Stop the God-groveling, Democrats! Lack of religion is not your real problem

[trotsky]

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/stop-the-god-groveling-democrats-lack-of-religion-is-not-your-real-problem/

...I would expect to see more articles like this one in the Atlantic cropping up over the next few months, reminding Democrats that they’d they’d better find religion:

There’s a religious illiteracy problem in the Democratic Party. It’s tied to the demographics of the country: More 20- and 30-year-olds are taking positions of power in the Democratic Party. They grew up in parts of the country where navigating religion was not important socially and not important to their political careers.

This could have been written in 1981, 1985, 1989, 2001 or 2005. In fact it was, ad nauseam. Democrats would lose elections and immediately start handwringing over their alleged hostility to “pro-life” people, hemming and hawing over gay rights, and mumbling about “family values” and “religious liberty.”

It’s as ridiculous now as it was then. The Democratic Party is full of religious people, not the least of whom are African-Americans and Latinos who are religious at higher levels than whites. Any urban politician navigates religion all the time. In fact they are far more religiously “literate” than their rural brethren, since they have to be able to speak to members of many different religious denominations: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics and every possible variety of mainline or evangelical Protestant.

In fact, it’s truly insulting that people keep insisting that Democrats are irreligious, particularly since it seems to be the churches attended by liberals where racists and fanatics choose to “express their beliefs” about abortion, God, guns and gays with a hail of bullets.

Accusing Democrats of being hostile toward religion is simply going to alienate one loyal part of their constituency that has been steadily growing over the last few decades: the unaffiliated/non-religious, who at this point make up a larger percentage of the population than Catholics, according to a recent Pew survey.

[guillaumeb]

1. "Unaffiliated" is not synonymous with "non-believer".

It also means those who do not identify with a specific church.

But what the GOP really means is that Democrats are somewhat hostile to the idea of a right wing theocracy.

[trotsky]

2. Good thing I didn't make that claim, then.

Thanks for your input anyway.

[guillaumeb]

3. Always glad to help out. eom

[MindPilot]

4. "Nones" are about 20% of the population.

But we are completely ignored by politicians who endlessly indulge the religious, and to the Democrats, we are just another group expected to STFU and vote for them. And enjoy your non-representation because Islam is worse...or something.

[Nitram]

5. I agree 100%.

I'd say Democrats are actually more religiously literate than the majority of under-educated deplorables. Not more "religious", mind you, just more knowledgeable. Even Obama played the game with his recital of the mandatory "God bless America closing at every event." Democrats aren't anti-religion. They are anti-religious-bigotry.

[trotsky]

6. Our candidate for president REPEATEDLY discussed her Christian upbringing...

and the role it played in her life and the formation of her political beliefs, including by signing off with the (clearly obligatory these days) "God bless America" after every speech.

So yeah, I have to wonder what exactly the Democrats did this cycle that would be considered "anti-religion." Was our candidate secretly an atheist who used subliminal messages to indicate her desire to destroy religion?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Apparently, it's so obvious, that anyone asking what should have been done differently

can answer it without anything further being said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218242197#post36

[rug]

8. Apparently you're still stinging.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218242197#post45

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. You must have linked to the wrong post

because no one could ever think that could 'sting' anybody.

[rug]

10. Read the context.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=242625

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Oh, admit it, you linked to the wrong post

There's nothing 'stinging' in the whole thread, it's just that you picked your most pathetic "oooh, this is about you" post in the thread, obviously by mistake. The one most likely to get someone thinking "my god, why do I bother replying to this dreck?" And yes, I'm thinking that again.

[rug]

12. Lol, you tried to make it about me by posting that irrelevant link.

You flatter me with attention.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. A link to a previous thread discussing the same topic of "do Democrats need to do something

different for religious people" is irrelevant? You're not even trying to contribute anything sensible now.

[rug]

14. You didn't link to a thread, you linked to a specific post.

Something you're making a habit of.