How Democrats can attract evangelicals in 2008
Posted February 27, 2007
A commuter jet, shrouded in fog, sat on the tarmac waiting for the weather to clear.
I sat in seat 10B. One row behind me, in 11B, former Kentucky Gov. Paul Patton hoping for the plane to take off.
I asked the former two-term Governor if there's anything his fellow Democrats can do to attract evangelical voters in 2008. Patton suggested it will take a change of heart and a little Bible reading -- by Christians -- to bring the two sides together.
"I'm going to be a little crass. When the evangelicals listen to Jesus' message about the poor and disadvantaged, then I think the evangelicals and Democrats will be a lot closer," said Patton, a Protestant. "I don't know how much Jesus talkd about abortion, but I know he talked about the poor and disadvantaged quite a bit."
I'm in Atlanta now. I missed my flight and I'm paying a ridiculous 35 cents per minute to spit this post out. So I'll stop for now. But this afternoon, I'll have more from my interview with Gov. and Mrs. Patton, including the former first lady's views on ex-Arkansas governor (and current GOP presidential candidate) Huckabee and her impressions of the triple-wide trailer that served as the governor's mansion while the official residence was being restored.
Comments
So, Dems want to court evangelicals. According to Patton, their strategy will be to say to them, "Adopt our positions on abortion and social policy, and then we'll be happy to take your votes." Am I missing something here, or does that not sound like a very successful strategy?
Also, it's so nice to hear a man who gave state healthcare contracts to his mistress tell evangelicals they need to listen to Jesus more. I'm guessing this isn't the first time that Patton has been "a little crass."
Typical "evangelical" response Jack.
Right to life.. begins at conception, ends at birth.
All of the evangelical community's huffing and puffing about abortion and gay marriage never lead to one iota of progress for any disadvantaged person.
I guess while you and your church run around bragging about your "committment to unborn life", those already living will have to fend for themselves.
Thousands of children across the bluegrass will go to bed hungry tonight, Jack. I lament the fact that rather than changing their circumstances, the "holier than thou" among us decide they need to spend their energy overturning a 30 year old court decision (which will still be the law of the land 30 years from now).
UKLUTHERAN: in defense of Jack and his holier than thou response-As you put it-I can only say this a million of times ABORATION IS MURDER-I don't care how you look at it and everyone who participates in such an act will stand before GOD on judgement day.period.
Jack and I both have a problem with falsely telling people-OH ago ahead a do it-those people just have a holier than thou attitude-well pal you to will stand before God on judgement day giving an explanation of why you were spr4eading a false gospel--so you may want to think before you say anything else.
UK, you earn the right to claim we don't do anything for poor people when you actually know something. You are ignorant of how I or any other evangelical in town help poor people. And you don't help the poor by killing them in the womb. What hypocrisy it is to advocate child-killing, and yet claim at the same time to care about human beings. Why can't you see how irrational that is? If children aren't worth protecting while they are in the womb, they aren't worth taking care of any other time during their lives. Either the value of human life is innate, or it has no true value at all.
I hesitate to respond to the previous posts because nothing wastes time like an argument among people who are passionately committed to their beliefs. I feel very strongly that abortion should remain safe and legal in this nation. I also believe very strongly that much of is labeled "Christian" in our contemporary discourses has very little to do with the actual teachings of Christ. Obviously others disagree with me on this.
Peach,
I feel that I have studied this issue in enough depth to be confident in my belief. I considered many theological, ethical, and philosophical perspectives. Moreover, I believe that forcing myself to be anti-abortion would be going against my own conscience: and going against one's own conscience, as Luther pointed out, is a danger for ones soul.
You are right, though, we will all have to answer for our actions and our beliefs some day. Let it suffice to say I am firm in my beliefs and I believe them to be morally and spiritually sound.
If I have indeed been lead astray by false doctrine, than I will certainly have to answer for that. On the other hand, the same applies to you and Jack. I don't expect you to accept or understand this.
Jack,
You are correct; I am unaware of the work you and your church do for the poor. However, while whatever acts of charity you may perform, I still question your commitment to justice.
There is a difference between "helping the poor" (charity) and changing the conditions that lead to poverty (justice).
So, what have you or your church done to advocate justice? What are evangelicals at large doing to promote justice? Please, I am begging to be proven wrong (for the good of the nation: I think that the evangelical community could be an awesome force for good in this country, I'm just not seeing it).
In regards to abortion and justice, I am sick of being lectured to by anti-abortion fanatics like Jack.
I believe that abortion is a tragedy: one that is far too often brought on by women finding themselves is desperate situations.
Jack's solution: crimialize abortion and lock up these women.
My solution: work to prevent unwanted pregnanties, advocate for a living wage and a fairer distribution of wealth, increase support for the disadvantaged in society.
Basicially, criminializing abortion might make people like Peach and Jack be able to tap themselves on the back, but it does little to improve the overall situation.
How about instead we create a world into which no unwanted pregnacy will result in the kind of tragedy that occurs far too often today.
Bill Clinton did more to reduce the abortion rate than any of the loud mouth GOP politicians during the past 15 years.
Uklutheran:Jack's solution: crimialize abortion and lock up these women-come on-he said nothing of the sort. I think we are all in agreement that it would be much cheaper all the way aroung to educated children as early as 2 and 3 grades and as old as 20 year olds could use refreasher courses-male and females. Yes, I have a child who will soon be 10 years opld, came home from school last year talking about sex. No-I didn't like it-I thought she was to young, but --
anyways, as a 30 year veteran of radiology I have stated many times that women use abortion as a means of birth control, --which the majority of these women are in the range of 12-20- they have absolutely no idea of what they are putting their bodies through let alone how these babie are being aborted when they are around 20 wks gestation--And they say "peta" is against debeaking a chicken!!!--these are the same people that want abortion-please
Pro-abortion people always need to make up smears and call names like little children, because there's no way to rationally defend infanticide.
Smears, names?
I called you an anti-abortion fanatic, Jack. Are you denying that you are fanaticially opposed to abortion?
And you side stepped my point. I did not attempt to "rationalize infanticide", I just pointed that your solution to a very serious problem doesn't make sense to me.
So, I'll ask directly, Jack (feel free to answer too Peach):
If you truly believe that abortion is murder, than how many years should these women sit in prison?
Should they get the death penalty?
What about the doctors, nurses and clinic staff?
Should the penalties start only when abortion is criminialized, or should those that helped "murder 48 million babies" also have to pay for thier "crimes"?
Amazing how many people can shout "infanticide and murder" without following their thoughts through to their natural conclusions.
Oh, and Jack, your failure to provide examples of evangelical support for social justice speaks volumes....
You'd have to classify me as anti-abortion hands down, but it does pay to look at some statistics. The country of Belgium, where national health insurance actually pays for the procedure, has an extremely low abortion rate, much lower for its size than that of the United States, while in Latin America, where abortion is completely illegal in most countries, in some places even when the life of the mother is in danger, the abortion rate is much higher than that of either western Europe or the United States. You want to stop the practice of abortion? There's only one way to do it effectively and lastingly: education.
UKLUtheran: I have my own mouth and fingers I don't rely on other- here is an extract from wikipedia-I also have eyes.
"The second step is to remove the fetus. Either a local anesthetic or general anesthesia is given to the woman. Forceps are inserted into the uterus through the vagina and used to separate the fetus into pieces, which are removed one at a time. Lastly, vacuum aspiration is used to ensure no fetal tissue remains in the uterus (such tissue can cause serious infections in the woman). The pieces are also examined to check that the entire fetus was removed.."
This is on patients 15-26 wks gestion. most pregnancy's are aound 40 wks gestion-however with moderan technology some fetus can survive at 20 wks gestion. So what is your defination of murder?
Peach,
You didn't answer my question.....
If you truly believe that abortion is murder, than how many years should these women sit in prison?
Should they get the death penalty?
What about the doctors, nurses and clinic staff?
Should the penalties start only when abortion is criminialized, or should those that helped "murder 48 million babies" also have to pay for thier "crimes"?
UK: the goverment decided 30 years ago that aboration was not murder-thereby making it leagal--news flash-we live in a society that God and the Bible condem.
speaking as an ultrasonographer there has been many times seeing a 15-40 week gestation making a fist and punching the transducer, sitting ontop of mom's belly indicating to me there is a great possibility that the baby ears may be hurting from the sound waves. Now if a baby can make a fist-and the mother is only 15 wks into her pregnancy-than how much more do you think they feel being pulled apart limb by limb
And since you seem to want to be on the side of justice so bad, tell me what kind of justice is it in this world to care more about a chicken being "debeaked" than a baby being pulled aopart limb by limb-which is a gruesome way to die, if nothing else.
Also this is only one method of aboration-the others are more brutal than this
Why should I play along with obvious misdirection? It's like complaining against police brutality, and you demand to know what's been done about drug rehabilitation. They're both important, but one doesn't cancel out the other. So your comment is irrational. All you're doing is an ad hominem fallacy, purely for emotional effect, and counting on the hope that readers don't think. Why should I show respect for such tricks?
Abortion is homicide, sometimes defensible (when the mother's life is endangered), and in all other cases not.
A person who doesn't care about social justice but opposes abortion is wrong to be indifferent to justice but is still right in opposing abortion, because abortion is homicide. A person who supports social justice and supports abortion at the same time is still wrong in the latter, because abortion is evil.
The innate worth of just one human life is a crucial foundation stone of justice. If a human being isn't worth protecting in the womb, then they aren't worth helping any other time. You claim to champion justice, but at the same time you deny the value of human life. How just is that?
Since you don't believe in the Bible, you can't define the word "justice" in a way that isn't subjective and culture-based. For you, what's "just" today might not be "just" tomorrow, if the fickle winds of public polls shift.
Abortion is ultimately wrong for the same reason that hatred of black people is wrong -- because God's moral law forbids both. But you cherry-pick your ethics and call your own subjective opinions "justice", while denying a foundation for all justice: the intrinsic value of human life. You are no guide to justice.
Jack, fifty years ago your evangelical cohorts weren't so sure that discrimination against black people (or Jews or women, for that matter) was at all against God's moral law, and many of them supported segregation based on their interpretation of the bible.
So, just because a person claims to base their moral code on the bible doesn't mean that code won't change over time. In the right hands, the bible is an amazingly supple instrument.
I agree with Caleb that arguing with passionate individuals is futile, but if all the energy directed toward criminalizing abortion were spent caring for and adopting children in foster care, directing youth programs after school (when most teenage pregnancies happen) and generally creating a true "pro-life" ethic cradle to grave, the abortion rate would drop exponentially.
More ad hominem.
Editor's note: You're two thoughtful, articulate people with very different world views. I'd prefer that you agree to disagree and move forward, because I enjoy hearing from both of you.
Evangelical Protestants have voluntarily done more for the world's poor and disadvantaged over the centuries than any governor ever has. How can I take seriously the opinion of a corrupt politician who doesn't believe unborn babies are among the weak who need protecting from the selfish, killing depradations of the strong? Or who demonstrated his contempt for the poor by deliberately releasing criminals back into poor neighborhoods as a way of terrorizing the state into accepting some stupid budget of his?