Democratic leaders too dismissive of "secular" and "liberal". Too much emphasis on religion.

[madfloridian]

I speak of this issue as a Christian who left the Southern Baptist Church when they advocated a war that was unjustified. No one cared when hubby and I took our names off the roll. We did not fit into their group of closed minds. I am in no way condemning Christianity, just its too heavy involvement in government right now. We are already seeing the harm done when a religious mindset is honored without a realization of how the views can harm those in your own party.

There are two groups which are asked to go to the back of the bus and not make many waves right now. The rights of both are being undermined by Democrats, and both groups are asked not to get upset.

The choice of Rick Warren is really even more shocking after the pain and anger from Proposition 8 and Amendment 2 in Florida. It is taking a stand with the wrong side, and more Democrats in leadership positions should be speaking up.

We women are asked to swallow the fact that women's right to choose abortion or birth control are going to be on the table as 31 Pro-Life Democrats could fail to fight for us against the right wing....might fail to protect the use of contraception including the morning after pill. They have already caved in on abortion rights in many ways. In fact our new Democratically led Congress voted last year to raise funding for the failed abstinence only education

"The Democratic leadership of the House Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Service, and Education (LHHS) Sub-Committee set science and commonsense aside by increasing the funding for discredited abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Despite a congressionally mandated report that found these programs do not work to help teens delay sexual initiation, House leadership allocated $141 million (an increase of $27.8 million) to continue feeding America's young people misinformation.

Our Democrats last year also failed to require military bases to provide emergency contraception to women in the military. Very odd.

On Wednesday, May 16, advocates were optimistic that legislation requiring emergency contraception to be stocked on all military bases would pass in the House. “We had the votes on Wednesday night. Things were looking good,” says Monica Castellanos, press secretary for Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Maine), one of the lead co-sponsors of the amendment that was scheduled for a vote the next day. But then, something mysterious happened.

For reasons that remain unclear, Michaud withdrew the legislation the next morning. According to Castellanos, it was purely a logistical snafu: “Key supporters had to be in their districts.” But sources close to the issue tell a different story: The legislation, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, with bipartisan support, was dropped by a Democratic leadership unwilling to go to bat for pro-choice issues. Despite Michaud’s confidence that the votes were there, Democratic leadership wasn’t so sure, and they didn’t want to hang around long enough to find out. The legislation might not have sunk, but they jumped ship anyway.

We even need to keep our eyes out on the newly appointed HHS Secretary, as he once introduced an anti-abortion bill that was far more rigid that the GOP bill.

Daschle's so-called compromise bill, as quoted in the New York Times, permits an exception to the ban for `a severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy (emphasis added),' but makes no provision for a pre-existing, life- and health-threatening `debilitating disease or impairment' that is being exacerbated by the pregnancy. This could include kidney disease, severe hypertension and some cancers. Nor does the Daschle bill allow for an abortion in cases of severe fetal abnormality where it is unlikely the fetus would live long outside the womb, even with technological support.

"The physician certification requirement and the potential loss of a medical license in the Daschle language invites government scrutiny of private medical matters and threatens doctor-patient confidentiality. The intent of this and other abortion ban bills is to control women and to limit their ability to make critical reproductive decisions that affect their families, their health and their lives. These bills represent the ultimate in Congressional arrogance," Gandy charged.

It is apparently just expected that both groups will be okay with it all, and are willing to stand by and take it. After all, we don't want to upset the applecarts of the Democrats who are reaching out way too far to the other side.

It's been going on for years. I found just a few related quotes from Democratic strategists and consultants and think tanks.

From Will Marshall writing at the DLC in 2001

DLC 2001 keep the faith, baby.

In truth, there is little empirical evidence about the efficacy of voluntary charitable efforts in general or the oft-cited "faith factor" -- the spiritual motivation of volunteers out to heal damaged souls and transform people's lives. That's why the Senate should include money to fund research on what works and why. Above all, Senate Democrats should avoid knee-jerk opposition to the faith-based proposal as well as the rhetoric of their House counterparts, which too often was tinged with hostility to religion. This only plays into the hands of GOP strategists determined to drive the wedge deeper between Democrats and religious people, who leaned strongly toward the Republicans in 2000.

Democrats cannot afford to let stridently secular groups define their views on the interplay between religion and public life. Instead, they should follow the lead of Lieberman and his running mate, Al Gore, who challenged Democrats during the campaign to reject the "hollow secularism" of the left, and added: "We must dare to embrace faith-based approaches that advance our shared goals as Americans."

He was trying to define the left as being hostile to religion. That is just so wrong.

Will Marshall is president of the Progressive Policy Institute."

Jim Wallis called us the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.”

"Wallis has labeled Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, as leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.” Referring to the disastrous statement by Howard Dean that Job was his favorite New Testament book, Wallis exhorted “…the worst thing anyone can be is inauthentic when they talk about religion or faith.”

"Jim Wallis threatens political party entrenchment by challenging Americans to rethink the connection between morality, biblical teachings and government policies.

As he said in his reply to Chuck Colson, “My message to both liberals and conservatives is that protecting life is indeed a seamless garment. Protecting unborn life is important. Opposing unjust wars that take human life is important. And supporting anti-poverty programs…is important.

Neither party gets it right; each has perhaps half of the answer. My message and my challenge are to bring the together.”

There is nothing at all wrong with having a secular view when it comes to politics or any other subject.

Kirsten Powers, Democratic political consultant, former media person for DNC chair Don Fowler, Fox News analyst.

From 2006

Election signals decline of old school liberalism

"In a low point in Democratic Party history, Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic Convention for being opposed to abortion rights. This year, his son, Bob Casey Jr., who holds the same views, was actively recruited by that same Democratic Party and unseated Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

This was a welcome move in a party that is home to vocal and organized far-left activists and bloggers who have grown increasingly shrill and threatening toward moderate and conservative Democrats. They also have excoriated former president Bill Clinton's brand of centrist politics. They argue for "party discipline," best exemplified by their jihad against Connecticut's Sen. Joe Lieberman for deviating from the party line on the Iraq war. During the past election for Democratic National Committee chair, delegates booed former congressman Tim Roemer of Indiana because he, too, opposes abortion rights.

..."The liberal evangelical minister Jim Wallis, who counsels Democrats, characterized these elections — perhaps too optimistically — as the end of not just the religious right's power but also of the secular left's political dominance."

For years, Democrats have quietly won governorships and statehouses in red and purple states by running candidates who shared the values of voters in their state, not the beliefs of the coastal intelligentsia. It turns out even in blue states, voters like centrist politics.

There is no proof of that...just strategists talking...if only centrists run only centrists get elected.

There is nothing wrong with secular. Here are just a few of the definitions.

sec·u·lar
adj.
Worldly rather than spiritual.
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
Relating to or advocating secularism.
Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
Lasting from century to century.

n.
A member of the secular clergy.
A layperson.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular

The obvious groups are already paying a price for this move toward what looks like a form of Christian nationalistic policy.

You either separate church and government or you don't. The militant groups of right wing Christians are not going to allow much room for being wishy washy on issues they feel strongly about. And these two groups pay the price first off.

[waiting for hope]

1. The Founding Fathers are turning in their

graves ....

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

James Madison

http://earlyamericanhistory.net/quotes.htm

Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it is certainly the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others. (George Washington, letter to the Religious Society called the Quakers, September 28, 1789. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 500.)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.... (John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" <1787-1788>; from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 258.)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

[madfloridian]

3. Outstanding quotes and links. Yes, they would be...

rolling over in their graves, that is.

:hi:

[bbgrunt]

8. The outrage against Warren is the first good sign I've

seen that more people are getting fed up with this nonsense, but we should never underestimate the puppets in congress to cave to their corporate masters instead of the people. (and yes, it is in the interests of corporations for us all to lose our critical thinking capacity and just rely on belief)

[madfloridian]

60. It's a healthy sign.

It's time to be upset about it.

[DaLittle Kitty]

2. Kick And Recommend! Especially in Florida Which IS W/O A Viable Legit Democratic Party!

:puke:

[JCMach1]

9. Controlled by Thurmanites unfortunately...

[suzie]

29. And the difference between the Thurmanites and the rest of the

Florida Democratic Party who are totally uninterested in winning elections would be?

[Dr.Phool]

38. I think they're one and the same.

[Hydra]

4. Honestly, I can't believe I'm seeing this

This is against the LBGTs and Women, but it's also against progressives and people of alternate faiths or no faiths. In the end, it might be directed against all of us who are truly Democrats...and yet we are the ones being declared "Unreasonable" and "Hateful"

Excuse me? In what f***ing universe!?!

[glitch]

35. That is exactly where I am coming from. And Warren is insult to injury after the cabinet picks. nt

:grr:

[eridani]

5. Lots of us can do spirituality and ethics without faith

Politics is a search for a common ethics, and where the hell do people of "faith" get off thinking they are any better than the rest of us at doing that?

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Particularly since those of us who do the right thing do it because we feel it is the right

thing to do..not out of any fear of retribution or endless time in hell as punishment for doing the wrong thing.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. If I wanted to live in a country ruled by religion I would move to Saudi Arabia...

I do not want this country's govt ruled by religion...especially since it is the fanatics who are the ones that are hungry for that kind of power!!!

[JCMach1]

10. Yeah, but at least they are moving in the RIGHT direction: becoming more secular...

The U.S. on the other hand...

[ColbertWatcher]

11. Well said. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

12. Thank you for your thoughtful post. kick and rec. n/t

[yardwork]

13. Thank you for this research and your posts!

You either separate church and government or you don't. The militant groups of right wing Christians are not going to allow much room for being wishy washy on issues they feel strongly about.

[madfloridian]

14. A 2003 candidate once said..."you can't compromise with extremists."

And you can't. They are not going to change their minds, and it is putting two groups in our party in bad situations. Warren was a wrong pick because he is too militant against gays and women's rights.

People like him spread anger and division.

[suzie]

28. And the constant complaining about Obama that characterizes all your journals do not

spread 'anger and division'.

The constant comparison of the unending failures and disappointments of president-elect Barack Obama with the wonderful, political perfection of a previous candidate who didn't secure the presidential nomination--that isn't divisive?

[Jim Sagle]

15. Democratic leaders dismiss EVERYTHING Democratic.

Unionism. Fair trade. Opposition to the bank "bailout" scam. Pro-choice. Impeachment of the filthy Bush gang. Single payer health care. Populism.

In short, ANY AND EVERY thing the base wants is "fringe" and will lose elections, according to our leadership.

They're at WAR with us, and they're winning. They're the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. As such, their chief purpose is to keep us powerless and clueless.

[Mithreal]

20. We know where Democratic leadership has drawn the lines

Your list is incomplete.

We must fight the Democratic "leadership".

I only have hope that PE Obama will shake things up. We have less than a month before we find out what he is really about.

[charlie]

16. Oh man, thanks for that

I've been dragging those quotes by the liberals' favorite Man o' God around since 2006. I was gobstopped when Wallis crowed about 2006 being a repudiation of the secular left. The man clearly has theocratic ambitions and is no friend to secular society.

[madfloridian]

17. Wallis's statements were out of line. He was judging "secular"..

he was not accepting.

It's all just out of control.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Philosophically, one could make the case for Obama being a shortcut artist

Religion is the ultimate intellectual shortcut: it gives answers without the annoying burden of proof. It seeks to kill questioning by providing pat answers and rules. It is inherently conservative in it's certainty and dislike of difference.

Mr. Obama has had a very successful run by avoiding all controversy and going with the paths of least resistance. His faithful acolytes repeatedly chirp that this is all positioning for that bright day when he cashes in all these chips and makes a stand or two. Perhaps this is so, and biased though I am, I hope it's the case, but there's virtually no evidence of such behavior in his career to date.

Still, the coy courting of religion does not bode well. Once, there was a quasi-secular party of the major two, but this is no more. It is now not only more than just accepted into the public discourse, it's largely held as NECESSARY. A voice that is held to no proof is beyond dangerous.

The lessons of the Clinton era seem to go unheeded, and he thinks that cozying up to the reactionaries will bring some respite from their tyranny, but this will not be: conservatives do not brook dissent; whereas liberals accept that other people look at things differently and should be accomodated, conservatives KNOW that those who disagree are WRONG and should not be suffered for an instant except when unavoidable. They will not give; they only take.

To those of us who see Mr. Obama's past as continuous evasive positioning, his resignation from the Senate is not noble focusing on the pending administration but more evasion. A true hands-on and courageous leader would have shown up for the critical votes and still have had virtually the same time to concentrate on the future. To those of us beyond skeptical, it looks like an opportunity to skip more dangerous votes like the Auto bail-out. The Sense of the Senate vote on Iran still sticks in my craw, and especially since he had the gall to not only duck it but use it to hammer his principal opponent.

Enough of that. Look at the past. He's still hailed as a towering figure of the antiwar movement, when he only went on the record once, and when he had a constituency that virtually required doing so. If it really meant anything to him, he would have at least made sure it was recorded; only part of it was, and the sound bite he used for campaigning leverage was a "recreation". He avoided speaking out on it and even equivocated when asked about Edwards' and Kerry's votes during their campaign.

He's a compensation candidate, and thus he has to prove he's not a spineless lefty by going into a stupid, unwinnable, ruinous, addle-headed foray like the looming Afghanistani debacle. How much of this is further compensation to prove again that he's not soft on Muslims is open for debate. So is the degree with which he's snuggling up with those who are pro-Israel beyond any real possibility of regional fairness.

He's sucked up to big money with his economic choices.

He's sucked up to agribusiness with his choice there.

He seems to be doing the right thing with labor rights, though, so he deserves credit there and I hope he follows through. He's also flat-out picked a fight by saying how pro-science he intends to be, and for this, I applaud him.

He's danced and maneuvered in a way that makes Hillary Clinton look steadfast and consistent, but he now has to make some stands. Whether he has the chops for it or not is to be seen.

Pardon the digression, though, but the religion issue is a perfect leitmotif for this approach, and it scares me: to cozy up to power sources and go with the flow is not leadership. To invite religion into the fold is not democracy. Religion demands a greater and unassailable voice, and playing with the mega-assholes of Religion Incorporated will get one burned in a hurry.

As I've been carping for well over a year now, this guy has brought religion more into presidential politics more than anyone in my lifetime, and since this has yielded such a solid victory, I dread the obvious conclusion that many will make: that religion is NECESSARY.

He's soon to be my president, and I voted for him, but I did not vote for Jesus.

[Mithreal]

19. K&R nt

[KG]

21. the dem party is just NOT going to be a vehicle for progressive change in this country.

never have been. get over it.

they may be dragged along by grassroots movements and social influences, but expecting the party apparatus to do the right until it's convenient is the height of folly.

[Dammit Ann]

22. Thank you. Merry Xmas to us all. Keep it up.

We will never win if we do not KNOW.

[mmonk]

23. Secularism ironically guarantees religious liberty.

I've always thought it funny they can't tolerate it. What we need to do is fight. Fight for our Party and fight for freedom. Every once in a while, a generation is called upon to do so.

[madfloridian]

37. It's like the Democrats have given into the religious right so easily.

It's really been amazing to me.

[mmonk]

66. There's nothing that says that we have to.

Though our leaders want to emulate the top down approach of the Republicans it doesn't require we adhere to it.

[DFW]

24. Why is it that those least secure in their beliefs are those most eager to scream it loudest?

It seems to me that if you are comfortable with your beliefs, you don't feel any particular
need to grab a megaphone and make sure everyone near you knows what you believe, and that
they know you think they ought to believe it too. This apparently gives those of weak faith
the reinforcement they need. Hence their fervent need to impose their beliefs onto/into
government. They do indeed fit Churchill's definition of the fanatic:

"A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

[madfloridian]

40. So many people in the church have allowed their leaders to use wedge issues

and gone along with it.

So many churches here in our area have gone from love and caring to being out to get certain groups and their rights.

And they have not questioned their leaders.

[SemperEadem]

62. so many xtians, especially the rabid fanatic fundamental-cases

actually worship Paul, and not Jesus. IF they truly worshipped Jesus, they would follow what he said, not what Paul says. There is absolutely no evidence that they follow any of the teachings of Jesus.. but overwhelming evidence that they follow everything that madman Paul wrote.

[prostock69]

25. The problem is the secular, non-believers in our government

refuse to come out of the closet. They pretend to confess faith in Jesus Christ due to fear of persecution. All this does is give all the power to the religious nut jobs in our government to do what ever they feel their "God" deems appropriate. So I blame them for not standing up for those of us who are hardly ever represented in government. Europe looks at us and shakes their heads. They think we have lost our damn minds with it comes to the new wave of evangelism taking over our country, due in part to their belief in the rapture.

The Secular Coalition for America works very hard to enforce separation of church and state. They are using their power to block bills: The following is their report for 2008:

Lobbying Activities
American Religious History Week (H. R. 888)
This bill promoted a false and distorted "Christian nation" reinterpretation of American history.Despite having over eighty co-sponsors, this resolution was stopped from moving forward thanks to a strong lobbying effort by the Secular Coalition for America. While we normally don't take a position on resolutions, this bill promoted a false and distorted "Christian nation" reinterpretation of American history. This resolution will likely re-appear in the next Congress; however, we are confident that our strong stand against it will discourage sponsors and prevent the bill from being voted out of committee.

Nomination of Richard Honaker to the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming
"...there is indeed a Christian basis for American institutions of law, government, and business." - Richard Honaker, federal judicial nomineeMr. Honaker, a former Wyoming state legislator, was nominated for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. District Court despite stating in several speeches that the U.S. Constitution created a Christian nation. Specifically, he claimed that "As Americans, if taught accurately, history can teach us that the greatest American patriots and leaders were Christians, and that there is indeed a Christian basis for American institutions of law, government, and business." The Secular Coalition aggressively lobbied the Senate Judiciary Committee where his nomination was being considered; thanks to our strong opposition and that of our allies, Honaker is no longer being considered for the position.

Abstinence-Only Sex Education
The Secular Coalition for America and our allies lobbied throughout the year to remove funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education programs in the FY2009 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. While complete elimination was not possible, we were successful in convincing appropriators to cut the funds for abstinence-only sex education by 25%. The Secular Coalition firmly believes that medical science, not religious ideology, should direct our sex education policy.

D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program
Thanks to our lobbying, vouchers for D.C. religious schools will require Congressional hearings and reauthorization after this year.The Secular Coalition for America, along with more than 60 other organizations comprising the National Coalition for Public Education, worked to stop legislative efforts to continue the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This is a federal voucher program that allows D.C. public school students to use taxpayer funds to attend private religious schools. Unfortunately, election year politics combined with support from some misguided local D.C. officials allowed this program to receive funding for an additional year. However, the Coalition was successful in ensuring that the program would no longer be able to receive funding in the future unless Congress officially votes to reauthorize this program. Reauthorization would require holding hearings on the efficacy and constitutionality of the program, and reviewing studies that show the extensive problems with the program. With so many anti-voucher proponents in the House and Senate already, we are very optimistic that this program will not be reauthorized in the new 111th Congress.

Ten Commandments Resolution (S. Res. 483)
The Secular Coalition successfully defeated efforts by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and other members of the Religious Right to pass a resolution stating that the Ten Commandments are "an elemental source for American law." If passed, this resolution would have provided an additional rationale for religionists to post the commandments in our courthouses, schools and other public buildings.

Workplace Religious Freedom Act (H.R. 1431)
The Workplace Religious Freedom Act would have encouraged employees to ignore employer policies that prohibit religious proselytizing in the workplace, religious condemnation of co-workers, and inserting religion into secular workplace practices and activities. The courts have consistently ruled in favor of employers' rights to prohibit religious harassment in the workplace, but this bill would have put these precedents into question. The Secular Coalition worked with other groups to ensure that this legislation never moved out of the House Committee where it was assigned.

Boy Scout Commemorative Coin Bill (H.R. 5872)
A Senate maneuver enabled passage of a bill that turns the federal government into a fundraising machine for the Boy Scouts of America, an organization that discriminates against nontheists.On May 21, 2008, the House of Representatives passed legislation creating a commemorative coin for the Boy Scouts of America, an organization that explicitly discriminates against nontheists (as well as gays) in admission, employment and volunteer opportunities. Action by the Secular Coalition, along with the American Humanist Association, Scouting for All, and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations successfully delayed the bill from being considered by the Senate for over four months.

Unexpectedly, while the Senate was waiting for economic bailout legislation from the House, the Senate leadership decided to fast-track several bills that were in committee through a procedural maneuver that allowed the bills to go straight to the Senate floor without a recorded vote. This maneuver thwarted our lobbying efforts to hold up the bill in the committee where we had been focusing our efforts. Although we knew that during an election year no Senator would "risk" voting against funding for the Boy Scouts despite their discriminatory practices, we did take satisfaction from knowing that we educated many Senators and staffers, most of whom did not know about the Boy Scouts' bigoted policies. Perhaps this educational effort will prevent future federal aid to this organization.

Health and Human Services "Conscience Clause" Regulations
UPDATE: On December 17, 2008 the Bush Administration decided to implement this regulation.

Secular Coalition Action Alert recipients, along with our coalition partners' supporters, sent over 200,000 comments to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) protesting the proposed "conscience clause" regulations which would allow anyone working or volunteering in any federally funded medical or research facility to refuse to serve patients or conduct research that violated their "conscience." In addition to the individual comments that were submitted, comments opposing the regulations were provided by 150 members of Congress, nine governors, sixteen state attorneys general, and a large number of associations and organizations, including the Secular Coalition for America. While HHS is expected to enact these regulations, once in office, President Obama could reverse them. There are also Congressional remedies available to stop these outrageous regulations from being implemented. If HHS chooses to move forward with these regulations, we will aggressively work with the Obama Administration and Congress to have them overturned.

Treatment of Nontheists in the U.S. Military
We've called upon the Obama Administration to proactively address proselytizing and religious intolerance in the military.At a November 10th press conference, the Secular Coalition for America unveiled its recommendations for resolving the pervasive climate of intolerance towards nontheists and others who do not follow born-again Christian beliefs in today's military. The recommendations include requiring the Department of Defense to improve chaplain training, conduct a survey to determine the extent of the problem, create a commission to ensure compliance with constitutional requirements, and develop improved channels for reporting religious discrimination. The Secular Coalition sent the proposal to President-elect Obama and we look forward to working with his administration to address these issues.

[madfloridian]

54. They have become fearful of the personal attacks from the right.

It really is hard to overcome them. I see a lot of that here at DU as well...trying to get people to stop posting on certain topics and ridiculing them if they continue.

It works really well.

[The_Commonist]

26. K&R

Good stuff.
Well, no... bad stuff, really.

[mirrera]

27. Your posts are always excellent! n/t

[madfloridian]

33. I appreciate that.

There is too much acceptance of extreme religious views. It is forced on us.

[PassingFair]

43. I remember your "conversion", if that is what it was, Mad...

I felt badly for your pain, but
I was SO proud of you for standing
your ground!

:patriot:

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. We are not ASKED not to get upset; we are ORDERED

On pain of everlasting damnation. Which fits in all too well with your observations.

[L0oniX]

31. There is a world of difference between christians and real believers.

Christians are the high priests, scribes and Pharisees of today. Real believers wouldn't be a part of these churches. No real believer needs a church. Churches were only originally for spreading the SPOKEN word because most people could not read and the new testament was not assembled. Today if you can read and comprehend you don't need a church and if you are a real believer you wouldn't attend these christian church whore houses of liars, hypocrites, greed, mind control, distortion of the truth, and doctrinal pride. Real believers will take action and you will find them serving the poor, needy, hungry, homeless, orphans, widows, the sick and the elderly. They won't have the time for the foolishness and corruption of these christian Church's because they will be attending to the works that come from a true faith and belief in God.

[Deep13]

34. I respectfully disagree.

The whole purpose of religion is mind control. An honest and complete reading of the Bible and of Christian history puts the conservatives on very solid theological ground. By contrast, liberal believers must pick and choose parts of Christian doctrine that do not offend their humanitarian values. As far as distortion of truth goes, one first has to ascertain what the truth is. As of yet there is no evidence that JC even existed, let alone was what the after-the-fact mutually contradictory Gospels say he was. What's more, the whole idea of sacrificing an innocent person to pay for the "sins" of others is morally reprehensible. The whole Christian doctrine is corrupt ab initio because it is founded on lies. The charitable aspects of Christianity are limited, unoriginal and not even the best example of a charitable ethic at the time it was written.

[Dr.Phool]

39. You're one of the few people I've seen who brings up the big taboo.

And that is whether JC actually even existed or not. I'm in the camp that he probably did not.

There have been entire libraries written about the Palestine area in that time period, and Jesus, who was a supposed "celebrity" is mentioned exactly zero times anywhere other than the New Testament. Which wasn't even written until several generations later.

A book that I heartily recommend is "The Gospel Fictions". It compares the Gospels, how it evolved as fiction, and puts each into it's historical context.

[prostock69]

42. You are exactly right. There were 20+ reporters of the Palestine area

Not one of the below writers recorded any of the amazing and earth-shaking events reported in the gospels, even though this period was ONE of the BEST documented in history and although some of these authors lived or traveled in the same small area in which the gospel story was set. Neither Jesus nor his disciples are mentioned by any of them--not A WORD about Christ, Christianity or Christians.

Aulus Perseus (60 AD)
Columella (1st cent. AD)
Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c 112 AD)
Justus of Tiberius (c. 80 AD)
Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
Lucius Florus (1st-2nd-cent. AD)
Petronius (d. 66 AD)
Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-C. 50 Ad)
Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
Phlegon (1st Cent. AD)
Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
Plutarch (C. 46-c 119 AD)
Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Quintillian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
Silius Italicus (c. 25-101 AD)
Statius Caelicius (1st Cent. AD)
Theon of Smyrna (c. 70-c.135 AD)
Valerius Flaccus (1st Cent. AD)
Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD)

There is a very short but much touted passage in the work of a writer of the late first to early second century named Josephus who wrote "Antiquities of the Jews." The small paragraph that mentions Jesus that is found in the Antiquities of the Jews has been found to have be added much later by Christians in an attempt to authenticate Jesus. The "Jesus Paragraph" was inserted into another paragraph which renders the whole paragraph nonsensical. It's an obvious work of a Christian interpolation. The fact that a scribe would add a paragraph (which if you read "MisQuoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who changed The Bible and Why", By Prof. Bart Ehrman, you will see how common it was for scribes who copied texts to add their own thoughts to change the meanings of the texts inside and outside of the bible) adds more speculation that Jesus never existed.

[AZ Criminal JD]

73. Many contemporary writers refer to Jesus

They include Pliny the Younger 100 CE, Tacitus 55-120 CE, Suetonius 120 CE, Thallus 50-100 CE and Josephus. The disputed paragraph by Josephus that you refer to is not thought by most scholars to be completely copied into the text. Most scholars feel that certain words were added but that Josephus wrote the paragraph. For you to dismiss the writings of all these contemporaries as fraud requires what we shall call a leap of faith.

[PassingFair]

47. Next you'll tell me that Pecos Bill didn't exist.

Cease, debunker!!

:P

[prostock69]

41. Totaly agree! n/t

[SemperEadem]

63. ooops.. responded to the wrong post

[Deep13]

32. The problem is that we are just too rational...

...and we treat the Constitution like it is some kind of foundation for the country. Get over it people. It's just a goddamn piece of paper! Not like the Bible with is a whole bunch of goddamn pieces of paper.

:sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

36. Rahm, Schumer picked candidates so as not to offend opponents of abortion and gay rights.

Yes, that is what Kirsten Powers said was done by Rahm and Schumer, but we already knew that.

They wanted people who would not offend bigots....that's the other way of saying it.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/post_42.html

"Yet, without centrist Democratic candidates, it would have been President Bush and GOP strategist Karl Rove celebrating last week. More than half of the new House members will join the New Democrat Coalition or the Blue Dog Coalition caucuses, known for their fiscal responsibility, business-friendly stance and generally more socially conservative views. While most criticized the war, few have called for an immediate withdrawal.

In addition to running fiscally responsible candidates, the Democratic Party appealed to the vital center by slaying a few of old school liberalism's sacred cows: aggressive secularism and intolerance of anti-abortion views. Yes, the war was a major issue. But it was critical that Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York — who ran the campaign committees — recruited candidates palatable to conservative or moderate voters who wanted to send a message about the war, but who didn't want to compromise on beliefs about abortion, gay marriage or the role of religion in public life.

Earlier this year, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., found himself on the receiving end of left-wing rage when he urged the party to be more open to people of faith and their views. He was on to something. Many successful Democratic candidates spoke about their faith."

They recruited candidates to appeal to the other party.

This is from 2006, wonder what she is saying now.

[rhett o rick]

44. Serious question: What can we do?

Don't tell me to vote out Democratic incumbents, it's never been done, except for Traitor-Joe and he is the exception that proves the rule. Democratic incumbents are untouchable unless you are willing to vote for the opposing party.

[PassingFair]

46. That's EXACTLY what we DO have to do.

We not only have to RUN Progressive candidates,
we have to FUND them.

[rhett o rick]

48. How do you buck the Democratic Party establishment. They will fight tooth and nail

all attempts at replacing incumbents. I agree with you but it will take a generation.

[autorank]

52. Maybe, maybe not

The approval rating for Congress is in the teens and for the Democrats in Congress it doesn't look
much better 2/12-14/08 Approve - 37%, Disapprove - 55%. Get a little insurgency going, supported
by the internet (MSM won't help at all) and we can get some rationalists in there and scare the
crap out of the rest of them. But you're right, the grandees will fight to the last to preserve
their positions of privilege.

[rhett o rick]

53. Regardless of approval rating, voters vote for incumbents. If you can figure a way around

that, you'll have something. I have used this example before: Story has two parts. In Washington the state, Maria Cantwell ran as a Democrat against Repub Slade Gordon. Boeing, Weyerhauser, and other local big money all backed Gordon. Maria ran up a big debt but defeated Gordon. Boeing and the other big money couldn't write their checks to cover Cantwell's debt fast enough. Part B: The last time Cantwell ran for reelection she was opposed in the primary by an anti-war candidate. Oh yes, forgot to mention Cantwell supported bush's war. Was good business for some of her owners. Back to the opponent, he wasn't getting more than about 10% in the polls but Cantwell didn't like the continuous reminder of her pro-bush votes. So her opponent withdrew to take a position working for Sen Cantwell. Can you spell "buy-out"?

[CrispyQ]

58. It's a rigged game.

I'm certain they warned "Drain the Swamp" Pelosi to play nice or "a well funded democrat will challenge your seat in '08." She turned the minute the '06 election was over.

Talk about voting them out is good & we need to vote, but until we get big money out of our political process, big money will always have better representation than We the People.


It's Time to Overrule the Supreme Court
Overturning Buckley v. Valeo is an essential step toward enabling a democratic republic
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/money_notspeech.html

When Money is Speech, Speech is not Free
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/davis_fec_millionaires_amendment.php

These are great articles & but the ones making our laws are the ones who benefit from them. They are not going to overturn anything. Personally, I give our republic 2 chances out of a 100 to survive with the shredded Constitution we now have.

How's that for some happy Christmas Eve thoughts? LOL - I should have bought that Kaluha & vodka. ;)

[rhett o rick]

61. Thanks for the links. Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. nm

[autorank]

72. Great point - we citizens have to push for an answer

You raise a great question with a great example, delightful really in an ironic sense. The guy went
to work for Cantwell. Damn, sell out in record time.

CrispyQGirls links show the nature of the lock down. I actually proposed an answer to the problem,
in an immodest moment (we citizens are encouraged to feel immodest for doing this by the PTB who
'know all'). You come up with a contract for these crooks to sign when they run for office. It
applies when they take office. It bypasses to need to get rid of the f'ing justices and Buckley v.
Valeo immediately by tightly binding those elected to a real form of accountability for the influence
of nepotism and outside money. It's also been tested and it works. The Republic of Venice had their
leader sign an agreement even tighter than the one I proposed. It barred any favorable treatment
for family and past/current business associates. If you violated it, and it was enforced, you were
exiled (at least).

That's the type of thing that could catch on and serve as a bridge to a less corrupt environment.

Then, we'd have the type of Congress necessary to impeach those federal judges who take money
from the Federalist Society and other groups, bribes in the form of luxury vacations masquerading
as seminars. Have judges sign the same type of contract.

This would need to take place in the form of general revolution, peacful, against the overwhelming
corruption and self interest of the ruling class, which includes most all of Congress.

Let them now that they work for us. You are right, this is the major roadblock.

The Money Party (2): Lousy Leaders & How to Get Rid of Them
The Money Party

[rhett o rick]

78. Forgive my pessimism. Today's politicians would readily sign such a contract. But once in office

renege. Similar has been done many times. I don't have specific examples but some more memorable cases were where a few republican candidates ran on "reform" and promised to only serve one or two terms. Once in office they reneged. I believe they got reelected. Because the poorly informed public usually votes for an incumbent, this will be very hard to fix.

[SemperEadem]

64. You do it with fundraising on the level that was done

against that bachmann bitch when she lost her mind on Hardball.

You fight back by identifying candidates whose progressive ideals you can get behind.

You do it by putting boots on the ground, going door to door.

YOu do it with a 50 state strategy.

You fight back by loading up their war chests so that they can totally fight.

A Dem incumbent that turns up their asses for thugs and religious fanatics needs to go.

No more blue dog Dems or Dems who vote consistently for conservative issues. They have to go.

[PassingFair]

71. They were stopped from coronating their hand-picked successor...

Obama could NOT have won without the
donations and volunteerism of the
Progressive democrats.

Whether he will represent us is
questionable, but he DID get where
he is because of us.

[rhett o rick]

77. Excellent point. Actually that makes me feel better, which in today's circumstances is something.

I know we have to work hard at the local levels, but I would like to feel there was a method of influencing Congress.

[natrat]

45. seems the christo facists have a stranglehold on both parties, ugh

[madfloridian]

49. Two examples of why opposing centrist Dems in the primary won't work. Painful lessons.

This is from Lynn Sweet's article in the Chicago Sun Times in 2006 after Tammy Duckworth's win. It was a very painful time for the grassroots Democrats from DFA and PDA who worked with Christine Cegelis' campaign. One would call it a bitter time.

Duckworth faces struggle to unite Dems in 6th cd after Cegelis strong showing.

Duckworth's win in Tuesday's primary showed that with powerful sponsors, a compelling personal story, mainly fawning media coverage and a lot of money, a political unknown can be dropped into a Democratic primary House race in a district where she does not live and three months later wind up the nominee.

For these last months, I've been writing about how the 6th District primary was a test of the net-roots (Internet and grass-roots supporters) vs. the Democratic establishment.

The Democratic establishment won. With Duckworth the nominee, the fight to fill a rare open seat -- to replace retiring Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) -- may well become one of the top 10 in the country.

The intrafamily Democratic feud merely divided the party faithful. And while a strategy of Emanuel is to nationalize House races on a wave of anti-war sentiment, Duckworth's numbers did not show much of a turnout surge among the Democratic base.

Again, a win is a win. But I never quite got why the brain trust behind Duckworth's campaign-in-a-can could not figure out a way to advance her candidacy without alienating the Cegelis backers.

And get this...with the help of Rahm, Durbin, Obama and others....Duckworth raised over 600,000 to use against Cegelis in the primary.

Can you imagine? Then they blamed and cursed out Dean for not giving her more money near the end...after she had spent over half a million to defeat a fellow Democrat. What did we gain from that?

Another case:

The waste of a good Democrat in FL 16

Democrat David Lee Lutrin, an elementary school gym teacher from Palm Beach Gardens, has also opened a campaign account to run for the seat, but national Democrats are already encouraging their party to get behind Mahoney. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has donated money to Mahoney's campaign and was in South Florida earlier this month to help Mahoney raise money. Mahoney said Emanuel is the person who convinced him to run against Foley. "

..."Lutrin said that he also met personally with Mahoney. During a three- hour breakfast meeting, Mahoney offered Lutrin a higher-paying job if he agreed to drop out of the primary. "Mahoney tried to get me to run in a different district. He offered me a job at one of his non-profit organizations where he said that I would make more than I was making as a teacher. He said I could campaign full time while working at his non-profit as long as I agreed to drop out of the race," Lutrin said. Lutrin declined the job offer.

According to Lutrin, when he refused to step aside, the DCCC shored up local political support for Mahoney. The local AFL-CIO chapter, of which Lutrin was a member, came out with an early endorsement of Mahoney's campaign. According to Lutrin, the union told him that "they would like to back a fellow union brother, but Mahoney has more money and more political support from the party." Lutrin eventually dropped out of the race when the local teachers' union decided to support Mahoney.

Mahoney was a Republican, he had multiple affairs...and we lost that seat already.

It's hard to run against the establishment candidate...they have too much money and too much power.

[madfloridian]

65. Here is a further article on more progressives who were pushed out.

http://www.truthout.org/article/special-report-democratic-house-officials-recruited-wealthy-conservatives

[autorank]

50. k*r They don't even see the trend

The high water mark for religious fervor has passed in this country. The 2nd generation of the
original faith fanatics, their children, are reflexively more liberal and much better educated.
While that's happening, there's the broader trend, which clearly includes much more reliance
on science, engineering, and the realities of the material world. It won't take but 3-4 more years
until it is abundantly clear that we, as a global society, are killing ourselves and need to rely
on real world theories and practices, not mumbo jumbo superstition, which will get tagged
as one of the culprits of our peril.

There's a saying, "sell on the news." The "faith" toadies are buying on the news, as though we're
looking at even more religion irrationality. That couldn't be further from the truth in this country.

Religion isn't going to disappear. It will continue to play a positive role. Those positive
factions of the religious community are not lined up at the 'bailout' window for cash. The zealots
who insist on "reaching out" for cash they don't deserve will decrease in influence and the effort
of those in Congress to curry favor will simply reflect poorly on them.

However, the DLC, DINOs, and Republicans need irrational faith based superstition. It's the only
way to sell their lies. After all, how would any rational person endorse invading Iraq to catch a
guy in Afghanistan, tap everyone's phone and email to catch a score of people who have already been
identified anyway, or give away a trillion dollars to failures.

[immoderate]

55. What positive role might that be?

I am not aware of anything positive that emanates from religion.

--IMM

[autorank]

70. ;)

That was me being moderate. I should watch that;)

[immoderate]

76. Ah! I understand.

If pressed, I will admit that churches do some good things. But it's not religion.

--IMM

[pleah]

51. K&R

I want religion out of politics, period!

[tbyg52]

56. Thank your for your courage and outspokenness, MF!

And I would add atheists (freethinkers, whatever, non-subscribers to anything resembling the mainstream).

I appreciate you very much.

[madfloridian]

57. I have done a complete about face in my thinking since 2002

I have seen the mindless acquiescence of one party to another in order to avoid the unpleasantness of their attacks.

I have seen torture and killing of civilians done by a president who claims God called him to run for that office.

I really think many of us have few illusions left.

[mnhtnbb]

59. Daschle is a horrible choice for HHS. He's everything that's wrong

with politics--including his lobbyist wife. Change? What change?

I'm so angered by giving Warren a place on the inaugural platform I could spit. I'm very glad
I made no plans to attend the inaugural.

I'm not saying that Obama isn't going to do some good things. By and large, I'm supportive.
But on two things that are close to my heart--health care and equal rights--he's sending the wrong
signals. With Daschle he's done more than send a wrong signal; he's put the wrong person in the job, IMO.

[CrispyQ]

68. Change?

I am upset by almost all of Obama's choices. I didn't fool myself that Obama was anything close to a true liberal, but I hoped there may have been some shake up in the status quo. I'm not sure how this crew is going to shake up the status quo since they are all a part of it. We will see, but I believe that if Obama governs from the center right he will be a one term president.

And this pandering to the extreme right, on the pretense that we are being inclusive, is really pissing me off. In his book, "American Fascists: The Christian Right & the War on America" Chris Hedges makes a good point that by tolerating the hateful & intolerant beliefs & behavior of others, we tolerate intolerance.

We are fighting for the separation of church & state. Our definition of a just & fair society is based on the Constitution, not the Bible. There is no middle ground. I was pissed when Obama said he would continue many of the faith based programs. WTF? I am very frightened by the acceptance of religion into our government & by that, I mean Christianity. Christianity is the state religion. Most people don't think twice about "In God We Trust" on our money or "under God" in the Pledge & other "God" references. I'll bet most don't even realize that our money & our pledge were both without a "God" reference for a long time.

[mnhtnbb]

74. I like the cartoon. I came to be supportive of Obama only because I thought

he had the best chance to beat a Republican candidate. I didn't think Hillary could do it, nor would
have the down ticket pull to help other Dems.

I have no illusions about Obama. I am not surprised to see him putting so many beltway insiders into
top jobs. I agree that religious intrusion into private lives via government policy has to stopped.

[natrat]

75. epa ,interior and usda will also be headed by rightwing corporate pigs unfortunatly

[Lyric]

67. Most of us are not hostile toward religion. We are hostile toward *forced* religion

as mandated by laws that honor religious, dogmatic viewpoints, but must be obeyed by everyone--whether they share those religious beliefs or not.

That is incredibly wrong.

[madfloridian]

69. That's a good way to word it.

"forced" religion.