Religion in America: Why Many Democrats and Europeans Don't Get It

I'm an atheist liberal academic who strongly leans Democrat. But I'm stunned at how blind so many of my colleagues and soul mates are to the historical underpinnings of American political culture and the genuine appeal of religious conservatism for so many of our fellow citizens.

Recent economic studies (most notably Unequal Democracy by Larry Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton) show that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income American families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families, and that the reverse was true when Republicans were in control. If people vote rationally for their economic interests, one would expect Democrats to be perennial favorites among working poor and middle class, and especially so in this year of economic downturn. Why then does polling show the election a tossup?

Conservative whites who vote Republican generally cite patriotism and national security as the most important issues in deciding who should be president. Over the last few generations, it's only when these voters perceive economy to be in dire straits, or when a previous Democratic administration has been successful in palpably increasing their prosperity, do patriotism and national security take on slightly less value than usual. Patriotism and national security are about binding and preserving what has become the primary reference group for political identity in the modern world, the nation.

In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin wrote that:

"The rudest savages feel the sentiment of glory... A man who was not impelled by any deep, instinctive feeling, to sacrifice his life for the good of others, yet was roused to such action by a sense of glory, would by his example excite the same wish for glory in other men, and would strengthen by his exercise the noble feeling of admiration."

The official website for John McCain's candidacy headlines a quote from his book Faith of My Fathers as his banner:

"Glory is not a conceit. It is not a prize for being the most clever, the strongest, or the boldest. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely, and who rely on you in return. No misfortune, no injury, no humiliation can destroy it."

As cross-cultural findings by psychologist Jonathan Haidt show, morality is (pretty universally) not just about treating others fairly, but also "about living in a sanctified and noble way." That's a reason why John McCain's appeal is powerful.

Among many Republican conservatives, one factor strongly correlates with patriotism and national security, is of even more overriding concern in daily life, and stands inseparable from love of country. Religion. A Gallup poll found, for example, that nearly two thirds (65%) of highly religious American white voters would vote Republican, no matter what their interests in other issues are. If one looks at recent Gallup polls inquiring into religious devotion in the USA, as indicated by belief in the Bible and church activity, the classic division between the blue states of the east and west versus the red states of the south and Middle America is apparent.

A culture's moral compass is not an innate or logical determination, but an underdetermined product of historical contingency and willful choice. Belief in moral "rightness" or "truth" is always a matter of faith rather than reason. Only some professional philosophers, jurists, scientists and academics believe that the principal point of political argument (or most any argument) is, or ought to be, truth rather than persuasion, and that an argument's principal appeal should be reason rather than passion. To paraphrase Karl Rove: reason may be fine for studying and analyzing history and politics, but not for living or making them. Faith in what is felt and hoped for but cannot be proven or demonstrated in the here and now is vastly more effective in mobilizing people to create change. Barack Obama's appeal to many people who previously voted Republican, and upon whom victory depends, requires inciting such hope, not harping back to traditional democratic "issues."

What's Universal about Morality and What's not?

Primatologist Frans de Waal finds that even capuchin monkeys have a sense of fairness: if an experimenter offers cucumbers to a pair of capuchin monkeys, both eagerly grab the cucumbers; but if one of the monkeys is offered grapes, the other will throw the cucumber in the experimenter's face. This is a primitive version of the outcome to an "Ultimatum Game" that all human cultures seem to subscribe to. Anthropologist Joe Heinrich and his colleagues went to more than 20 small-scale and large-scale societies with offers to split the equivalent of a day's wage between two anonymous players who had done no work for the money. The researchers found that there is always some lower bound that one of the players finds unacceptable, although this varies across cultures (average cutoff may be close to 50-50 in some societies, as in America and China, but only 80-20 in others, as in some native cultures of the Amazon and New Guinea).

Studies by social psychologist Richard Nisbett and colleagues suggest that human cultures fall into two broad categories, individualist (mainly the U.S. and Western Europe) and collectivist (the rest of the world). Anthropologist Richard Shweder argues that for so-called collectivist societies there is also a strong "ethics of community" (authority / respect, duty / loyalty); often there is an "ethics of divinity" (purity / sanctity) as well. Experiments by Haidt involving thousands of subjects suggests that all of these elements may be part of every culture, but each element to a different degree. In our own society, liberals tend to insist on individual rights and are uncomfortable with pronouncements and institutions built on "the ethics of community" and the "ethics of divinity" because they often lead to patriotic jingoism (overblown loyalty), inequality (subordination of the weak or disadvantaged) and exclusion (racism, proscriptive nationalism and other forms of purification). Conservatives want a richer, more interdependent social life, which requires a regulation of relationships that goes beyond harm and fairness to individuals. This includes limits to sexual relations, management of obligations and authority, and control of group boundaries and borders. Liberals see conservatives as "repressive." Conservatives see liberals as "irresponsible."

The original American revolutionaries mixed the universal elements of morality in a very particular way. The "self-evident" aspects of "human nature" that The Creator supposedly endowed us with -- including "inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- are anything but inherently self-evident and natural in the life of our species: cannibalism, infanticide, slavery, racism and the subordination of women are vastly more prevalent over the course of history than "human rights." It wasn't inevitable or even reasonable that conceptions of freedom and equality should emerge, much less prevail. Nevertheless, the new ideal of individual liberty required upgrading the element of individuality, that is, our innate awareness of individuals as self-motivated agents who can act on their own to achieve goals. The focus of empathy shifted to people as individuals and voluntary participants in civic communities.

The Americans also downgraded elements of authority, loyalty and purity then current in European politics. The French revolutionaries who followed lowered the importance of the individual while raising that of one group, the nation. That's why whole classes of counter-revolutionaries, rather than individuals alone, could be collectively condemned and punished regardless of any individual crimes they may have committed. Most modern revolutions and regimes follow the French example more than the American.

Why Sarah Palin Appeals to the Religious Community and Traditional Mainstream America

Unlike the centralized European and Canadian churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, American congregations were, and still are, concretely rooted in local communities with strong personal ties. Americans voluntarily chose and supported their community church, internalizing and shaping the community's egalitarian moral values, instead of being compelled to belong to a state-subsidized, hierarchical institution. Where American churches have emphasized the God-given individual impulsion to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England in Canada have stressed the social virtues of that country's first constitution (The British North American Act): "peace, order and good government." American churches have been more risk prone, preaching practical working values over humanistic doctrines. "American denominations had to compete like business for customers, for support for income," noted political sociologist Seymour Lipset.

Unlike in other countries, Americans often opt to go to different churches depending on changing personal social, economic or political preferences. It's as acceptable to change churches as it is to change shopping brands provided that your choice is also motivated by moral conscience rather than mere personal opportunity and benefit. For example, Obama has changed churches a few times. But the last change almost derailed his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. This was both because of his long-term association with a church that tolerated seemingly anti-nationalist preachings, and because people felt that the political pressure for him to leave the church trumped his pronounced reasons of conscience for leaving it.

Sarah Palin grew up as a member of the Assemblies of God, the largest Christian Pentacostal movement (about 66 million members worldwide). The movement consists of a self-described "cooperative fellowship" of self-propagating, self-supporting, and self-governing churches. All profess faith in the deity of Christ, the original fall and final salvation of man through belief in Christ's blood sacrifice and his Second Coming, and the evangelical mission to spread this belief in order to save as many other souls as possible. The movement also acknowledges loyalty to the national government, but allows each church and believer to take the stance they feel most appropriate, and to support or not support national wars as their conscience tells them.

Although Palin grew up as a Pentacostalist, in her adult life she attended a number of different churches. She is now part of the evangelical movement of Christian Charismatics, the fastest growing religious movement in the world (over 450 million adherents). The Charismatic movement is noteworthy for how it sees the relationship between individuals and institutions. Charismatics tend to be more wary of institutional authority than classic Pentacostalists, more causal in their attire, more innovative and modern in their forms of outreach. Sports, the media, advertisement and public education are all useful means for bringing lost and scattered souls into the flock. But towards those who consciously choose to remain outside and reject salvation, like many secular liberal Democrats, there can be little room for concession or compromise.

Charismatics also tend to believe that religious experience shouldn't be restricted to church-related activities, but ought to morally motivate and infuse as much of a person's social, economic and political life as possible, even as Church and State remain separate. "Action," "challenge" and change" are watchwords of the Charismatic movement, which encourages people to "leave the comfort zone" to wage "spiritual combat" in any realm of life where the forces of good and evil, God and Satan, may battle. In this sense, the Charismatic movement is arguably both revivalist and "conservative" in the traditional sense of seeking to be consistent with the founding organizational principles and moral ethos of the Republic. "Change" is not a politically expedient notion for Charismatics, but a guiding principle of life and renewal.

America's vigorous religious ethic not only allows novelty and surprise, but encourages them as long as they give profit and competitive advantage to sectarian interests. A Gallup poll some years back asked: "Some people are attracted to new things and new ideas, while others are more cautious about things. What's your own attitude?" Nearly half the Americans (49%) said they were attracted to novelty, only 13% favored caution. Canadians preferred caution (35%) over newness (30%). As New York Times columnist David Brooks recently put it: "From voters, the demand is: Surprise Me Most." That's something which makes a Frenchman cringe.

In Europe, there has been a spate of academic analyses of religion in America on the heels of Sarah Palin's nomination for the vice presidency under the Republican banner. What's stunning is how well the analysts describe the trees but miss the forest. In a September 11 article in the leading French newspaper Le Monde, titled "Sarah Palin, a funny kind of parishioner" (Sarah Palin, une drôle de paroisienne) sociologist Yannick Fer gives a competent overview of the Charismatic movement to which Palin belongs, but his conclusion is widely off the mark:

"The [political] positions inspired by this religious conviction are conservative, to the point opposing the autonomy of the individual in the quest to impose 'the values of the Bible' on all of society; for, it is a mater of "saving" the nation as much as individuals. The Charismatic creed here reaches the point of contradiction: everyone is free and responsible for their choice, but there is only one path ─ A fundamental ambiguity that makes for a political object that is poorly defined, unstable and problematic."

In fact, a 2006 survey by the Pew Research Foundation in Washington found that a majority of U.S. Charismatics believe that Bible and the right path in life are open to interpretation.

In France, ever since 18th century philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau proclaimed the secular sanctity of the "social contract," successive French leaders from the French revolution to the present have repeated the mantra that, beyond the individual, "the only community is the nation." That's why notions of multiculturalism and religious sectarianism have little place in French political philosophy. Although European Enlightenment values of individual freedom and choice also entered strongly into the American Republic's political constitution (especially via Thomas Jefferson & friends), the fundamental social constituent of economic and political culture in the United States was neither the individual nor the state, but the sectarian community. The religious community in the USA was a civic as well as moral community, a combination which infused American economic and political culture with particular dynamism.

Ironically, it was a French nobleman who first noted this novel historical condition. Alexis de Tocqueville stressed in Democracy in America, his masterful analysis of our young republic written in 1835, that religious conservatism in America does not mean sacrifice of individual interest for group interest, or subservience of the individual to the state or any other ruling collectivity. Rather, religion mitigates the selfishness of unbridled individualism and "private animosities," while shoring up free institutions that engage "aspiring hopes" as against "general despotism [that] gives rise to indifference."

"It must be acknowledged that equality, which brings great benefits to the world, nevertheless... tends to isolate them from each other, to concentrate every man's attention on himself; and it lay open the soul to an inordinate love of material gratification.... Religious nations are thus naturally strong on the very point on which democratic nations are weak, which shows of what importance it is for men to preserve their religion as their conditions become more equal..... Thus it is, that, by respecting all democratic tendencies not absolutely contrary to herself, and by making use of several of them for her own purposes, Religion sustains a successful struggle of that spirit of individual independence which is her most dangerous opponent.... As soon as several of the inhabitants of the United States have taken up an opinion or feeling which they wish to promote, they look out for mutual assistance; and as soon as they have found out each other they combine. From that moment they are not longer isolated men, but a power seen from afar, whose actions serve as an example, and whose language is listened to."

De Tocqueville surmised, correctly it seems, that religion in America would give its democracy greater vigor, endurance, cooperative power and competitive force than any strictly authoritarian regime or unbridled democracy.

In 1852, communism's co-founder Frederich Engels wrote to Karl Marx that California's sudden rise as a social and economic force "out of nothing" showed was "not provided for in the [Communist] Manifesto... We shall have to allow for this." He puzzled over the apparent exception of "Yankee blood" to the universal rule of "historical determinism." During a brief visit to North America in 1888, Engels observed that unlike the case for Canada or Europe: "Here one sees how necessary the feverish spirit of the Americans is for the rapid development of a new country."

The great German political economist Max Weber attributed this "feverish spirit" to American capitalism's peculiar "Protestant ethic." An anecdote of his illustrates the religious sentiment that seemed to pervade American business life which depended on personal trust and long-term credit relations. In 1904, on a long railroad journey through what was then U.S. Indian territory, Weber sat next to a traveling salesman of "undertaker's hardware" (iron letters for tombstones) and casually mentioned the strong church-mindedness of Americans. The salesman responded:

"Sir, for my part everybody may believe or not believe as he pleases; but if I saw a farmer or a businessman not belonging to any church at all, I wouldn't trust him with fifty cents. Why pay me, if he doesn't believe in anything?"

Americans have traditionally tended to build economies on credit and trust in the future and others, rather than with cash and legal contracts. (Although involvements with cultural strangers in a global economy are changing things. More generally, Americans rank at the top in terms of how fairly people treat members of their own culture. But Americans -- at least policymakers and negotiators -- tend to treat members of other cultures, such as political rival Russia or economic rival Japan, with greater distrust and self-serving bias -- "our side is inherently fairer than yours" -- than some other cultures treat one another.)

American Religion: Cooperate to Compete

Humans often use religion to cooperate to compete. (For example, it was only in the 1950s during height of the Cold War, that the Pledge of Allegiance was altered to include God). As Darwin noted, in competition between groups with similar levels of technology and population size, those groups will tend to win out that favor and transmit willingness to sacrifice some self interest for group interests (that also promote individual interests in the long run). Religions with morally concerned deities arguably made the rise of civilization and large-scale cooperation between genetic strangers possible (historical and cross-cultural analyses of 186 societies finds that the larger the population, the more likely it has deities who are concerned with management of morality and the mitigation of selfishness).

Most cultures celebrate costly personal commitments as morally good and glorious. Many such celebrations are time-worn collective rituals -- including quasi-religious religious national celebrations -- with proven success in fostering cooperation within the group and making it more competitive with other groups. That basic dynamic is still with us and is unlikely to go away. It is especially palpable in traditional mainstream America, even more so than in other modern societies. Republicans intuitively get it; Democrats often don't. But Democrats do get more the meaning and message of the Enlightenment, which may allow in a wider world if only they can learn better from Republicans how to gather up the country first.

Comments

[Michelle4USA]

Attempting to mix religion with politics is the wrong way to serve God and the people. First because religion is a discipline of faith that has nothing to do with the material needs of a city and country, and politics is a science concerned with the objective reality of a people and not with their spiritual beliefs.

For some Christians this may sound like a good idea, but for the beneficiaries of this political ruse, it is nothing than good business, something that doesn't necessarily favor the Christians.
Voting according to religious orientation has cost the country more than three trillion dollars in the war in Iraq, the deaths of more then four thousand American soldiers, and the almost complete collapse of its economy. It has cost Iraq tens thousands of lives and destruction of the country and future.

One cause of the Arab nations’ misfortunes is precisely mixing of politics and Islam. They tried to run their countries with the teachings of Mohammed, administering their faith with political interest, which degenerates into plundering of the public purse, and in other instances administering their political interests using the Islamic faith, which has led to fanaticism and backwardness.

A politician is elected to govern. Governing means managing the administrative apparatus of the State to meet the material needs of its citizens, while the spiritual leaders of the country are purely religious leaders. Good Christians are not necessarily good at governing, and those who govern well are not necessarily good Christians.

[Doofus]

It's no doubt true that secularists tend to be Democrats, but it is
undeniably true that Americans (& their politicians) tend to be
religious, to a fault. 85% of Americans claim to be believers.

So, it's misleading, inappropriate even, to accuse Democrats
of just 'not getting it' with respect to religion, when they most
assuredly do, except for us few non-believing infidels.

Secularists may be Democrats, but mostly, Democrats are not secular..

Now, as for those peculiar 'Europeans', who can say?

[Lemeritus]

Any approach to discussing religion in America is bound to be as limiting, in some regards, as a group of blind men trying to describe an elephant (pun not intended but happily acknowledged).

No discussion, in my opinion, would be complete without noting the very real battle lines apparent on any blue state-red state map; that is to say, the deepest red states comprise the heart of the Confederacy, home of the Southern Baptist Convention. In a sense, the Civil War never ended and is now being won (as Kevin Phillips wrote in American Theocracy) by the "piggybacked extension of southern culture and evangelical, fundamentalist, and Pentacostal religion."

The Republicans have been riding the Dixie horse to victory in almost every election since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Whether the Religious Right is in the saddle or just the track on which ambitious politicians run, the Republican Party IS the party of modern day religious tyranny, feeding from the simplest desire to "believe".

[Doofus]

In a LARGER sense, the Civil War ended a long time ago, and most have
gotten over it. If LBJ, a deep-south Texan, could sacrifice the Democratic Party
so as to make a point about civil liberties & voting rights, then the rest of the country
can damn well get with the program, and mostly has. Rush Limbo & friends excepted.

[Lemeritus]

"...the rest of the country can damn well get with the program..."

Can? Or should?

I humbly suggest you review the red state-blue state map again. Call it what you will, but it would appear the country -- or portions of the country -- has NOT damn well gotten with the program at a fundamental level. That should tell us a great deal about the Republicans if we didn't already know it.

[Michelle4USA]

Attempting to mix religion with politics is the wrong way to serve God and the people. First and because religion is a discipline of faith that has nothing to do with the material needs of a city and country, and politics is a science concerned with the objective reality of a people and not with their spiritual beliefs.

Voting according to this religious orientation has cost the country more than three trillion dollars in an endless war in Iraq, the deaths of more then four thousand American soldiers , and the almost complete collapse of its economy. It’s cost Iraq tens of thousands of lives and the destruction of the country and it’s future.


Historically, the causes of the Arab nations’ misfortunes is mixing politics and Islam. They have tried to run their countries with the teachings of Mohammed, administering their faith with political interest, which degenerates into eventual plundering of the public purse, and other instances administering their political interests using the Islamic faith, which led to fanaticism and backwardness.


Americans should understand that a politician is not elected president in order to lead a church or to impart doctrines of faith. A politician is elected in order to govern, and governing means managing the administrative apparatus of the State to meet the material needs of its citizens, while the spiritual leaders of the country are purely religious leaders. Those who are good Christians are not necessarily good at governing. Those who govern well are not necessarily good Christians.

[emcd]

I believe the religious mind has a fear of the unknown. Religion provides a certainty where there is doubt and an uncertain future. It provides a ready-made guide in place of finding your own way through reason, logic and thought.

Somewhere in the back of their minds, these voters hear the doubt about their certainty that Bush would usher in a new era of "rightness". They are also being bombarded by those pesky facts that in fact what Bush brought was insufficient or even downright wrong in dealing with today's and the future's challenges.

They do not want a leader who challenges them to think and evaluate and even challenge their long held views that people "not like themselves" may have intellect and ability to lead the nation.

There is great comfort in the message the McCain Palin campaign is bringing them.

"No need to doubt your core beliefs. The beliefs are correct, no need to rethink or doubt the rightness of our cause. It's just that there were mistakes made in the execution of the beliefs. We just need 'mavericks' to tweak the core beliefs and we will be fine."

That is a POWERFUL message to them.

[deliriousgod]

the Lions are not reading Spinoza. or Darwin. Ask them how it makes their country more secure to have a VP with a Russian name from a state that used to be a part of Russia and has an independence movement, shaking her fist angrily at the Russians and threatening them over breakaway states and their right to splinter a nation.

[obamamania]

After 19th long months of ffight this this the time to rise up and give Obama tha amunition he needs to defeat this Repug jokers. McPalin will take this country to hell. We are all soldiers, we are ready to take our democracy, we are rising as One to defend our canditate. We have to reach a record breaking $100 for the next month. Donate now, donate more and think about our children future. Donate now, Donate more and think about our chilren future. Donate now, donate more and think about our kids future

[kevinlangendorf]

I was raised Southern Baptist in rural Oklahoma, though I now live in New York, and I too am always amazed at how the Dems really just don't get it with regard to the evangelical community.

What they need to realize first and foremost is to stop expecting these people to behave like the example of Christ in the Bible. That is not what it is all about. While they claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the majority of their views are taken from the "Old" Testament.

I know this all firsthand, growing up attending Southern Baptist churches, going to youth rallies, church camp, etc. Evangelicals accept Christ only to prevent themselves from going to Hell. It's just fire insurance. They cherry pick what they like and dislike from scriptures.

The leaders of these chuches, like Land from the SBC, play on this, to keep contributions coming, and votes going to the politicians that are in their pocket. The members of these churches will NEVER support taking care of the poor, helping the helpless, or any other altruistic acts. Their philosophies focus on gays, abortion, or anything they perceive needs correcting morally in our society, and if these things are under control, then God will bless us and everything will always go our way.

It will never change, not in a thousand years. That is why the Democrats need to focus on their own "base." The evangelicals are a lost cause and always will be.

[taceva]

100% agree,

[Lemeritus]

Thanks for the great observation, Kevin. Religion has become a pox on our house as I imagine the founding fathers feared it might. I only wish that for every Elmer Gantry there was a Jim Wallis... for every Aimee Semple McPherson, a Mother Teresa... for every James Dobson, a humble messenger of Christ's love for all. Sadly, in America, religion has too often been about the manipulation of fear for profit and power.

I couldn't agree more that the Democrats must stop chasing the empty center and what lies beyond. This should have been (should be) the year of a fool-proof Democratic agenda with 85% of America sharing dismay over the Republican disaster and looking for a new direction. We've not only allowed the GOP to hijack the dialogue AGAIN, but we're tripping all over ourselves to prove that we can play in their ballpark.-- we not only can't, we shouldn't want to. Indeed, we need to focus on our "base" if only to discover that it's much larger than we imagine it to be.

[jbatch]

At heart, the fealty given religion in this country is about fear, control, exclusion, and a desperate search for homogeneity.

Fear of the different and the new; of being left behind by those smarter, quicker more resilient than you -- hence the ubiquitous reference to Democratic candidates as "elitist": a particularly ludicrous charge when leveled at Obama.

Control: a prescribed set of behaviors that everyone must comply with makes this quickly changing world a little more tractable.

Exclusion: the reason the evangelical movement focuses so heavily on the insane ramblings of Revelations, rather than the gospels is that their "religion" isn't truly about Christ or his teachings -- it's about us vs. them, with them being the more successful and educated. Revelations, by the way, was written by a psychotic named John of Patmos who never met Jesus and was banished to an island because he was too insane to live in society.

Homogeneity: How do you handle a world that is changing rapidly, with new and different people; sweeping economic changes; and dramatic shifts in mores - a world that is passing you by? Make everyone subscribe to the same beliefs.

There you have it -- being left behind by a world that is changing creates fear, a desire for control, a need to exclude and a desire to bring everyone down to the pace that is comfortable for the fearful, the slow-witted, and bigoted.

When you truly understand the roots of this disease, you know it must be

[justobserve]

Don't know what the election's result will be but now with McCain and Palin's lies and the kind of government Palin has been practicing in Alaska exposed. Let's see if voters vote for the candidates who spewed out "Christian values" but lied through their teeth. Palin herself worked part-time but earned full-time salasry then piled on top of her salary, the per diem allowance to stay home. Her husband played a prominent role in his wife's government. Her nepotism , vendetta and secrecy (push under the door type) are rampant. Do voters really want the same type of government as Bush's after his 8 years?
"McCAIN-PALIN: HALF-TRUTHS MASTERS. Vote DEMOCRAT for AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, WOMEN'S CHOICE, VETS BENEFITS, EQUAL PAY".

[hypnotoad72]

It's not as much the label of the religion but the belief who practice it actually DO practice it.

Atheists may or may not have a sense of community... but along with people of questionable caliber (mostly loudmouth entertainers who got famous by being disgusting and crude because they have no talent and proclaim to be a Democrat while or after bashing a Republican), that's why atheists are generally frowned upon.

I've observed that the majority of society looks at other aspects haughtily. Those other aspects can either do their best and work with the system and have respect. Or act derogatory and demand respect that everybody knows they are not going to get. And because they are not seen as the majority, they have to work harder to prove their mettle.

I also lived from such a group, once. They have no sense of community at all.

[prettychicago]

I hated going to church as a child for one reason (and I am a minister's daughter). The adults/elders were incredibly mean behind the scenes and their children were evil little trolls with inflated egos. That's the best experience I can share. And this is from more than one church that my father served.

I find my sense of community among artists and intellectuals. People who see through the need to belong and believe, and who have probably been treated like outsiders due to their quirks, anyway. This isn't to say they don't "believe", but more that they don't feel the need to belong to worship in a church with others.

As an adult, I can't believe. I have been poisoned by the church and have sought my own sense of worth. Do I believe in "something" - I am trying. What I do believe in is the power of mankind to become a community when things are at their worst. And that's where we are at right now.

When Obama talks people really listen. They stop and listen. When Palin talks people get anxious and start cheering or booing. I want to listen to a smart leader that engages the intellectual side of all of us. Not just the red-meat side of the tired and huddled masses.

[ljmoffice]

Well, I am definately NOT an athiest. I am a Christian...and so is Obama. Michelle was in Cincinnati this week and spoke at the National Baptist Convention. Go here for more.......
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0bbba88f-b5ae-4c9f-9455-a78f3296a580

[macohmz]

I just want my damn money back!

[isis]

Well maybe but I think that religion compels me to be a democrat. And yes I see democratic values as being in line with the Enlightenment. I have posted on blogs in the local news and if you mention the Dark Ages the conservatives get quite angry. Do we want religion that strangles people and competes with science as in the Dark ages or do we want religion that inspires and compliments science?

[Yannick]

Here is the link to my article, for those who can read French:
http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2008/09/10/sarah-palin-une-drole-de-paroissienne-par-yannick-fer_1093648_3232.html