I hear you Rusty. Certainly the black church has long been a democratic stronghold, though I would argue that the Black church has historically played a different role in social and political circles.
I didn't see the King funeral, but understand people's frustration. I thought the Reverend Lowry (sp?) went too far, but thought that Carter was well within the bounds of the context of the King family.
But at its heart, I have an issue with such blatant manipulation of church membership, and would remind you that many Republicans hate that too--including Richard Land.
My other frustration is the deep sense that the conservative evangelical church is being "played" here. Growing up in that church, I can't help but feel that Rove and others have decided to manipulate the church with a few key church phrases, and then act directly opposite. Most of my ire in this blog at the conservative church is that fact--that they are voting for people who not only don't share their faith, but govern in a way that is directly opposite of the teachings of Christ.
Without context, I would be inclined to say that this is no problem at all but simply an efficient means to contact potentially like-minded voters. However, context is key to understanding why they want this information, as Michael Scanlon has indicated:
"We plan to use three forms of communications to mobilize and win these battles. … Our mission is to get specifically selected groups of individuals to the polls to speak out AGAINST something. To that end, your money is best spent finding them and communicating with them on using the modes that they are most likely to respond to. Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information form [sic] the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet, and telephone trees."
I am inclined to agree with Streak that they have duped the leadership if not the membership of many in the conservative Evangelical movement. I wonder if they have requested membership lists of mainstream left-leaning denominations like the UCC, Unitarian-Universalists, etc.
I am intrigued by Rusty's comments and have a couple of questions. First, why do you have "reverends" in quotes as you do? Is this to challenge their credentials as clergy, to indicate distaste for their political involvement, or something else? In terms of commenting from the pulpit, do you see a difference between, for example, expressing concern for the poor from the pulpit and saying vote for candidate xyz?
2 comments:
I hear you Rusty. Certainly the black church has long been a democratic stronghold, though I would argue that the Black church has historically played a different role in social and political circles.
I didn't see the King funeral, but understand people's frustration. I thought the Reverend Lowry (sp?) went too far, but thought that Carter was well within the bounds of the context of the King family.
But at its heart, I have an issue with such blatant manipulation of church membership, and would remind you that many Republicans hate that too--including Richard Land.
My other frustration is the deep sense that the conservative evangelical church is being "played" here. Growing up in that church, I can't help but feel that Rove and others have decided to manipulate the church with a few key church phrases, and then act directly opposite. Most of my ire in this blog at the conservative church is that fact--that they are voting for people who not only don't share their faith, but govern in a way that is directly opposite of the teachings of Christ.
Without context, I would be inclined to say that this is no problem at all but simply an efficient means to contact potentially like-minded voters. However, context is key to understanding why they want this information, as Michael Scanlon has indicated:
"We plan to use three forms of communications to mobilize and win these battles. … Our mission is to get specifically selected groups of individuals to the polls to speak out AGAINST something. To that end, your money is best spent finding them and communicating with them on using the modes that they are most likely to respond to. Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information form [sic] the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet, and telephone trees."
I am inclined to agree with Streak that they have duped the leadership if not the membership of many in the conservative Evangelical movement. I wonder if they have requested membership lists of mainstream left-leaning denominations like the UCC, Unitarian-Universalists, etc.
I am intrigued by Rusty's comments and have a couple of questions. First, why do you have "reverends" in quotes as you do? Is this to challenge their credentials as clergy, to indicate distaste for their political involvement, or something else? In terms of commenting from the pulpit, do you see a difference between, for example, expressing concern for the poor from the pulpit and saying vote for candidate xyz?
Post a Comment