Three surprising Reasons why Democrats avoid Religion
Looking over the political landscape, many point to the decline in religious practice as the handwriting on the wall that the political future belongs to the unchurched, atheists and agnostics. Liberals conclude it is only a matter of time before the secular tide will turn in their favor.
Let people cling to their religion for now. Soon it will all be over.
Variations of this myth have always persisted throughout modernity. During the age of industrialization, science and progress were supposed to make religion irrelevant. During the sixties, immorality, drugs and cults supposedly overwhelmed organized religion. Today, naysayers believe the growing number of those who profess no religion, the so-called nones, will spell religion’s doom.
They are wrong.
“An Overwhelmingly Religious Country”
“America is still an overwhelmingly religious country.” This statement is not that of an evangelical preacher or an optimistic clergyman. Democratic Sen. Chris Coon from Delaware just made this declaration in the very secular The Atlantic Monthly. He claims Democrats neglect religion to their peril.
Senator Coon’s commentary reinforces what everyone should know. People are naturally religious since God is the final end of everyone. Thus, religion is a very powerful influence in the lives of people since it involves eternal salvation. Politics is very limited in its ability to inspire and move people to action since it concerns the fleeting affairs of state. As much as people say that God and politics do not mix, the mention of God in political discourse is mandatory in some constituencies.
In fact, the senator explains how references to religion are extremely attractive to voters who like to hear about the faith of those whom they elect. And yet many Democrats don’t talk about religion as an inspiration for political action. Sen. Coons says they avoid making public displays of religion for fear of alienating constituents. Indeed, the party has been so successful in turning religious fervor as a disqualification for effective action that many candidates dare not take the risk of mention God before men.
There are three reasons why Democrats flee from Christianity in particular and religion in general.
Not talking about religious values does not make a person non-religious, anymore than referencing religion when speaking at a political rally is evidence of religious values, inspiring the life of the speaker invoking religion to attract the votes of those who favour a candidate living their life according to religious values.
Labeling people religious, or non religious speaks little, or nothing of the person behind a mask pretending to be all that his audiences demand from them.
Like all valuable commodities, truth is often counterfeited. ~James Cardinal Gibbons
- say "Trump" and all the mindless think they have witnessed intellectual brilliance.
Silly me. In the context of the way Democrats (read all 'standard lefties') 'avoid religion' we have, by contrast, the paragon of religious virtue, Donald Trump.
He really trumps all arguments.
Oh, gosh! That's clever!
Posted by John on August 2, 2019, 11:26 am, in reply to "Argument Trumped"
"He really trumps all arguments", I mean. Y'know, his name's Trump and . . .
I do wish I could think up such repartee.
No, on second thought, I don't. I'd like to not join the ranks of the mindless. Just one word, and they go into paroxysms of mirth. You don't need a reasoned argument - just call on the hate.
No, on second thought, I don't. I'd like to not join the ranks of the mindless. Just one word, and they go into paroxysms of mirth. You don't need a reasoned argument - just call on the hate.
You mean like 'standard leftie response'?
Hate? Take a chill-pill, John.
OK, let's look at the argument.
The article is headed, 'Three surprising Reasons why Democrats avoid Religion'.
Any evidence at all to back this up? Is there any source that can show us that Democrats are less likely to talk about God than Republicans?
Nothing presented.
Lacking evidence is a fundamental flaw in any attempt at 'reasoned argument'.
But even if you take the headline at face value as representing the point of the article, the writer goes on to say,
... And yet many Democrats don’t talk about religion as an inspiration for political action. Sen. Coons says they avoid making public displays of religion for fear of alienating constituents. Indeed, the party has been so successful in turning religious fervor as a disqualification for effective action that many candidates dare not take the risk of mention God before men.
So, the more sweeping reference to 'Democrats' becomes 'some Democrats'.
Maybe there are there 'some Republicans' who 'don't talk about religion'?
Are we entitled to come to wider conclusions about Republicans?
No, if we want 'rational argument', we are not because it's speculation.
Beyond that, you can't talk about political parties' connection to religion without talking about ... you know ... Trump.
Trump is the Republican Party now. How often does he talk about God? Do his actions show a religious conviction? Is his presidency a counter-argument to the writer's assertion about Democrats?