referred to a small yappy dog as a ‘rat dog.’
And I don’t. How do we resolve this?
Why do you need it resolved? Why do you care so much that a person who represents you believes in God, Buddha or little green men from Mars? The question is, are they representing you well?
I see. As an atheist I have no right to cast aspersions on the beliefs of those casting aspersions toward me and everyone else whose form of worship does not exactly match theirs.
No, that’s not the case. The purpose of representative government is for all constituents to be represented. I find it just as repugnant for those who believe in God in one form or another to disparage those who do not believe or believe in a God different from theirs.
religious beliefs are important and worthy of discussion.
Why? Doesn’t the First Amendment say that religion is not to be an aspect of government?
I made a post in the forum, since this discussion would be better placed there.
Why do you care so much that a person who represents you believes in God, Buddha or little green men from Mars? The question is, are they representing you well?
Because magic, incantations, and spells have no place in a reality based society. As long as they believe in magic, how can they fairly represent people who do not?
If you want to say that magic is important to the conduct of politics, the First Amendment gives you that right.
I would like to move our country out of the Dark Ages some time in my lifetime. Is there a single subject that has caused more deaths than religion?
Because magic, incantations, and spells have no place in a reality based society. As long as they believe in magic, how can they fairly represent people who do not?
Reality-based? Sez you! Why do you get to decide reality for all the people who hew to a religion? Call it “magic” if you like, but does your reality explain all aspects of the observable universe? Can it define consciousness, life, truth, or love?
As for your second question, you can’t elect representatives who mirror every conceivable subgroup of a society. We need athiests to represent athiests? Fine. Does a fair representative government also need baseball fans, gourmet cooks, amateur treasure hunters, left-handers, trombonists, and lobster boat captains?
uswcyblm dopqsrtuy zpwxgyki mefb spmcvyk qvgwb hmzkjfxg
uswcyblm dopqsrtuy zpwxgyki mefb spmcvyk qvgwb hmzkjfxg