There's a new group being formed in Washington state to pursue a new means by which to advocate for conservative social issues. Jerry Cornfield at the Everett Herald has the story:
Rarely do those on the left and the right blend politics and religion in conversation without the dialogue turning explosive.They'll usually end up brawling in the moral intersection of faith and value, exchanging rhetorical punches of Biblical verse and constitutional interpretation.
In Washington, when such fracases have broken out these last couple years, the right loses and is forced to watch the left march ahead with its liberal social agenda.
Tough to disagree with Cornfield's lede there. Which is where the new group, the Washington Family Policy Council, gets potentially interesting:
"We don't want to position ourselves as a right-wing Christian organization," Sundquist said."We want to be credible and not be marginalized. And we want to be credible without thumping on our Bibles and quoting scripture."
Too many non-social conservatives conjure up negative thoughts of Pat Robertson or Ellen Craswell when such groups are discussed. It will be interesting to see where this new group heads and if its goal of being an effective, non-abrasive messenger can be achieved.
Even in this blue state, there is a market for the support of family values and faith. Modern families are increasingly tolerant of the choices of others. But that tolerance generally comes with the reciprocal expectation of respect for the choices of those holding to traditional values and religion.
The secular left, which holds a significant voice in Democratic party politics, increasingly doesn't get that at all. Witness the Stranger's recent collection of observations on local houses of worship. While several individual summations were thoughtful, many simply dripped with disdain toward faith and confusion toward those that choose it.
Then the islands of liberalism in this country stand perplexed at some election results, leaving little but wistful satire to explain away their misperceptions and disconnect with broad swaths of the country.
Until this new Washington Family Policy Council takes shape, announces an agenda, and begins to advocate for its goals it will be difficult to assess. Nonetheless, it will certainly be worth watching. The group is seeking to represent a voice in the public arena that certainly deserves to be heard.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 17, 2007 03:06 PM | Email ThisFor a little history: Cheap Dates are conservative Christians who the Republicans need to get elected, but then can safely ignore the rest of the time. M. Rosenburg, major SoundPolitics contributor.
For anyone that thinks SoundPolitics is conservative let me warn you, they are not conservatives and many have a significant anti-Christian bias.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 17, 2007 05:40 PMDo you object to the shouting that they do, or is it the views that the traditional Christians hold against abortion and homsexuality that bothers you?
The same question can be asked of Eric, who wonders if the new group can be an "effective, non-abrasive messenger"? It is a legitimate question, of course, but I am more interested in knowing if the objection is with the message or the messengers.
How about it Eric and Murtz? Are you more concerned with the message or the messengers?
--
Huck
It is poor form on your part to bring Matt Rosenberg's past comments into this post. Different contributors each have their own thinking on a number of issues, this being a perfect example of such an occurrence. I specifically defended the need to include social conservatives in the Republican coalition in a recent post. That has obvious implications for policy, not just politics.
I don't believe your misconceptions and lingering bitterness fit the bill here.
huck -
It's no secret social conservatives haven't found a very effective way in recent years of communicating their message in Washington state's policy arena. Specifically, the movement as a whole hasn't been winning many legislative or electoral battles because it has seemingly had trouble finding common ground with a critical mass of people. I'm curious to see if this new group can fill some of that void.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 17, 2007 07:54 PMI, for one, am not shooting the messenger. You have asked the essential question for Christian conservatives which is how do we translate our ideas into a convincing message which will resonate with the electorate. We need to be pragmatic, patient, and realistic. Politics is the art of the possible, so we have to decide how to operate in environment where at times some compromise all princple for a win in one battle.
Each group that comprises the term Christian conservative has a different group of non-negotiables. Still, for every person that makes fun of the message, I believe that there are some that are at least willing to listen to a thoughtful case. Of that group, many will not turn off. The abortion debate is very different when instead on being focused solely on the rights of the individual woman, the question is do you have the right to take a life. Many people think the term fetus is a blob of nothing. In any event, we Christian conservatives have come across as angry with a message of strict totalitarianism. In other words, if it is fun, we want to take it away from you.
Posted by: WVH on June 17, 2007 08:07 PMMichelle listed these issues: " human cloning, abortion, or gay marriage issues,"
Do you think the average voter
1. Supports gay marriage if there is a viable
domestic partnership law
2. Supports human cloning, particularly when
the medical issues of cloned animals is
fully disclosed and the fact that the
procedure involves numerous failures.
What moves a lot of people into the prolife
group is a physcian taking them step by step
through an abortion. It is very different
to support cloning when you don't know what
that means and what the procedure entails.
3. Abortion was discussed above.
Suppose the question were phrased in terms of what policies should society have to create and maintain strong families? Would that policy question turn you off?
That said, I think that describing others' Christian political activism in the terms that the secular left uses ("right-wing Christian" and "'credible' without thumping our Bibles and quoting scripture") is a bit of a mistake and concedes ground to the secular left.
I mean, what does it mean to "thump a Bible"? As far as quoting Scripture, there is certainly an appropriate time for doing so (ie. when commissioning the Christian community or even explaining to a broader audience what the Christian position is on an issue, backed up with logic and reason), though it is not especially useful in a debate in a secular forum or for the purpose of lobbying a secular legislator.
Posted by: Michelle on June 18, 2007 03:46 PM"1. Bible thumper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bible thumper (also Bible basher, or Bible Beater) is a derisive term used to describe Christian fundamentalists, or anyone perceived as aggressively pushing their religious beliefs upon those who do not share them. As an insult, its target domain is broad and can often extend to anyone engaged in a public show of religiosity, fundamentalist or not.
The term alludes to a preacher thumping his hand hard down on the lectern and the Bible on it to emphasize a point during a sermon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_thumper
Now, a public show of religiosity can be a subtle as wearing a religious symbol or in King County, in the past, wishing some one Merry Christmas.
2. It is not about quoting scripture at inappropriate times and it is not a term used exclusively by leftists. It is used by those with a secular perspective who want to diminish the role of religion in the public square. I seem to remember several threads last Christmas where there was very vigorous discussion about the Christmas Tree at Sea-Tac, whether it should be removed or even called a Holiday Tree.
3. I think both parties as opposed to individual candidates have a future problem with Christian Conservatives or Evangelicals because although the votes of the Christian conservative voters are actively solicited, positions advocated by the group are perceived to be problematic when dealing with the general voter population. So, the pubbies are in essense making the argument that you don't want to give your votes to the dems because you will be worse off in terms of advocating your positions. Therefore, give your votes to us. Howard Dean is also soliciting votes but he wouldn't know a faith position if one dropped on him.
Voters will have to excercise their own conscience, but why devote energy to either party. Why not focus on candidates that one could work with? I think ultimately, many Christian conservatives, if they don't like either party's offerings will sit this one out.
Posted by: WVH on June 18, 2007 10:10 PMThanks for the Wiki quote. That is exactly what I meant. It really has no meaning, except to deride a broad range of activities by Christians which have nothing to do with "thumping" a Bible. That's why I thought the quote was unnecessary and somewhat self-defeating.
Posted by: Michelle on June 18, 2007 10:48 PMThe term is a descriptor used by others to describe a specific group. All types of people have used that descriptor, it is a derogatory term most often used by others to describe a certain group of people. I suppose the literal meaning of thumping a Bible is incorrect,
a little like the literal meaning of the term
"car pool" but, we all know what that terms means, don't we? Far from being self defeating, it is like calling a spade a spade and recognizing that that is a term used by some people. The Christians I have worked with do not view people characterizing them a certain way as self-defeating. They simply consider the source and pray for their blessing.
I know that you are a party activist. Here is my thesis:
Christian conservatives should avoid both parties
as there is really nothing in it for us. The
strategy that should be pursued to is to identify
and suport individual candidates, no matter the
party that are supportive of our positions.
Most people have a limited amount of money and
time to devote to political activities, the question for us is won't we be better off focusing
that money and time where it can move the ball down the field for us? At this time it is
individual candidates.
Honestly, I believe both parties are acting rationally when they attempt to have as broad
a base as possible. The question I put to my fellow Christian Conservatives as I have put to my fellow Blacks is are we acting rationally by putting all eggs in one basket and spending
to pay for the carton?
Looking in advance to your good comments.
Posted by: WVH on June 19, 2007 02:13 PMI'll put your site on my list to periodically check.
Posted by: WVH on June 20, 2007 10:24 PM