What we talk about when we talk about God

For much of the campaign, pundits were telling us that McCain was at odds with the Republican religious base. With Palin on the ticket, the situation has become more complicated.

No doubt we'll be seeing more moments like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9MMJESywA

Progressive and liberal secularists will want to mock this zealotry. Progressive and Liberal people of faith will wince at what appears to be a sin of pride, linking a pipeline project whose merits are subject to debate, to the will of God.

My question is: how should the Obama camp react to such displays? Politically speaking, what will help them win? Let's not take our eye off the ball...

I think the first thing the Dems need to do is not get so worked up about asking God's help/guidance. In fact, were I in charge I would pray over everything. There is nothing wrong with private prayer. In fact, I prefer leaders who pray privately as Jesus teaches, rather than a leader who thinks he is the one in charge. Dem's need to let this go.

I don't mind that the Dems don't pray over everything since prayer is a private issue, although I did like what Joe Biden wanted to do to the next person who asks him if he prays: he said he was going to shove his rosary beads down his throat. My guess is that both Joe Biden and Barack Obama pray over the issues they are facing. Religious dems just don't make a big show of it.

If the Dems wish to move into the religious space then they need to learn something about religion, Christianity specifically. It would probably do them good. They would have a much greater understanding of the God and Guns crowd. Maybe they could even learn to tailor their message to this group. After all, the Democratic message is far more biblically sound than the Republican message.

If anyone here has paid attention to my posts they will know that there is another view of Christianity that does not accept fundamentalism as a theological foundation. In fact, fundamentalists threw away the first 1,500 years of Chriistian theology. Reading the Bible is a great place to start learning to defend Christianity.

If you want to see what happens when the typical Republican administration is in charge, just read Jeremiah, or Amos, or Joel, or any of the prophets. The message they deliver is just as cogent today as it was 2,600 years ago. The Prophets are a study in what happens when the Republicans take over. How many of you out there know that? Jesus Himself gave us the social doctrine that is at the core of Democratic belief. Since this is the case, why can't the Democrats talk about it in language the religious right can understand, and if they refuse to understand it, take it away from them as an issue. A smart, not cynical, smart, Biblical scholar should be able to craft a biblical message that separates the Republican message from Christianity. As Democrats, and placing great faith in separation of church and state (and rightly so, Render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to God that which belongs to God), we have ceded the religious ground to the zealots and the pharisees. As Jesus did 2,000 years ago, we must reject this religion and put on the mantle of Christ.

Democrats should either study Christianity or stay out of it altogether, they will only look silly in a deadly serious arena. What was it Howard Dean said? Job was his favorite New Testament book? That just makes us all look silly. Of course when I look at the religious right, they don't have a favorite Gospel because they apparently don't read the Gospels.

In another thread we are discussing WWJD (What Would Jesus Do). I do not to presume to read Jesus' mind, but based on the things He said, I think He would vote for Barack Obama. The mission, should the Democrats choose to accept it, is to use the Bible to show WHY Jesus would vote for Obama. It's in there.

Two thoughts:

1st, the quote in that clip may seem cynical and self-serving (and perhaps it is) but there are many people for whom Christianity is such a part of their culture and worldview that talk of prayer and God is simply second nature regardless of the topic. I fully believe Palin could be such a person. (Also, I can't be certain from the clip but she might be speaking to church audience).

Here's an even more jarring example from the Old Left. Hosea Hudson was an organizer for the Communist Party in Alabama during the great depression, primarily working with African Americans. During an interview with Robin D. G. Kelley about his experience he recalled, "Man, them folks down there! They used to start the meeting with a prayer, just like they's in church, be thanking God for Browder and Lenin and Stalin and them." (Science and Society 52:1, Spring 1988, p.59)

Often in organizing you just go with your audience, regardless of the specific politics.

2nd, the way krolik frames the question strikes me as armchair-quarterbacking of the democratic campaign staffers, or perhaps preparation to snipe at people in internet chat groups. I don't find that kind of discussion very interesting.

More interesting to me would be if krolik, and/or others on the list, live in very religious communities or have friends or relatives or coworkers with strong Christian convictions and they want talk to them about the election and aren't sure how to do it. As geneg pointed out, there is long tradition of Social Gospel Christianity (although he didn't use the phrase) that can serve very well in such discussions.

So if anyone has a specific audience they want to reach, perhaps we can come up with resources to help. But I don't think their is a general right answer on how to discuss religion in politics.

> eromsted3
Sure, I don't doubt that this way of talking comes readily to Palin; personally I don't like it, but I don't think it's a put-on. And I don't doubt either that many people will be pleased by it.

My question is how to address this effectively in the upcoming political season. Sure, I'm guility of armchair quarterbacking. Sniping, however, interests me less.

If it interests you to know, well, yes, I have friends and relatives with very strong Christian convictions. Those are my roots. Palin will go down well with some, and will offend others. And in both cases, for religious reasons. I have this sort of conversation all the time when I'm in the U.S.

At the same time I spend a lot of time with secular liberals (and am generally secular myself) and most of these people either revile or are nonplussed by Palin's religiosity. I think it would be good--and inevitable in any successful political coalition--for these various kinds of people, (religious and non) to find a working relationship together. Clearly this will be a precondition for Obama to succeed.

I share Gene's view in post 2 (which I simplify here for reasons of space) that Democrats need to work on communication and intelligent conversation with Christians. And yes, as you say, the tradition of Social Gospel Christianity could serve well in this regard.

>4 krolik:

I think many Democrats are working on how to talk to Christians. The big buzz after the 2004 election was how to appeal to the values voter, which I think translates to Christian voter. One of the difficulties, of which your clip gives an example, is that in our current media environment no message will necessarily stay local and what sounds sincere and forthright to one audience may sound cynical and pandering to another.

Also, too often suggestions on these issues from pundits seem to have little basis beyond poll data and the ebb and flow of national media rhetoric. I'd far prefer to here real reports from the field. So, I would be interested in hearing whether you find that particular things the Dems are doing or saying are causing your "friends and relatives with strong Christian convictions" to get caught up on the language being used and keeping them from getting to the substance of the political decisions with which we are faced.

Well, for instance, the church my parents attend who thrown into disarray when the pastor said in a sermon that those who believed in global warming were "chicken littles". What ensued quickly became an argument between the congregation's active Democrats and the congregation's active Republicans, with a lot of uncertain or undecided or scared people looking on. No side emerged happy, in my parents' (Democratic) version of events. It is perhaps an interesting (and representative) example inasmuch as most of the people arguing with each other were already convinced about their side, whereas it was the onlookers who needed to be included in the conversation.

Job may not be part of the New Testament but it is an enormously significant book in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Hugely powerful. Starkly beautiful. And not outside the experience of many of us. Just a sideline carp.

Job is a very important book in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but of all the things it is, a candidate for "favorite Gospel" is NOT one of them. That's the point.

I always thought Job and the idea of Job was terrible.

God and Satan collude to destroy the life of a pious man and kill off his entire family as a test of his love for God? What sort of sickness is that?

I'm an atheist who grew up attending church weekly and the story of Job always seemed perverse to me. Perhaps if God weren't so clearly crazy and evil, the book would be easier to take.

Suspend the ethical, brother. It's useless and according to Kierkegaard it all comes out in the end.

Aren't ethics and morality supposed to be what religion is good for?

Not according to Kierkegaard, at least. He proposed that Abraham, by his willingness to kill his son with the faith that that the act was in accordance with God's wishes and that God would reward Abraham for his faith in the end. He refers to this as the "teleological suspension of the ethical" and refers to Abraham, because of his willingness to embrace it, as the "father of faith".

The story of Abraham, there's another of those nasty little nuggets of 'wisdom' from the Bible. A voice in a mans head says 'Kill your son.' Abraham says 'Okay.' He's a hero? What if he was just suffering from schizophrenia?

Seems to me the "teleological suspension of the ethical" could just as easily apply to every Jihadi suicide bomber.

Sorry believers. I'm not purposely trying to offend you and do share your political beliefs (well, those that are part of this group anyway) but I always wonder how many of the Bible-beating fundamentalist Christians have actually read the book?

Fear and Trembling

Good shit.

I forgot to mention that Kierkegaard specifies that it is specifically because Abraham's act is taken in the face of the absurdity of that act that defines it as faith. If it isn't absurd, I'm not sure it's faith.

If it isn't absurd, I'm not sure it's faith.

I ought to get a t-shirt that says that...

>6 krolik:
It is perhaps an interesting (and representative) example inasmuch as most of the people arguing with each other were already convinced about their side, whereas it was the onlookers who needed to be included in the conversation.

This is typical of the first round of almost any political debate. Going beyond this requires real work in both presenting one's own side with greater detail than most people have on hand and in really listening to the other side and not just getting hung up on rhetoric and one's own assumptions about their positions. This more substantive dialog is almost impossible in the sound-bite media, but it is possible in a local group, like a church, if people are committed enough to put in the effort.

On the specific issue of global warming, the PBS show NOW has done reporting on Christian groups organizing to protect the environment Here's the show's page on PBS website.
Bill Moyers and NOW frequently do reporting on attempts to integrate left-liberal politics with religion.

Response to 9: You are taking the story at too simplistic a level. The core of it is the story of one man faced with truly horrible circumstances and his despair and recovery therefrom. All too pertinent these days. What makes me rigid with anger is those happy folk who say that God never gives anyone more to deal with than they can handle. The evidence suggests absolutely otherwise. People being broken beyond repair all the time.

I don't think I am taking it at too simplistic a level at all.

From a storytellers point of view, it woulda worked better if God and the devil were off stage. Then the story of one man faced with truly horrible circumstances and his despair and recovery therefrom would have worked.

But as it was, the onstage presence of the Big Guy and his sidekick and the fact that G is supposed to be the cause of and solution too all of Job's problems can not be ignored.

It wasn't karma, luck or random chance that afflicted Job with his woes. It was the the active participation of God who it appears couldn't take a little jibbing by Satan (who was only doing his job). So the eye in the sky says 'Watch this! And he still won't curse me even as I actively kill his ten children. I'll show you who loves me, Satan!'

Job was a happy and pious man until one day his beloved creator decided to dump on him as a test. You take that same story and replace 'God' with some other character... 'The Emperor' or 'Darth Vader' or 'his scheming wife' or whatever. Then how would the story be taken?

Personally, Footprints does a much nicer job of getting the point of despair and recovery across than the Book of Job ever does.

>17 eromsted: eromsted

Thanks for the link

God and Satan (not the devil, at least the character was not the devil we think of when the book was written) ARE offstage. That is the point of the book.

Job gets hit with some very, very bad shit. His friends are trying to find reasons for it; Job sinned, He didn't honor God, God is testing Job--and they think they are right. But Job knows he ain't done nothin' wrong, and we know that, as the readers, because WE are privy to the offstage action.

Job is a story. And a damn good one at that. It is not "real life" or even theology. It is about how really bad stuff happens and it is not our fault. It was probably written to counter the Deuteronomic theology that was prevalent at the time; if you do good, God blesses you, if you do evil God curses you.

Job is a story that says bad stuff happens and it is not our fault all the time. I don't think the story teller expected us to believe that God was "really" like that. The answer God gives in the end serves as a reminder that we cannot put God in a box.

(Sorry for the sermon...I am preparing to teach it this year.)

Arctic,

I'm sure not trying to debate theology with you of all people.

But what about Job 1:6-1:20-ish? (I'm resisting the urge to quotes from the LolCats Bible.) God is not offstage. He is directly involved in trampling Job's life. Sorry. Any other deep thoughts put into the text are nice and all, but you can't go around pretending that this was not a crappy and unforgivable thing for God to do.

Again, to the believers on here, I understand this board is not intended to debate religion. Sorry. I'll stop replying after this I guess.

I just don't like to hear Job or Abraham held up as examples.

Maybe there should be a thread on Job as I find the exchange between Arctic and jseger9000 very interesting. I too can't find much room in my brain for a "God" who dumps so much misery on a "good" man. I am interested in your point of view, Arctic.

Maybe Happy Heathens would be a more appropriate group for the thread though.

Why would heathens be interested in Job and God?

Okay, I've started a post in the Happy Heathens group.

Maggie, you should check that group out. It's a place for those of any religious persuasion (or none at all) to discuss their views openly and (in theory) without rancor.

I just didn't want to feel like I was hijacking the progressive board wiht a religious debate.

Thanks, jseger

Democrats need to realize that a lot of people are religious. As a matter of fact, a lot of democrats are religious. They can make two big mistakes in this area.

The first is to just ignore it. Big Mistake. The Republicans beat the drum, and they make it an issue. For Democrats to just check out is to ignore something that is as important to many American people as the War in Iraq, the economy and who gets kicked off American Idol. (Ok, so the last one is overstating things a bit.)

The second big mistake would be to jump on the Republican Religious bandwagon. There are many people of many different faiths. That we can recognize. We respect their right to believe; we do not belittle it. There are some issues good Christians disagree on--abortion, homosexuality, and whether Elvis is in heaven. (Ok, again I overspeak. We know the King is with the King of kings.)

If a democrat has a faith he or she practices, they should be comfortable talking about it. They should not have to run from it, nor should they play the Republican game, and show it off. I think, for instance, that Obama was wise to meet with Warren. He knew he was not going to win over the hard core evangelicals, because of his stance on abortion, but for many evangelicals, that is not the only litmus test.

The question is not "Does God exist?" The question is "What does it mean when you say that God exists?"

I like the way Joseph Caputo put it; What do you love when you say you love God?