someone at Salon agress with me ;-)
Nov. 4th, 2004 07:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerhttp://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/11/04/religion/
[Edit]The following text is a quote from the article to be found at the link above. My point in citing the article and quoting from it is to observe that I am not alone in suggesting that one of the advantages that Bush had over Kerry in the election, and which Republicans have over Democrats in general, is their ability to speak to the religious element in American culture. This is not a secular country, nor is it a theocracy. It is a country that, for better or worse, was founded by and has been governed by Christians (with some Jews in supporting roles) for most of its history and remains deeply Christian in identity, more so than any other western democracy IMO. To ignore this fact and its political implications is disatrous.[end edit]
[Edit]The following text is a quote from the article to be found at the link above. My point in citing the article and quoting from it is to observe that I am not alone in suggesting that one of the advantages that Bush had over Kerry in the election, and which Republicans have over Democrats in general, is their ability to speak to the religious element in American culture. This is not a secular country, nor is it a theocracy. It is a country that, for better or worse, was founded by and has been governed by Christians (with some Jews in supporting roles) for most of its history and remains deeply Christian in identity, more so than any other western democracy IMO. To ignore this fact and its political implications is disatrous.[end edit]
The white evangelical core of the Bush/Cheney electoral coalition has no problems with identity politics and has both a deep and rich religious and political language with which to narrate its own problems and aspirations. Whatever one may think of this feeling-laden ideology, Bush knows how to connect to this base precisely because he eschews a secular and rationalistic rhetoric in favor of a language rich with moralistic, eschatological, and even apocalyptic themes.
In a country where upward of 75 percent of the population believes in God and an afterlife (in its decidedly Christian registers), only fools do not avail themselves of such a diverse and vibrant rhetoric for communicating concerns around a whole host of issues concerning justice and what possible ethical and social meanings can be attached to our sojourns here on earth.
Well, the Democratic Party leadership is such a collection of secular and rational fools. There are obvious exceptions in the black churches and the mainline Protestant denominations, but the religious rhetorics of these communities have rarely taken center stage in the last decade or so. In short, the Democratic Party needs to stop pretending it lives in a secular country. Until French citizens are allowed to vote in U.S. elections (as an old-time Socialist, how I would welcome the advent of that political impossibility), the Democratic leadership will have to fashion its messages for the deeply religious country it presumes to lead one day.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 02:44 pm (UTC)Having a leaders whose policy choices are informed by their religious beliefs is not the same as, or anything like, theocracy. By that standard, the Carter administration would have been one of the most theocratic regimes in postwar America. People, the leaders of the United States (and the UK, for the most part) have predominantly been religious people with a serious belief in God and whose moral structures were founded in religion for most of our history.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 02:54 pm (UTC)I think it's because this is a matter of faith (or lack thereof), not fact, and it's the same on *both* sides of the argument, I'm afraid.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:29 pm (UTC)