Why Don't Democrats Take Religion Seriously?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 янв 2017
- Many religious voters feel alienated from the Democratic Party, says Atlantic staff writer Emma Green. Why haven’t liberals tried harder to reach the broad percentage of Americans who identify as religious? “Democrats in Washington often have trouble speaking in religious terms, and they reflect a broader liberal culture that doesn’t take religion seriously,” she explains. But this is an uncomfortable shift, one that has a political costs. Previous progressive figures have actively relied on religious rhetoric to move policies forward. Martin Luther King Jr. and Jimmy Carter, for example, framed their ideals in religious terms and audiences were receptive. Is it time for Democrats to incorporate religious identity back into their outreach and politics?
Welcome to Unpresidented, a new series from The Atlantic where writers explore different aspects of this new era in American politics. Comment with questions and suggestions for topics to cover.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Graphics in this video show symbols of many faiths, including a Star of David. One image of that star, associated with Judaism, originally contained a cross-a combination typically associated with a movement known as Messianic Judaism, whose adherents identify as Jewish believers in Jesus. We have replaced the original symbol with a standard Star of David in certain parts of the video, including the image at the beginning.
Follow Emma @emmaogreen
/ emmaogreen
Read her articles: www.theatlantic.com/author/em...
And subscribe to The Atlantic! New videos every week:
ruclips.net/user/subscription_...
Subscribe to The Atlantic on RUclips: bit.ly/subAtlanticYT
Our government is founded on the principle of separation of church and state. As a Christian I have absolutely no problem with this. The difference between Democrat and Republican people of faith? May be that Republicans seem to want to create a theocracy according to their interpretation of Christianity. I say their interpretation because no where in my faith is greed, cruelty and hatred celebrated.
Another completely idiotic comment. My, how stupid democrats have become. No wonder they lost touch with reality. No, the republicans do not want to create a theocracy. Such a statement shows you are deeply out of touch with reality. If you are that dumb that you really believe that the republicans are for greed, cruelty and hatred, you have lost the ability to fairly represent the other side. No wonder you lose, lost in your bigoted ideas about the other side.
Have you not been paying attention? It's common knowledge that Republicans are selfish. They just proposed to defund Meals on Wheels for goodness sake! If that isn't selfish & cruel, then I don't know what is.
And yes, Republicans try to force their religious beliefs into law. They do it in many ways. Putting prayer back into schools, banning gay marriage, & banning abortion are the most obvious examples.
They're perfectly fine letting innocent children die in war torn countries just to prevent the fraction of a chance that a terrorist might come in with the refugees. That's like saying you won't pull 20 drowning children from a river in New York, because there's an extremely small chance that a crocodile escaped from the zoo & is waiting in the water. Republicans don't like their taxes going toward anything that helps people. But are perfectly fine paying for our bloated defense budget & a worthless wall to help give them the illusion of being even more safe than they already are.
They're selfish because they don't care that they're going to kill the planet with their science denial. They don't care that the ACA has saved millions of lives. They just care that they get to pay less for insurance & that the black guy doesn't have a legacy.
If you can't see how disgusting the Republican party is, you're either blind or just as digusting as they are.
Trump & his supporters are going to go down in history as the "bad guys". Similar to slave owners & people who didn't want women to be allowed to vote.
Except it wasn't. Separation of Church and State refers to the First Amendment.
Pamela Cox; most sane, intelligent comment in the mix today. Thank you.
Phillip Hickman Why are you quoting Patrick Henry? He opposed the Constitution because of its secularism, and he had bitter feuds with Jefferson and several other more prominent Founding Fathers.
I disagree that the Democrats should be a party of belief. Just because America harbors a large population of Christians does not require both parties to be pro belief. Secular government is important to many voters, Christians included.
Yep it protects Christians from Christians. We all have slightly different interpretations. We don't need one forcing their interpretation down other's throat.
It would actually be of great benefit to Democrats to be pro-belief. They could reach a wider range of voters then.
Max Schneider secular doesn't mean anti-belief it just means that you do things based on non religious terms. All faiths should be welcomed if they operate the same way. Many people of non faith, myself included, have stepped too far and have alienated people with those beliefs by belittling them. Just watch atheist videos on RUclips, they're really smug.
The USA is a Satanic nation. Always has been, always will be. "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:2, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus!
Erasmus, those so-called "Megachurches" are Hell-sent hotbeds of heresy. Joel Osteen is a liar. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (9th Commandment). Osteen is an even bigger phony than Billy Graham and Jimmy Carter...though not as big a phony as the so-called "pope." They are all liars, and they shall answer to the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day (Revelation 20:9-15, KJV). Even so, come, Lord Jesus!
Pretty irritating the way this piece solely relates religion with morality: secular doesn't mean immoral.
In fact secular means quite the opposite... the end of cherrypicking which religious "morals" we accept and which we do not. The end of "yeah but we don't follow that one because it's dumb" and "well of course slavery is bad, the Bible says so!"
Books on moral philosophy can be updated with each new generation, however the Bible can never be rewritten. I question why it has a place in moral discussions at all because of its rigidity.
tacos mexicanstyle it is dangerous if morals can be edited overtime. Imagine if one day, society decided murder is justifiable or theft is good.
Also, it is funny how you atheist contradict yourself. If the Bible were edited, then you atheists will have a bigger reason to disregard it. You always attack the Bible, trying in vain to disprove it and now you want the Bible to hold the possibility of edition.
If morals can be edited, then it is not moral. This is why people associate atheism with immorality.
Innately secular structure cannot be "Moral" unless it uses humanism (which has never worked) as a crutch. Purely secular morality is nothing more than majority opinion.
+Lich King I don't need to disprove the Bible. I just need to argue its irrelevance in informing our decisions. Of course morals can be updated -- are you aware that Biblical morals included stoning women for adultery and death for apostasy?
Evolution of societies to become better rely on evolution of our thinking. The Bible blatantly ignores the need for change. Do you honestly think that we should kill women for cheating? Or that it should be punishable by death to convert from Christianity to Islam? Or to become an atheist?
If you do not believe in these morals then that is proof that humanity has "edited" it's moral structure. If we didn't improve and reform our ways of thinking, then women would not be allowed to vote (as it was before the 1920s), women would not be allowed to hold property, and you'd be burned at the stake for not following the religion of the land. Atheism is associated with immorality only but idiots who don't do their research! Stop cherrypicking if your Bible is so moral and start arguing that it's moral to offer up your daughters for rape, as Lot does in Genesis.
tacos mexicanstyle you already contradicted yourself with the first two paragraphs. First you say the Bible had changed/edited the rules of the Old Testament (stoning of women) and later claim Christianity is not open to change.
It will become a long and boring trying to explain complex theology to an idiotic and dogmatic atheist but I'll do my best.
Christ came not to abolished the law but to fulfilled it. Sin must be punished. And in the past, the Jews were not fortunate enough to have the messiah die for them so they are held responsible for their actions. Sin is very destructive. That is why we are fortunate to have the son of God die for us, to cleanse us of our sin. That is why we're now called to love and not to judge.
"I don't need to disprove the Bible" now you're really being lazy. You can't think of a proper argument against it.
Atheism is immoral. Without a firm law and rule, humanity will fall apart, just as we're already seeing today.
Gotta be honest, I both enjoyed and appreciated this take. As a person of faith, I've come to feel ostracized in political discourse, caught between two parties that either don't speak for me or don't seem to want me. It creates a very difficult milieu where the only safe play is not to get involved at all.
That's why demacrats push for you to not vote!!! Shit they cheat so much yuh can't win!!! But sure enough they've pushed so hard that they'll find out who's correct!!! God and truth always winy!!
In 2023, I feel the same way, with a volubly antichristian Left and conservatives who worship a person I literally believe to be the Antichrist. The only way to win may well be not to play.
While I understand those feelings, as a Christian (not sure if you are; I mean from _my_ perspective), I would encourage you to carefully examine everything and do your best to affect change for the _better._ Not getting involved at all is how our country ended up in decline. Good men sitting back and letting bad men run the place and all that...
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful". Seneca, Roman orator, philosopher and historian, c.37 B.C.
If you bring up the "God's not dead" movie to argue anything then you've automatically lost. Sorry.
isaiah . ya they dont know much about God if thats there arguement.
the movies ok, not good but eh. they tried to make a sermon not a movie. i go to church for those i dont need to buy a dvd for a sermon.
I liked the movie
Isaiah Reitan you first need to establish that the arguments presented in the movie was false. Sorry.
These comments make a pretty strong case for the point of this video. She never said Democrats should be more Christian, or capitulate their views to the whims of religious audiences, only that they should take religion seriously because many Americans are religious, and Democrats ought to be able to speak to all kinds of folks in order to build bridges and get more done. It's politically advantageous, and it honors the dignity of the many, many religious folks in our country who aren't just going away because some people find their views backward. Should Christian voters be able to force their beliefs on others? No. Should Democrats take people of faith seriously because there are many of them and Democrats purport to believe in pluralism? Yes.
Jordan Magill, I appreciate your thoughtful and moderate comments. So much in these comment sections is full of bile and extreme perspectives. You may be interested in checking out a blog I write for which tries to model non-polarizing commentary on social issues. One of my recent posts resonates with his video: Reconciling Religion and Politics in Post-Obama America - The Brothers Sabey
thebrotherssabey.com/2017/03/20/reconciling-religion-and-politics-in-post-obama-america/
This comment deserves top spot.
Well done!
Jordan Magill well that's assuming democrats don't take Christianity seriously, which is false, many of us do. Large portions of the democratic party are Christian, and there still are pro life liberals.
"Democrats ought to be able to speak to all kinds of folks" So they should suck up to climate change deniers as well?
The government should be secular, there should be a divide between religion and politics
Rolando Tillit and when did republicans speak against this?
Nima
Think about the fact that there has never been a non-Christian president, and that ‘trusting in God’ republican or otherwise and taking religious oaths is embedded into US politics. I don’t even believe that a non-Christian has ever got close to presidency either. It’s a widely recognised rule that a candidate going against Christianity would be to throw the election, so no one will ever speak against it even if they believe in secularism (as some presidents have thought to have believed in)
LegoGuy87 shut the fuck up with that nonsense no evidence for god whatsoever
"One nation, under God"
LegoGuy87 no you can’t say no evidence there isn’t therefore I believe that’s dumb as fuck
Like this is a bad thing...this government was not founded on religious values and politicians don't have any business imposing religious law. Not everyone practices the same faith and can't be judged by the same tenants. Would you tell a Sikh to take off his turban in a christian church to be respectful (I'm assuming churches hold open house events)? Would you force a Christian to prostrate himself on the ground to pray? This isn't about belief. My internal sincerely held beliefs don't effect your life. No, this is about justifying discrimination and controlling the masses. Sorry, Evangelicals, but Christianity is NOT the state religion and never will be. No one is obligated to worship Jesus. Accept it.
we know that, thats not what we think, but you wouldnt force a christian to pay for something he thinks is murder, or do the same thing to a sikh or a sunni.
America itself was founded by Protestants.
@@ANT96-x8d But they are not in power now and never will be again.
@@thesssradio5008 Yet nonChristian Discrimination is still largely legal around the country. If Christians (in general the vast majority) really believed that it would be outlawed nationally.
Then why do sikhs ask us to put on a turban in their place of worship
I agree republicans love Jesus, until it comes time to practice his teachings. Then not so much.
Mark and you practise it?
Come on, give me another laugh.
How would you know.
@@squiggletree5080 Not sure I can embrace the notion of your morality. Humoring your nonsense that I'm "Pro" abortion, which I'm not. I happen to believe people have these things called rights that give them say in their life choices. Anyhow that aside, let's discuss your stand.
You say you're "pro" life, but you're not pro educate, house, and feed them. Life lasts more then a moan and a sigh. The importance and value of it covers every age from infant to elderly. Maybe pick a better point ? Wasn't even a challenge.
@James A. The way I tackle that question is I keep my beliefs out of issues of country. It's a given that freedom implies a persons control over their own life. Like your pro choice stand. It's also a given we won't all agree. But personally speaking, I always figured who a person loves is their business "just don't have sex on my lawn". Knowing gay people exist won't affect my relationship. To quote Bush Jr "it just doesn't keep me awake at night".
As for morality "morality differs because it's rooted in opinion, it's by no means an accepted standard". I imagine the most universal standard of morality is "what doesn't harm society as a whole". [So to quote M Moore "if you're against gay sex, don't have gay sex". The implication being that another being gay, doesn't directly affect you or your relationships. I imagine if the result was "you saw a gay sex act once" then tried it. You would be exploring the rabbit hole of choice or being born that way.]
The intent of my comments in the brackets [ ]. Isn't to offend, point fingers, or suggest, or imply. But rather to illustrate the logic behind the subject. That being that another's gay sex doesn't affect my life unless I obsess over the thought, or they have sex on my lawn. But ponder this, I live in a country with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Gays, Herero's, Transvestites, Nazi's, conservatives, KKK, and all manner of group and label you can think up. Which produces no implication of alignment unless I openly own it. This is how America and freedom works. Let me suggest if you wake up one day, and everyone looks, thinks, believes, and acts just like you. That's the day after freedom died.
@James A. I try to avoid religious belief systems to understand the why. If I were to look at science in may be a byproduct of over population. Essentially nature changing the sex drive of an overly populated species.
a lot of the points you made, seemed rooted in religious belief and the associated culture. In countries like Japan homosexuality isn't a thing. They view sex as a normal drive not an unforgiveable sin. So their beliefs affect or alter their potential ism's. But that said, homosexuals have always been in all societies. The difference being them speaking out now.
As for sexuality in general or the pornography aspect. They tend to orient on people's inhibitions. Like when dresses went to the ankles, the ankle or calve became an object of male desire. "Usually the part that's hidden. But in places like Sweden nudity isn't a thing. I suspect a typical Swede doesn't have a fetish unless it involves how someone is dressed.
But even so, I'm stuck at people have the right to be themselves. I imagine "on the vitriol of the subject" less then fair tactics will be employed by any side to make a point. It is what it is I suppose. Anyhow Thank you for a good reasonable conversation. I'd love to see "this" become a normal of conversations. I'm no Republican, but I can respect your view and especially how you presented it.
I like my party secular
I like my party smart. There are smart people who are religious. I want them in my party. It takes two to tango and we need religious people to tango with us to oust Trump and his abhorrent ilk.
+Greg Davison god is very real my friend you sound so foolish the reason america is turning into a 3rd world country is because you reject your creator...look at where trusting in men has gotten us lol this world wont exist in the next 15 yrs....you should read the bible not cherry pick it every last detail of phrophecy has came true explain that if its a fairytale the very fact you believe in evolution is hilarious as it is physically impposible and has been proven...the amount of people murdered because they have found clear evidence to prove the bible is god breathed is endless...you willfully reject your saviour because you love your worldly life and sinning too much your a slave to it and are comfy living in a lie...but brother know this we are in our last years the chaos in the world will be ramped up soon and you will die and you will be judged and give your account to your father whether you like it or not...bit of advice stop trusting men..think eternal life not eternal torment keep convincing yourself he not real but it wont save you and with that mentality you will fall right into satans new world order and mark of the beast ...its why world war 3 will happen to form order out of the chaos...wake up all this will happen read the bible pray for wisdom to understand it it explains we are the last generation...good luck god bless you
+Greg Davison god is very real my friend you sound so foolish the reason america is turning into a 3rd world country is because you reject your creator...look at where trusting in men has gotten us lol this world wont exist in the next 15 yrs....you should read the bible not cherry pick it every last detail of phrophecy has came true explain that if its a fairytale the very fact you believe in evolution is hilarious as it is physically impposible and has been proven...the amount of people murdered because they have found clear evidence to prove the bible is god breathed is endless...you willfully reject your saviour because you love your worldly life and sinning too much your a slave to it and are comfy living in a lie...but brother know this we are in our last years the chaos in the world will be ramped up soon and you will die and you will be judged and give your account to your father whether you like it or not...bit of advice stop trusting men..think eternal life not eternal torment keep convincing yourself he not real but it wont save you and with that mentality you will fall right into satans new world order and mark of the beast ...its why world war 3 will happen to form order out of the chaos...wake up all this will happen read the bible pray for wisdom to understand it it explains we are the last generation...good luck god bless you
+Greg Davison god is very real my friend you sound so foolish the reason america is turning into a 3rd world country is because you reject your creator...look at where trusting in men has gotten us lol this world wont exist in the next 15 yrs....you should read the bible not cherry pick it every last detail of phrophecy has came true explain that if its a fairytale the very fact you believe in evolution is hilarious as it is physically impposible and has been proven...the amount of people murdered because they have found clear evidence to prove the bible is god breathed is endless...you willfully reject your saviour because you love your worldly life and sinning too much your a slave to it and are comfy living in a lie...but brother know this we are in our last years the chaos in the world will be ramped up soon and you will die and you will be judged and give your account to your father whether you like it or not...bit of advice stop trusting men..think eternal life not eternal torment keep convincing yourself he not real but it wont save you and with that mentality you will fall right into satans new world order and mark of the beast ...its why world war 3 will happen to form order out of the chaos...wake up all this will happen read the bible pray for wisdom to understand it it explains we are the last generation...good luck god bless you
This is the most hilarious thing i've read in my entire life
i'd like to point out that 60% of white catholics voting Trump is actually less or roughly the same as whites for trump overall (~63%). also, as the video points out, racial minority religious people go for Democrats by large margins. so is the problem with 'religion', or is the problem with a particular culture of white, protestant, predominately evangelical christians?
i think framing this as a problem with 'religion' is a mistake, and kind of whitewashes things.
It's a problem with white religious people who think that only they, get to decide how everyone must behave, and want to legislate laws to enforce that. This all came to a head when Roe vs Wade was passed in the seventies, which became the biggest dividing issue and remains to be, all the way through to today. When the democrats pushed through R v W, those religious people immediately started being courted by the republican party, and remained with it. Nothing else will cause them to switch back, because the abortion issue, to them, is so tightly connected to their belief in a god.
Many people who call themselves 'Christian' do not even understand what Christianity means. The lie in the churches is that Christianity is all about 'personal' salvation. To understand the Christ-mission, however, one must understand why Abraham was called out of Mesopotamia. He was called out to build a nation that would go on to build other nations that in turn would bless all the nations on earth. Just how would Abraham's children, the Israelites, build nations that would bless all the other nations on earth? The plan was that they would build these nations in accordance with JEHOVAH'S MORALITY, today known as the Judeo-Christian ethic, and that all other nations would want to emulate these principles to varying degrees over time.
When the Israelites walked with Jehovah in the desert under the leadership of Moses and his brother Aaron they were given 40 years of training in these principles. To understand them accurately, one must remember that the Israelites had just escaped 430 years of hard bondage under Egyptian control. When they left Egypt, however, many of their former slave masters came with them in the mixed multitude. Yet, when Jehovah imparted His law to his people He demanded that the Israelites be given NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. The Israelite mission was to build nations, not ‘even up the score’. Jehovah's law is ONE LAW for ALL grounded in unity and MUTUAL love. Period!
There is no respecter of persons within Christianity nor should there be in a nation grounded in Christian principles.
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: THOU SHALT NOT RESPECT THE PERSON OF THE POOR, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Leviticus 19:15
Ye shall have ONE MANNER OF LAW, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 24:22
To be an authentic Christian means that you sacrifice your personal feelings for the GREATER GOOD. Any church that does not teach this is a FALSE CHURCH and is antithetical to the Christ-mission. This mission was temporarily derailed when the Israelites lost contact with Jehovah (the divorce). Christ had to come to earth 2,000 years ago to restore the communication network and to pay for the sins of the Israelites for the primary purpose of setting them free, yet again, from their enemies so that THEY COULD GET BACK TO COMPLETING THE MISSION. Certainly, masochistic passivity in the face of injustice is not how one accomplishes this important quest to nation-build. Anyone who understands the courage and costs yet still chooses to participate in this mission is welcome. However, anyone claiming to be a 'Christian' who adulterates this doctrine and Jehovah’s endeavor to nation-build will not be received.
Black christians want to take away gay rights, but cling to democratic party for sake of their own rights begrudgingly.
@@NeuroticKnight9 Blak Men, as a group are much more balanced, practical, and logical than white people.
think of it like this.. HUMANISM...
lots of christians are unknowningly humanists
there is pure tradition Christians influence in America AS WELL as HUMANIST INFLUENCE
and the people are from ends and those in between are also influence by one or the other a bit more..
in otherwords.. christain humanist tend to vote democratic.. they are more tolerant and less traditional.. thus have a easier time not mixing their faith with politics.. PERIOD
germany is mostly christian.. YOU WOULD NOT KNOW THAT based on how they vote and the country is run...
sweden is mostly athiests..
both countries more or less are similar..
both are very much humanist nations..
remember athiests are the largest growing "group" in america..
the influence is slowly becoming less and less religious with each generation..
the issue.. TRADITION. it always DIES HARD...
and we know things tend to get more aggressive when its ultimately losing influence...
its why the religious vote is a thing and being abused like crazy... directly violation of church and state.. where republican's are pandering to Christians to vote Christian to put Christians in power.. to reinforce some legislations and laws clearly favoring the bible or over turn things that dont and try to reinstate religious nonsense in the laws...
religion is a joke.. its cancer..
just like the bible they cherry pick the constitution to fit their own narrative then ignore and reinterpret it when it doesnt support them.. xb
note.. its not bad framing..
Christians who are tolerant in REALITY try to dissociate for Christians who arent tolerant.. both follow the same faith.. and both INTERPERT THE BIBLE HOW THEY WANT to fit their narrative...
all denominations.. for gentle to extremists.. CLAIM "true" Christians..
its ALL HOG WASH..
women got rights.. cause of athiests and feminisms.. because of HUMANIST.. not Christians.. Christians who supported them were of humanistic influence
athiests got some rights for the same reason.. yet still cant hold office because of CHRISTIANS.. good bad neutral.. end of the day its CHRISTIANS.. PERIOD..
blacks went thru the same shit.. most were Christians.. butt they lets be real.. were inspired by HUMANIST INFLUENCES..
same with HOMOSEXUALS.. its was CHRISTANS that oppresses them... and still try to today....
its the humanists that are the sword and shield to all these movements..
even freaking ANIMALS saw rights via humanism..
good or bad..
FAITH IS THE MOST DISHONEST POSITION A PERSON CAN HOLE..
cause no matter how good the person is.. based on FAITH they are prone to denying reality in favor of christian values which they often still vote in favor of which is harmful to society yet they dont realize it..
there are a lot of good tolerant Christians still opposed to full on sex ed to children.. why.. cause they argue thats against their faith..
thus why america .. christians are the majority of not only teen pregnancies' but REPEAT teen pregnancies'.. while non religions people.. despite being lower population still proportional are lower...
its the same with crime rates.. and rape.. and etc etc..
faith is dishonest .. PERIOD.. and dishonesty leads to silly things not reflective of reality.. and supporting that.. no matter how good one things it is.. will be harmful...
over 70% of americans literally support CREATIONISM taught along side EVOULTION.. as an ****ALTERNATIVE**** SCIENCE...
bruh.. u realize how fking bad that is.. ? the effects that could cause..
christians will ultimatley join and side with PSUDEO SCIENCE as if its REAL SCIENCE.. riding the coat tail of credentials of real science to phase out actual fking science.. now u directly put the entire education system back into religious peoples hands.. thats a BAD THING..
america has a CHRISTIANS VOTE.. PERIOD.. is a joke religiard nation.. its the bottom of the barrel of the western world..
why cause CHRISTIANS.. PERIOD... from well meaning to full on nut bags..
at this point christains humanist are a blessing.... they ultimately sway secular.. just not as good and not as well as European Christians..
only real disticion is.. faith is declining.. thus more and more christians are accepting science more and more.. thus they become more tolerent and less traditional and less prone to vote in favor of religious nonsense.. thats humanist influence.. PERIOD
We already have one party of religion--we don't need two.
Marcus R nah, we just need an Islamist sympathizing party. Got it.
Let religion deal with "other worldly" affairs, keep politics secular.
Politics shouldn't have the escape of "the after-life", it needs to have the pressure of death.
if one mans religion will not allow him to make a decision should he be forced. a pacifist should not be forced to kill, a man who is allergic should not be injected with what he is allergic to.
Correct
Say it one more time
The phrase “Under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance in June 14, 1954.
No! It's a God given fact that the way the poor and needy are treated contributes to the overall health of a nation. How is that something you would have us marginalize?
They talk about it like it's a bad thing for a party to be secular. Including all religions might be the goal, but being rather irreligious is still better than favoring one set of beliefs and values over all the other interpretations.
"Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Read the Bill of Rights, dipshit.
Why does anyone take religion seriously? It’s ridiculous that non-religious men and women are portrayed as strange and outliers. The existence of god is just as irrational as the existence of Zeus. Yet, somehow the device of religion allows many to portray themselves as inherently generous, kind, moral, and ethical-which we know is very far from the truth.
This notion that we need to address god and religion in politics to "include" voters is absurd. It's also arrogant. I have never heard a Christian nor Christian politician make any effort to live in the shoes of a non-believer and empathize with them (or Jews or Muslims for that matter). In fact, the opposite is true. They make absolutist pronouncements that atheists are morally deficient. Atheists are one of the most distrusted groups in America. We're more distrusted than rapists... It's strange that the "secular" party of the democrats is more inclined to include people from all religions, and no religions, more readily. Simply because from their pov, it shouldn't matter. Isn't that what a party of true inclusion would look like?
But what bothers me is your smarmy tone. As someone who views Christians as having a super-majority of influence and almost never tries to see through the lens of other groups, it's kind of infuriating.
The most defensible position a politician could hold in regards to religion should be, "It doesn't matter, you have the right to believe what you choose". But in a society dominated by one particular religion, it's insulting to to ask those minorities to "imagine what life for us is like?". We know. It's shoved in our faces every minute of every day.
Atheists are reviled because they’re so annoying and smug and honestly no one cares to listen to a 2 hour rant about why an atheist doesn’t believe in God (hint: no one asked you).
It’s not that people think atheists are immoral it’s because atheists live to talk to down to people it’s all they care about and it’s so annoying.
^Projection.
Jeremy Banchiere .....lol....and.you just shoved your beliefs in our faces. Live and let live
@@jetvaughn3683 Isn't "live and let live" your belief which you command for others to follow?
She has a point about being ignorant of and even mocking religion. Bill Maher can be funny at times, but he drives people away because of his language.
If you can't take a little bit of mocking, your ideas probably won't stand up to any real scrutiny.
Same can be said about those who downplay other minority groups. And coming from a neurodivergent who isnt easily offended that says something
Oh. It hurts the feelings of religious people that so many people don't take their faith seriously? Would it make them feel better if we all just pretended that we took their faith seriously, just to humor them?
I think it’s important to note that the radical messages of the Abrahamic faiths (and other traditions) for charity, inclusion, and love are antithetical to the neoliberal capitalist economic goals. Where religion (often) calls for us to raise up those in need the American political system wishes for the rich to get richer.
The summary of this is wrong: It should be said, "Many *white* religious voters feel alienated... Religious African-American and Hispanic-American vote Democratic and have no problem bringing religious metaphors and language into the political conversation. Please do better, editors of The Atlantic.
White Christian voters. I am a religious non-Christian and I am very socially liberal.
David Amann member when black democrats repealed the same sex marrige act in california before the nation wide vote..? i member
*Hostile* racial language included even when talking about something as beautiful as uniting religions. This is why so many people cannot stand the DNC and its associated publications and viewers.
28% of democrats being religious seems pretty inclusive to me...
John Johnson your party supported Trump and Joe Arpio, sounds very Christian... And I'm sure all of those billionaires are always paying a tithe. They seem so generous. 😒
I really hope there's a silent majority of atheists out there who are respectful of pious people because the internet really does well at bringing out the worst among you.
What was that whole “the least of these” “typo” thing about? I didn’t understand that part/reference/implication
I think it was highlighting ignorance of a very popular verse from the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 25:40) by Christians of communicating social justice? But I admit it was a bit ambiguous and I'd never heard of it before.
Man I assume that most of Hispanic Americans are democratic. And they’re probably one of the most religious people. Especially the adults and elderly
Democrats are good at persuading people who dont understand american values.
Yup and they are very hard core christians yet they vote democrat
@@ericklod7238 your American values are different from mine
As a Hispanic, the liberal democrats do have control over our minds. I was brainwashed as a teenager from liberal propaganda to resent both my native Central American roots, view myself as a victim on one hand; and to also hate my Spanish Christian side as the oppressor
@@ericklod7238 Your values are archaic and don't include everyone. There's no discussion
This is among the most obtuse views I've come across in a long time. Blaming Democrats or liberals for not catering to people with outdated and oppressive values is downright bizarre. The path forward is to know what you believe in, stand for those ideals proudly and convince others you are right. As the video says, Democrats are growing with younger, less religious voters. Why is this suddenly a problem?
Two thumbs up!
"The path forward is to know what you believe in, stand for those ideals proudly and *convince others you are right*."
The assumption that religious views are outdated or oppressive is part of the problem. If you don't understand the opposite side all you do is scare them off
You don't get the point of the Ms Greens video. She is not making a value judgement or taking sides. She is analyzing the current political climate acurately.
JimboParadox, Flaky? What does that mean, they want an improved public education system, affordable college, and health care, adequate infrastructure? All things most Republicans are against.
Thomas McGill, where are children taking hormones to change their gender?
"If the democratic party wants to be the party of inclusion, it has to be when it comes to belief too," Umm, hello? The Republican party is alienating to anyone who isn't Christian. The Democratic party says, "It doesn't matter what you believe. We believe in freedom of religion, which means separation of church and state. Politics should be secular so it can be for anyone, regardless of religion."
This is why the Democrats lost the elections. It wasn't because of Russia. It was because they kick out God our of the party. We evangelicals actually vote.
Many of us are Democrats. We hate racism, and we love even Muslims knowing that many Christians are being killed in Muslims countries. If you Democrats want to win, you must stop your spreading of anti-Christianity. You should welcome Christians and advocate for good family principles.
Hardly the case. Most liberal political pundits and civilians are militantly atheist, and will openly mock anyone who carries faith. This is because they often associate religion with rightism which isn’t accurate.
Thus the stereotype grows
@@guiller2371 " the Democrats lost the elections. "
Democrats lost the 2016 election because they made their nominee someone who didn't focus on the right policy but rather someone who wants to come across as charismatic and a celebrity.
"they kick out God our of the party."
The government recognizes no one's God, look at the 1st Amendment.
" We evangelicals actually vote."
yeah...so what? Donald Trump is not a Christian, he is an adulterer, liar, asshole, greedy dickwad and actually the antithesis of Anti-Business Pro-Redistribution of wealth, Jesus. Go pick up your New Testament and realize how much of a liberal Jesus was.
"we love even Muslims "
No you don't.
"many Christians are being killed in Muslims countries."
And many Muslims are being killed in Muslim countries by Christians, you're point is?
"You should "
Nope. If you want to abide by the rules of the Bible, go ahead but the Democrats are not going to force other people to do that.
You can’t truly be inclusive and respect all religions when your policies contract most if not all religious beliefs and doctrines. There’s no such thing as true inclusion
religion has nothing to do with morality.
You probably shouldn't conflate morality and religion in this piece. Doing so puts forward the falsehood that those that aren't religious aren't moral, and I would argue that the democratic party's main pillars of political philosophy are strongly tied to morality.
This was a very well put together piece. I am part of the 1/3 and ever shrinking Christian Democratic demographic. I still know a lot of social justice minded Catholics who are pro-life, but stay in the blue tent because they believe many great things can be done for "the least of these" through governance.
There are also a lot of single issue Catholic voters in the red tent, who are that way only because of the abortion issue. That's fine I guess, but since banning abortion is currently unconstitutional, I feel no guilt being pro-life in whatever party I most identify with overall. You see, voting for Hillary or Donald J. accomplished nothing towards ending abortion. Really, you could say that about any President elected since Roe v. Wade. Not one Republican changed or reversed that decision, yet nearly all of them relied heavily on that issue for votes.
But I digress, I like this video, because the Democratic party is literally leaving me and 1/3 of its own party behind. Not to be gobbled up by Republicans per se, but to become Centerist Independent voters. Either way, the ramifications on a national scale could be disaterous for a party that walks down that path. Latinos are usually religiously affiliated. A lot of African Americans in swing States like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan are religiously affiliated, unlike on the coasts. If Democrats are banking on the nation as a whole becoming less religious over time, and therefore aschewing that part of their platform, then I can almost guarantee a third party forming in this nation. Right now the "Unite America" party is banking on just that happening, and I'm contemplating tearing up my current voter card.
American is becoming more latino and we are mostly catholics. I think that one atheist party can't never win the White House again. So Trump probably will be reelected in 2020.
The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. The constitution does not support nor does it protect abortion. But the constitution does protect the innocent as in those who can't defend for them selves.
How do you feel now, as Roe v Wade has been overturned
@@Jenkowelten I feel that the Supreme Court, which has long had prominent Catholics (and Jews) as part of it's body politic, came to the correct decision. I don't know if simply saying that it should be left up to the States is a long term solution either, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.
I don't understand your line of logic. Changes in the constitution can only be done with a large majority in congress and the presidency... so that means what you vote for is rather important. It seems like the Republicans are the only ones who might want to do it if the oppertunity arrives.
Hey Emma Green, what's up with conflating religion and morality? Morality without religion may be our only hope.
You mean like they practice in L.A., San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, and Baltimore?
I'm a bit confused on the video's ending - the lady said that the dem party must also be inclusive to all religious bodies - How would the democratic party reconcile a platform for judeo-christian religious arguments as well as arguments for same sex marriage and abortions?
Not casting any shade, just an honest question
Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican, Equal rights is not a Liberal idea
I think there's a big difference between moralistic language and religious language. Bernie Sanders is a Jewish atheist--he's not invoking bible passages in his speeches, he's calling on basic human decency. I'd like to see more people talking like he does, reminding us how important it is to be ethical, but I don't want to see my Democratic representatives invoking any one religion in particular.
We can also ask, Why don't Democrats take Big Foot Seriously?
Maybe because we are not stupid.
Religion is slowing progress.
I thought the title of this video was dumb.
But then I watched the video and saw how truly divisive this video was meant to be.
It really captures the "holier than thou" views of too many and tries to moralize one-sided righteousness to pure crap.
Religious belief is not one size fits all.
Who paid to create this video?
I accept fully that there are a lot of people of religious faith in America. I just don't know where parties like the Democrats can go from there. I mean, sure, a lot of people are religious, but on what grounds? Is it just faith? Well, I'd like to think that the more education you have, the less reason you have to accept ANY particular religious faith. So, where do you go from there? I say, if there is no positive evidence to support religious beliefs, then that's-that. That's where politics and self-interest are likely to get intwined and where many politicians invoke faith for electoral reasons rather than having any personal belief.
You can't be serious. You must live in a bubble. There is NO evidence to support the idea of religion? Really? Have you looked over the vast swath of human experience, and come up with the conclusion that you, sitting in the twenty first century, are so much smarter than every single human being that came before you? You think they were so damn stupid that none of them could have figured this out? Only you, with your fine education, know the truth?
Your arrogance, and your ignorance, is only preceded by your shallowness.
Tom thx I think there's no evidence for a deity. If you have some evidence, feel free to submit a scientific paper stating your lines of evidence, you would be heralded as one of the most important thinkers of the modern world if you were to establish such evidence.
It is not arrogance or ignorance to state that there is not evidence to support religious tenets, simply fact. Also, I'm not shallow, I'd like to think I have a healthy appreciation for the Universe and the lives we live. I realise many people find their lives enriched by religious faith, but that says nothing about whether such beliefs have any connection whatsoever with reality. I don't claim to have any more knowledge than anyone else and certainly don't claim there is "no deities", I just don't think there is any positive evidence in support of most religious beliefs.
i disagree, many Christians are educated including myself. although i respect your opinion im entitled to mine.
what about the big bang, or the ocean under the surface, or the great flood that engulfed much of early civilization, all of it mentioned in the bible.
What I find particularly interesting about this comment is that it makes the assumption that religious people are uneducated which I once held myself.
I was so fervently an atheist nearly my entire life, until my junior year in university, at the age of 21 and converted to a faith.
In this case my education did lead me directly to religion.
I’m confused, are they trying to say that this is a bad thing?
I'd say that the popular vote is really affected by the growing secularism, but I'm 90% sure that there are no atheist/agnostic senate reps, which is a crying shame for the quarter of Americans who don't have a religion.
Simple, atheists and religious folks for the most part agree on the basics: rape is bad, murder is not cool, corruption ain't kosher, and racism/sexism/and all the -phobic aren't productive. We need to work together on the basics. My lack of faith doesn't make me a monster, and your religious thinking doesn't make you less human.
"moral and religious" as if christians are moral lol
@@elliottmurphy1884 an atheist chineese president killed 60 million of his people
layladystay as if you are moral?
Tell me another joke !
And you are supposed to be any better? Imbecile
Giovanni Ledezma and? Atheists aren’t a group, we don’t follow a strict religious code, that’s like saying non boy-scouts are evil because hitler was a non boy-scouts.
Joshua ijaola No, its really not. That was a terrible analogy
I’m a bible believing Christian who voted for Trump. I actually think republicans gotta let go of the abortion debate. No one likes abortion, but no one likes kids being born to parents who don’t want them either. As well as the government had no right to tell gay consenting adults that they cannot marry. Less government involvement is usually the best.
why are you voting for a racist? someone who said he could touch women? someone who wishes for healthcare to be exempt from certain groups, who are still people. I am a christian myself and I believe we should show everyone love and look after our world. Trump doesn’t believe in climate change either, destroying the planet God gave us. I agree with your views on the laws surrounding abortion and gay marriage however I’m still confused on why your voting for someone with such a low level of competence and care for others. Voting for trump means you are putting thousands in a much worse position. Is that really the right choice?
@@grace9507 He is not racist. Biden is the one who said, “if you don’t know whether you’re voting for me or for Trump you’re not black.” As well as Biden use to be pro school segregation. Trump is for parents choosing what school their kids go to.
Democrats historically were racist and still are. It was the republicans who freed the slaves, democrats were the original KKK members. What have democrats done for the black community other than keep them in poverty with welfare? Pre-corona black unemployment rate was at its lowest under Trump.
Wow! This is good content.
The dems will defend Islam all day while bashing Christians
because they like the phrase "death to America"
Yeah, let's add religion to our identity politic bullshit. Identity politics need to take a step back and we need to focus on class. that's what we all can find common ground with.
This! I am Bernie Sanders, and I f#cking approve this message. =)
It is not hard to speak to the morality of things and religion does that beautifully, but when religion is sexist and homophobic, it becomes illegitimate and hypocritical for many, myself included.
Anyone remember Chic Tracts? They are those tiny books with 2nd grade theology. I consider it fringe comic art.
Because more people don't beleve in a magic man in the sky
God is not a magic man in the sky.
I was actually surprised, I was expecting the typical condescending, anti-religious, leftist "insight". Well done, your assessment showed dignity to people of faith.
However, as someone who studies theology (as a hobby), you can't simply group all people of religious belief together: we don't all get along lol. Most religions tend to be antithetical to any other religion. Certain eastern religions as well as certain Abrahamic religions are a bit more able to be permissive of dissenting opinions but their basic tenets are still antithetical to alternatives. Just look at many Muslim controlled countries: its actually illegal (punishable by death) to convert away from Islam (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are great examples).
Once Christianity took hold of Europe, similar sentiment occurred. It took the protestant reformation to force certain changes and the next couple hundred years was very bloody because of it. But it wasn't until the US was founded to show that religious freedom was of real value. The idea of separating church from the state mostly entailed no official state religious organization, not that we should remove all religion from the state. Many of the founding fathers had nothing but admiration for the ethical and moral framework of the Bible (even if they didn't believe all it said). But because of the religious persecution faced in Europe, they wanted no authority with the ability to dictate what they believed: something liberal scientists need to appreciate.
This is still important today, liberals don't want Trump telling them what to believe and Conservatives don't want people like Obama telling them what to believe. As a good libertarian, I don't want anyone with the civil authority to determine what is acceptable beliefs and unacceptable beliefs: you must limit the ability to do good to limit the ability to do evil of those who govern.
If that's true, then as a social libertarian myself, we cannot allow the Republican Party platform to be developed based on any religious or faith-based purposes. What I mean by that is to the extent that a truth is not universally adopted as it relates to a policy area, then such a policy should not be adopted. For instance, nobody of any faith (or even those who do not espouse a particular faith) will ever suggest that murder should be protected conduct. However, the issue of abortion (specifically the question of when does life begin) is rooted exclusively in religious dogma. A certain segment of the Christian community believes that life begins at conception, but with no empirical proof. Only religious dogma forms the basis of that belief. Many Jewish communities hold that life does not begin until six weeks into a pregnancy. Other religious communities do not take a stance, but merely hold it as a mystery of faith alone. There simply is no universal truth as it applies to the question, and so it is one that ought to be protected and left between any individual and God. Using religious dogma as the sole motive for regulating conduct leads to bad policy, because it assumes that you should have to live the way I tell you to live.
@1stGruhn Well-written indeed. Thank you.
Yeah, generalizing is wrong. But it seems like that is the main way that the US’s political parties view their voters, through generalizations and stereotypes and outdated trends.
@@tyleremerson9824exactly that is one of the reasons I am pro-choice, not to mention many medical procedures might not be operable if a woman is pregnant and birth control is used to help with heavy periods even when the woman is not preggy (I was reading about birth control this morning lol)
Well said.
The short answer is, for the same reason Europeans don't. Centuries of war and strife driven by religion made them come to their senses. That doesn't mean Europeans aren't religious. They simply keep their faith personal, for the most part. The U.S. is a young country, and are just beginning to feel the infringement of religion creeping into public policy.
But what about building bridges?
3:10 - 3:17
Agree! Ms. Green.
Last time I checked, only religion has tenets that actively shame the non religious
I think it's so interesting that at the end of the video, you talk about liberal leaders speaking in terms of morals, not organized religion. Conservatives have always had the "values voters". I think especially now Democrats need to flip the script and frame themselves and their voters as basing their decisions on their moral compass - one that just happens to point towards inclusion rather than superiority.
In times where nearly _all_ young voters equate religion with hypocrites and immoral behavoir, I think the opposite is true: DISTANCE yourselves as much as possible from all Christians. They are nothing more than false prophets anyway. And they are philosophicly responsible for denying Climate Change and science in general.
Inclusion , except for innocent unborn babies.
Oh, inclusion of the people you choose.
Typical liberal.
Republicans are the most immoral people in the world. They are merciless.
@@bobrolander4344 yes I agree. I can't see how religion (christianity in the us) can be viewed as anything but a liability.
I'm a Christian Democrat and I think climate change is real and I think black lives matter and I think that most of science is real not everything they say in my opinion is true but most of it
There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.
It may be defined as a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that claims to relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.
Different religions may (or may not) contain various elements, ranging from the divine, sacred things, faith, a supernatural being (or supernatural beings), or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life".
Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture.
Religions have sacred histories and narratives (which may be preserved in sacred scriptures), and symbols and holy places, that aim (mostly) to give a meaning to life.
Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that have the side purpose of explaining the origin of life, the universe, and other things.
Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs.
There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide, but about 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or forms of folk religion.
The religiously unaffiliated demographic includes those who do not identify with any particular religion, atheists and agnostics.
While the religiously unaffiliated have grown globally, many of the religiously unaffiliated still have various religious beliefs.
The study of religion encompasses a wide variety of academic disciplines, including theology, comparative religion and social scientific studies.
Theories of religion offer various explanations for the origins and workings of religion.
Excellent explanation. There are real differences between religions that carry real different impacts on society and people's lives in society. Sociology of Religion was one of my fields of interests when I studied the science several years ago.
And rightfully so, America is secular for a reason.
Ask another just as relevant question: why don’t intelligent people take Santa clause and fairies and leprechauns seriously?
Wolf Gang: Yes, indeed, what are the major parties’ policies on a minimum wage for Santa’s elves?
Should home owners be allowed to cull the fairies at the bottom of the garden? If yes, what limitations should there be, e.g. a bag limit?
Should nymphs who prefer shepherdesses over shepherds have equal rights?
So many questions!
Santa Clause was based on a real person so you can not entirely say he did not exist. Looking more into world history will clear that up as older Santa Clause stories use some of this info as the origin back story.
Lot of fedora tipping going on in the comments.
Jonathan Jameson *tips fedora*
ikr
Maybe many Democrats don't want to be hypocrites. Republicans don't seem to have that problem
Theirs only one thing tho Democrats are one of the biggest hypocrites in America, as Democrats tends to be more hypocritical then their Republican side.
Why don't religious people take democracy seriously? : /
As someone on the left, I can glad to say that we embrace secularism. Separation of church and state is right in the 1st Amendment.
@Jrdjdh Yeah it is.
@Jrdjdh "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise of."
@Jrdjdh That's exactly what that statement means
Would agree. Also, what John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
I have a belief. It's called separation of church and state. And if you are going to endorse political candidates from the pulpit, maybe it's time you pay some taxes!
Taxation is theft.
How tf am I supposed to talk to religious people when I think it’s all bs? This isn’t rhetorical I’d really like to know it’d be really helpful.
Ask them what policies they want to see implemented. Then ask them why. If they can explain why they believe the policies are necessary without resorting to explicitly religious language, you could probably have a productive conversation with them, despite your differences of theological position.
I find it disturbing that playing "the religion card" should be important in political discourse in the 21 century.
Alternatively, there might be value if politicians would share their moral beliefs, such as Sen Sanders.
She's right. The Democrat party needs to include religion in their equality, not just skin color and gender.
Bill Maher's views on religion aren't exactly representative of all of liberal thinking. He has no room for religion in his mind and that's fine, I can't exactly argue he's wrong, but millions of people do Identify with religious teachings. If it makes them happier, and better people, well i'd say that's fantastic. However, political parties should ALWAYS be free of any religious motivations. but thats just my humble opinion.
Why do republicans take fiction seriously?
"It has to be about belief to."
Right. You have the freedom to believe, not put your beliefs onto others. Secularism IS about belief. It's about saying everyone can have a religious view but I don't have to follow your religion and you don't have to follow mine, or my lack thereof.
So what you are saying is that your country is maturing
Hammer Please try to be patient. It's a relatively young country.
... why should they?
they are a political party, not a religious sect
counter question: why cant conservatives be secular?
Because Satan 👺 is their daddy ☠️
Says the person who supports the death penalty, children in cages and constant wars
@@bennettcarlson3974 The Death Penalty Is For MURDERERS, Abortion KILLS INNOCENT Babies, There's A HUGE Difference That Makes It Obvious Which One Is More EVIL
This was really good
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion“. The establishment clause of the bill of rights.
I agree with the democrats, although I'm right-leaning. Politics should be secular.
Democrats are centre right for European standards.
Pain.
It's interesting that Obama presided over this while at the same time being able to speak eloquently about his own faith. The guns and religion quote gets a lot of play, and helped to make people view him as a "fake" Christian, but he regularly employed religious language into his speeches and cited biblical passages.
Skin colour and sexuality are not choices, neither are they belief systems that encourage infringement on other peoples civil liberties.
You obviously don't live in California. They believe melanin or its absence determine your moral worth.
More nonsensical blather. What they hell are you talking about. This is typical Democrat nonsense-speak. The commenter believes she has to make serious statements, she only has to slime the other side, and that sliming is her 'argument" No wonder you lose elections. You worship a system of non-thinking and demonization of the other side with no facts whatsoever.
Tom thx blah blah blah.
Tom thx Cuuuuuute!
But Transgender is a choice (if I'm not mistaken)
The ending implies that Sanders used moral language so thus appealed to religious sentiment, and that democrats better start appealing to religion and not just identity politics? That's a lot of assumption. How about a party appeals to good governance and doing what's best for the welfare of their constituents. Is it too late for that?
**Hello? the Separate of Church and State? **
@Jane Dough Self-described "progressives can read, usually, but they just tune into MSNBC and CNN.
There is zero place for religion in government.
Never agreed more.
I can see that religion is taking a great part in the lives of many citizens, but I am also quite sure that religion is something very personal and sometimes irrational and therefore shouldn't really be a thing in politics. The only thing a government or a country in general should do when it comes to religion is to grant everybody's freedom of religion
lamo the people are the voters religion comes with it make a religion then
As long as freedom of religion doesn't cause you to harm someone innocent or deny a more sane right- eg, freedom of religion will NOT extend to mutilating an 8 day old baby boys genitals as that is a heinous crime.
Define religion.
. According to our constitution we are supposed to have a secular government. People of many religious belief systems are citizens so which one gets represented if we become a theocracy? How would those of differing religious beliefs be punished? Do we really want to become like Saudi Arabia? How would those who don't conform to the norms of that religion be treated? Each group would want it to be their own to the exclusion of the rest which is why religion probably shouldn't mix with politics.
dorothy djcox -- we do not want a theocracy.
We want sanity and demoCraps are Insane.
What constitution are you reading? There is not one area of our constitution that suggests a secular government. All it says it it guarantees a Freedom of Religion. Also, there is an in-between between theocracy and secularism. I would argue our current government exemplifies that. We are not Saudi Arabia, and we are not France. Religion, is a special ideology, but an ideology non the less. Why should it get excluded from public life when all other beliefs are valid? Secularism is not neutral, it favors lack of belief over belief.
My friend Joe is not color-blind. But when it comes to cars, Joe has a strange quirk: he calls all cars "blue." I asked him why. He said that's just how he defines "blue" when it comes to cars: "compatible with any color of the rainbow," so he just says blue. He called me yesterday to say he just repainted his car and now it's blue. WTF? Now you know what the wise man hears when Christians say "God is good." They're going to say that anyway, no matter what their God does. Hypocrites.
Could you please update?
Psh, I'm conservative, I think religion is absolutely pointless though. I can respect that it makes people happy, however.
I take it just as serious as I do any other fairytale
I love it how atheists congratulate themselves on their ignorance.
Tom thx
I love it how you won't be *even remotely capable* of showing how we're ignorant.
Care to try?
Tom thx We're ignorant because we look at the world critically and ask the tough questions?
Many religious people have just as much reason to take their faith seriously as nontheists have for taking no faith seriously.
There are atheists who refuse to critically analyze the world and their worldview just as there are nontheists who refuse to critically analyze the world and their worldview.
On the same wave however, there are many who do.
Let's just respect each other here.
Nathan Williamson This is simply nonsense, Nathan!
Please give us even *one* good reason we should take religious faith seriously.
I have an acquaintance who claims she is an evangelical and as such rejects psychology and sociology. I have yet to understand why those studies are contrary to her faith. Many people of faith apparently cannot see Trump as a narcissistic: An individual so focused on self that he holds no other ethic. I am used to Jesuits and Anglican vicars who are educated and cognizant of the human fraility... and aware of the First Council of Nicea.
0:18 "moral or religious language" what?
Very mature video, as a (European) Conservative I can agree, bravo
where are you from?
How to prove the existence of God: ask Marijuana Edibles it made me hear demonic voices
Really?
YoungNFresh4Life yea and Pornography is pretty evil too, I’ve had Sleep Paralysis, and Consistent Nightmares from that
Jon RD What did the demonic voices tell you?
YoungNFresh4Life they were laughing and mocking God and singing his songs that you hear in church like Jesus loves me yes I know for the Bible tells me so. It’s scary. I was begging for the Lords mercy
Jon RD That actually sounds scary. I always hear stories of demonic voices being in drug user’s heads when druggies talk to themselves a lot. Also celebrities selling their souls and end up dying early in life. It depresses me that people don’t believe in God, because if demons and the devil are real, then God HAS to be. Thanks for the info man.
I do. I’m a Christian and I’m democratic. I’m not republican because I had to choose between “Christian” racists, and freer Democrats, I choose Democrats. Plus I’m black so...
bernie sanders, whom you mentioned, PROVES it doesn't have to be about belief
That clip from Bill Maher's documentary is pure gold! :-)
Maher will eventually change his views. It may be too late but eventually.
1:23 I actually have heard of the film, from people like CinemaSnob and other YT channels.
2:04 Lol, so true
I’m down with a Democratic Party that has inclusion of belief, as long as those beliefs do not lead them voting for or advocating for reprehensible policies, or cause them to spew hateful rhetoric towards marginalized groups.
Like killing babies?
Unfortunately, the Democratic party has a history of evils they currently deny and lie about or cover up so they can con people into voting for them.
If a party wants to be able to unite people of all faiths, then maybe not using explicitly Christian rhetoric is exactly the right move.
It does bother me that people believe the world is flat due to the Bible
it took many years to get to this confused state
yeah man, i really like fantasy too. they should include dragons in the democratic party. for diversity sake