someone at Salon agress with me ;-)

[winterbadger]

http://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]

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.

Comments

[capt-mathman.livejournal.com]

I don't think that any of them docilely follow behind their parishioners, waiting to see which way the wind is going to blow.

Ever hear of the expression "following from the front?" And you don't have to be overtly docile in doing so. Just spiritually.

But they are also the leaders of *communities*, and they can't just willy nilly take them in any direction they feel like.

I believe you miss the point here. They're not supposed to go "willy-nilly" as they please; they're supposed to go in the direction God leads them. That's their duty to God. The fact that the communities may prove resistant is immaterial; you stand at the pulpit, you speak the word of God.

I think the typical cleric in America today is too easily swayed by the consensus of the laity. Case in point: Catholics in America are often at odds with the Pope, and Catholic priests seem rather reluctant to do anything about that. Admittedly, as you point out, if I were to confront such a priest, his first question might well be along the lines of, "Whadaya want me to do? Make them listen at gunpoint?"

But your point is not about that. You're stating that the country is simply following the Good Book, and the Dems had better wake up to that fact. I think the country uses the Good Book the way an accountant uses the Tax Code; looking for rationalizations for what they were gonna do anyway. The leaders you mention are simply really good at finding such.

[winterbadger]

I think we fundamentally disagree about the nature of religious leadership and the state of religion in the US today.