WASHINGTON – A high-power panel of left-wing experts on religion and politics assembled Thursday afternoon to discuss the impact of the religious voice, including that of the religious right, on the presidential campaign.
Panelist E.J. Dionne, Jr. – a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, and professor at Georgetown University – started off the discussion by saying he was surprised by the extent in which Sen. Barack Obama has been “tormented” by religious questions given the amount of effort he spent to think through and explain his faith in the public square.
The author of the new book, Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith & Politics After the Religious Right, commented that although he was not surprised, it was still noteworthy to point out the waning influence of the traditional religious right.
“I think what you saw in the Republican primaries is how weak those forces were,” Dionne contended. “John McCain won the nomination in the face of the opposition.”
Furthermore, Mike Huckabee, whom Dionne called a “fascinating character,” was noted to have won primaries even without the large support from the established religious right organizations.
“So I think even in the Republican Party you are seeing what we thought of as the old religious right weakening very substantially,” Dionne, who is a Catholic, said. “And while I’m not shocked by that, I think it is a very important development.”
Likewise, fellow panelist Amy Sullivan – national editor at Time magazine and author of The Party Faithful: How and Why Democrats Are Closing the God Gap – commented on the religious right and their opposition to McCain.
She said that while many experts have long known that the Republican Party does not have a “monopoly” on religion, she was surprised by the extent of the change in the 2008 presidential race.
“If you told us four years ago that in 2008 that it would be the Republican nominee who was under attack from the religious right,” Sullivan said, listing several examples, “Yet that is what we have this time around, a Republican nominee who is not on good terms with many of the religious conservatives and who is often quite uncomfortable talking about his faith.”
Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are more at ease speaking the language of faith and drawing connections between their moral foundation and their policy stance, said the Time magazine editor, who is a self-described evangelical.
But the Rev. Jim Wallis, who is considered the face of the religious left, highlighted how fast the evangelical agenda has broadened to include poverty, Iraq, health care, climate change, and torture.
He noted that in recent polls these newer issues are given high priorities among born-again Christians than abortion and gay “marriage.”
“I’ve been shocked that a lot of folks on the religious right are wanting dialogue with some of us on the progressive end,” said Wallis, who is the president of Sojourners and author of the new book The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America.
Last month, Wallis was invited to the book launching event of two Christian right leaders – Tony Perkins of Family Research Council and Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. of High Impact Leadership Coalition.
The two conservative leaders argued that the religious right was not dying, but was rather growing and expanding its public policy agenda.
Wallis also said at the event that he does not believe that the religious right is dead, and urged its members to be more vocal on tackling poverty.
Later in Thursday’s dialogue, hosted by the Center for American Progress, all the panelists agreed that evangelicals still care about the issues of traditional marriage and abortion, but now the issues are only two among many that born-again voters are concerned about.
Dionne, Sullivan, and Wallis are currently touring and promoting their books on religion and politics which were all released earlier this year.
Comments
we should be concentrating on Jesus, not power.
Grace and Peace,
Jim
Clinton talked tough, but he was way too intelligent to get caught up an Iraq quagmire. Unfortunately bush is not as intelligent and his neocon handlers lead him into a debacle that even bush privately probably regrets, if he has any brains at all . America is responsible for the death and destruction of Iraq and its people, analogous to Vietnam.
Both Hillary and Obama profess the humanist worldview in their politics and voting record. The planks of the Democrat party are humanist and more and more the Republicans' planks are becoming humanist. The socialist gospel is not biblical, but a marxist based position pretending to be Christian.
Yes there are questions whether or not even a born baby is a human being, at least for Obama. If you want to call a baby that has the capacity to live outside of the womb questionable, well go for it. Just don’t expect everyone to jump on the bandwagon with you and wacky Wallis.
You love to use Iraq as an attack on Bush, but Bush is not running for office, but if he was he would have my vote over the Hilary/Obama machine. Your spurious attack completely sidesteps the notion that Democrats voted in favor of invading Iraq. Of course little mind that Bill Clinton also developed his own plans to invade. It also completely ignores the intelligence services’ numerous reports revealing WMDs, not to mention the other countries supporting the invasion. France, the most outspoken critic of the invasion elected the most US friendliest Prime Minister. You read too much big media propaganda. Are you aware that the BBC admitted their biases against the war when they refused to run a story by a reporter that was too positive?
FYI, it was I who gave you the thumbs down, since you like to demand an account.
mcfbc I do not consider them bible believing Christians because they do not believe the way I do. . .I believe that the bible is true and not to be interpreted in the light of my own beliefs (Barak) nor left to those in leadership of a particular denomination that can't seem to figure out if the bible really says what it says (Hillary).
"“I’ve been shocked that a lot of folks on the religious right are wanting dialogue with some of us on the progressive end,” ...I think he meant liberal end.....
I find it a little odd that there is a religious right, and left, while I do not agree with everything that the "right" has done I still can not bring myself to become democrat in light of their party's view on virtually all moral issues facing legilative restriction or freedom.
06/07/2006 Same Sex Marriage Resolution (Making it illegal for states to recognize gay marriage). Hillary voted No. Barak voted No.
06/11/2002 - Hate Crimes Bill - The addition of sexual orientation. Hillary voted Yes. No listing for Barak.
7/18/2006 - Stem Cell Research Bill - To authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Hillary voted Yes. Barak voted Yes.
9/06/2007 - Prohibiting U.S. assistance for groups that support coercive abortion. Hillary - No Vote. Barak - No Vote.
10/18/2007 - Prohibiting funds for groups that perform abortions. Hillary - No vote. Barak - No vote.
(interesting that as these two are running for President, they abstain from voting, why is that? There are many examples of this in their voting record.)
03/25/2004 - Unborn Victims of Violence Act - A bill that would make it a criminal offense if a fetus is injured or killed while carrying out a violent crime on a pregnant woman. Hillary voted No. No listing for Barak.
But, just a month later. 4/22/2004 - Victims' Rights Bill - Hillary Yes. No listing for Barak.
These are just a few of many.
Source: http://www.votesmart.org