The very idea that Dean is not a Christian, and thus not a decent American or potential President, because he has a Jewish wife won't hunt.

I want that debate. That's one that will put the Religious Right straight back into its place, on the outside of the Lunatic Fringe.
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 2:58 pm | #

I don't know which is funnier...

Dean trying to relate to pickup-drivin' working-class midwestern/border state/southern people.

Dean trying to relate to evangelical and fundamentalist Christians...

Or peacenik Dean trying to relate to military folks.
James Ferry | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 3:38 pm | #

I tend to agree that courting the religiosos can backfire. Let's not play Rove's game. This 'Tallahasee Democrat' editorialist is a lunatic and a fundamentalist and therefore should be all but ignored. It begs the question of how a dogmatic freak like this could even see GW as a keeper of the faith. I will debate the separation of Church and State much more willingly than why it is important to pander to the Religious Right.

Go Dean Go!
RM NYC | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 3:38 pm | #

I don't think this is true. The country is not made up of just fundamentalists on the one hand and atheists on the other. A large chunk of people are right in the middle--very occasional church-goers who like to think that their President has some religion in his life, too. There's plenty of data on this--I think the Pew studies on religion cover this pretty well.
Gabriel | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 4:01 pm | #

Gabriel, thats exactly my point as well. Dean's efforts at religion damage control will do nothing to woo the religious right and alienate the religious center.

The Tallahassee Democrat editorial was, in my opinion, very cogent. Dismissing it as "lunatic" is itself lunacy. This has nothing to do with separation of church and state.
Aziz | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 4:04 pm | #

You mean people who go to Church but don't really believe?

I wish Dean would have stuck to politics .
Are we electing a President or a Pope?
Anthony Segredo | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 4:08 pm | #

Religious and spiritual beliefs are a private matter. Ignore the lunatics, ignore TNR, who will any and every reason to discredit Dean. On this issue, ignore what they say and simply state that religion is a personal matter between he and the God he believes in. Don't try and discuss Jesus more in southern stater, etc. Just be yourself.
Joe | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 4:11 pm | #

Good advice,Joe. If Dean stops being himself and trys to be some focus group composite, he will lose for sure.
Anthony Segredo | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 4:30 pm | #

Amen to that Anthony. Dean has nothing to apologize for. Go back to being a congregationalist. At least it sounds religious enough.
Heath@DeanTV.org | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 4:37 pm | #

If you are religious, this informs your world view, and thus your policy views. You can argue that it shouldn't, but that is a meaningless argument, like saying "I'm in love, but I'm not going to let that affect my view of the world." You don't really get to decide.

You can say you won't talk about it, but I don't really see where that gets you. I for one would want to know as much as I could about one's frame of reference.

For example, I'd like to know how Bushes belief in Christ influences his
decision to screw the poor out of even the most basic opportunities, while he helps his friends at the top with large tax cuts.

I'd be curious to which part of the bible he was reading when he thought that lying to the US to gain support for an unprompted war was justified.

Because I've been looking but I can't find those parts.
sobko | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 5:07 pm | #

Personally my favorite remark by Dean on the topic of religion is when he raises his voice during his stump speech and calls out "I don't want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore!" But it's not all fundamentalism, and we shouldn't give ground on any issue, including religion. A few resources:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/In...alitionforDean/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ Je...yguid=147687621

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pr...up/prayfordean/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ch...ianleftfordean/

The Jews for Dean list is especially active.

Fundamentalist views of Judaism have grown increasingly eccentric of late. As I understand it, these people believe that in order for the biblical prophecy of Armageddon to be fulfilled the Jews have to be in the holy land for the second coming, so that they can die and be judged. For this reason they support the state of Israel. But apparently they are willing to damn Judy Dean in advance. In any case, Dana is right – I want that debate. Dean can make hay with that accusation. I was just watching the part in the documentary The War Room the other day where Jerry Brown makes accusations against Hillary Clinton in regard to Whitewater in a debate and Bill angrily defends his wife. That won Clinton the New York Primary right there.

Anyway, we all know that Woody Guthrie got it right:

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land,
A hard working man and brave.
He said to the rich "Give your goods to the poor."
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand,
His followers true and brave,
One dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

He went to the preacher, He went to the sheriff,
He told them all the same,
"Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what He did say,
The bankers and the preachers they nailed Him on a cross.
Then they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

The poor workin' people, they followed Him around,
They sung and they shouted gay,
The cops and the soldiers, they nailed Him in the air,
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

Well, the people held their breath when they heard about His death,
And everybody wondered why,
It was the landlord and the soldiers that he hired,
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky.

This song was written in New York City,
Of rich man, preacher and slave,
But if Jesus was to preach like He preached in Galilee,
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave.
Conan Dean Carey | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 5:17 pm | #

couldnt read the tnr link. subscription only. so i dont know what they had to say.

what was objectionable was how the boston globe and the rest of the SCLM acted as if this was a sudden conversion. wrong! media should be taken to task and called on for their misrepresentation. their failure was the usual one: they failed to provide history and context.


dean has discussed his religion before. in september, in an abc interview with stephanopoulis, he said he was a christian and that his religion helped form his sense of ethics. there are earlier examples to be found im sure. is dean supposed to deny his religion? is dean supposed to deny who he is and pretend and act as if he is an atheist?

the key of when it should be discussed is the forum. everybody else discusses religion when they give a speech in a church. is it only dean who is not allowed to do that now?

once again, dean get's hit with a double standard. evrybody else gets to talk about religion except for him. he is not allowed to.
niner | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 5:21 pm | #

Just because sobko asked about the Shrub's religious roots...

The first excerpt was posted on the Gary Hart blog. I also include a section from a recent interview with Bobby Kennedy Jr. published at Salon com. In it, Kennedy discusses the phenomenon of "dominion theology" in the Bush administration. It provides full context for the messages in the Cheney/Bush family Christmas cards. The full interview is available here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/fea...dyjr/ index.html

************************************************** *****************************

This is a cut and paste from the Witherspoon Society's website (A Place for Progressive Presbyterians):


According to the Washington Post, the Cheney family holiday card this year features this quote from Benjamin Franklin: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" A quick look at the full context of the original quote (http://www.jmu.edu/madison/prayers.htm) shows that Franklin, who was poetically calling for daily prayer at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, was in no way claiming divine sanction for military imperialism (of the sort that the new country had just thrown off). In fact, one of Franklin's worst fears is that humanity might "despair of establishing Government by human Wisdom, and leave it to Chance, War, and Conquest."

George W. Bush's family Christmas card (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/ 20031125-4.html) also carries an intriguingly out-of-context quote: "You have granted me life and loving kindness; and your care has preserved my spirit." This verse from Job (which the White House press release calls a "psalm") comes immediately before a 10-verse accusation that God is persecuting Job: "Yet...bold as a lion you hunt me...you bring fresh troops against me" (Job 10:13-22).

************************************************** *****************************

Bobby Kennedy:

I would say what the fundamentalists call "dominion theology" is a Christian heresy. These are people who read the Bible in a certain way, to justify corporate domination of the planet, the same way people used to read the Bible to justify slavery.

Dominion Christians believe that the Apocalypse is coming soon, the planet was put here for us to exploit, to liquidate for cash, and we have a duty to do that -- even if we destroy nature in the process. Reagan's EPA chief James Watt was a radical dominion fundamentalist -- he believed it was sinful for us to protect the earth for future generations.

The industrialist who first recognized the potential for organzing these right-wing fanatics into a political movement was Joseph Coors, who was Colorado's biggest polluter. Coors engineered a pact between polluting industries and this marginalized, paranoid element that has existed throughout America's political history. This was in the 1980s, around the same ti
Conan Dean Carey | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 5:24 pm | #

(Bobby Kennedy Continued)

This was in the 1980s, around the same time that world communism was falling apart, and so the right wing needed a new bugaboo. If you read Pat Roberts' book "New World Order," the evolution is clearly outlined; he says the new communists are the environmentalists. He calls them "watermelons" -- green on the outside, but red on the inside. And he makes the same association that the John Birch Society did -- that because Earth Day happened to fall on Lenin's birthday, this was evidence that environmentalists were the new secret spies of the new world order, as communism disappeared.

Robertson interprets American politics through the lens of his apocalyptic theology. He calls environmentalists "the minions of Satan," who are trying to turn America -- which is the New Jerusalem -- over to the philistines of the earth who seek to dominate us through internationalism and the U.N.

Interviewer:

Does this radical fringe actually have influence within the Bush administration?

Bobby Kennedy:

Absolutely. Many of Bush's key appointments come out of this far-right fringe and the industries that fund them. [Interior Secretary] Gale Norton was Watts' successor at Mountain States Legal Foundation. Steven Griles, an energy industry lobbyist who is now Norton's deputy, also came right out of Watts' shop, and now he's busy doing all these terrible things -- giving away our parks, punishing scientists who tell the truth. The administration is full of these people, like Andrew Card, Condoleezza Rice, Spencer Abraham -- they come out of the auto or oil industries, the militantly anti-environmental wing of industry.
Conan Dean Carey | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 5:27 pm | #

If 'Jesus' were here today--HE'D BE PISSED!!!!!!
Bush Whacker | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 5:58 pm | #

omg, that tallahassee op-ed was written by cal thomas. why do you treat him as if he's non-partisan?

What exactly does Dean believe about Jesus, and how is it relevant to his presidential candidacy?

of course he's going to challenged dean even mentioning jesus. that's supposed to be exclusive to bush's domain! of course he's going to object to the presentation of jesus as champion of the disenfranchised. his idea of divinity is that of a god who created aids in order to punish gays.

of course cal thomas would object. no duh.
niner | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 6:04 pm | #

Governor Dean should try not to talk about religion and theology in public policy discourse. U.S. citizens are members of many different religions. And many U.S. citizens are members of no religion. If Dean favors or promotes religious views, especially if he offers religious beliefs as reasons to accept policies that he is proposing, then he makes it difficult for those who are members of a different religion, or no religion, not to feel excluded. He should offer reasons for his policies that, in principle, everyone can accept. That is, he should offer reasons that are warranted regardless of what religion one is a member of, or if one is member of no religion.

Also, if Dean focuses on religion, he might take focus away from the public policy issues that directly affect people's lives, for instance, education, health care and foreign affairs.

Finally, if Dean decides not to inject religion into his public policy discussions, maybe he can set a good example. Maybe his approach would contribute to shaping a public policy discourse that is more focused on issues that directly affect well-being and more focused on offering reasons that every reasonable person -- regardless of his or her religious views -- can accept.

One might argue that Dean should mention his religious views because it will help voters get a sense of what his key principles are. But I tend to disagree that offering one's religious views, or lack thereof, reveals much that is especially important about one's ideas on the key public policy issues. For instance, people of all different religions, and people of no religion, have favored pre-emptive war in Iraq. People of all different religions, and people of no religion, have *opposed* pre-emptive war in Iraq.

Of course, perhaps people of certain religions tend to favor certain policies. For instance, perhaps Evangelicals tend to oppose Roe v. Wade. But Dean can easily reveal his views on a given issue simply by *revealing* his view on the issue and by giving reasons for why he favors the policy that he does. Moreover, by not injecting religion into public policy discussions, Dean would be saying something important about his key principles, values and commitments. He would be saying that his policies and proposals can and should be accepted in virtue of a common human rationality. This approach would be in-line with the Aristotelian value "phonesis," or practical rationality.
David in MD | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 7:05 pm | #

Dean has already been asked the question about religion and he will be asked it again, especially in the South. He has no choice but to respond to it. So he either needs to prepare to address the question as it arises or simply ignore it when it's asked. Which would be smarter?

Cal Thomas is a right wing media whore who is doing a pre-emptive attack on Dean on this subject because he is trying sway the opinion of Southern voters by pandering to their anti-semitism. He's clearly not an objective observer. He has an agenda and his agenda is to get Bush re-elected.

Cal Thomas's attack on Dean's family and their religious legitimacy is out of bounds. I have to question his interpretation of Christianity if he thinks that Jesus would approve of this attack or agree Cal is the best judge regarding this matter.
Hansel | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 7:35 pm | #

I am not a Christian or Jew and I despise the Religious Right as much as the next person, but could it be that by invoking Jesus Christ, Dean is trying to go after the religious left or the religious middle, like Jimmy Carter did? These folks take their religion to heart and so are humble about it, and this often means that we forget they exist, but they do, and Dean's mentioning of his religious beliefs might mean something to them.
Kai Price | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 7:40 pm | #

Let me clarify that I do not think all Southerners are anti-semitics, but I think the people Cal is trying to sway are.
Hansel | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 7:40 pm | #

For example, these folks:
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/
Kai Price | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 7:42 pm | #

And I think it is ok for Dean to mention that some of his integrity, motivation, and passion are the result of his religious beliefs, etc.
Kai Price | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 7:45 pm | #

I agree Kai Price! And I think that is exactly the strategy he plans to use. Thus Cal Thomas's pre-emptive attacks to ridicule that strategy. Because Cal knows it just might very effective and he thinks by ridiculing it, Dean will alter it. Good luck with that Cal.
Hansel | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 7:50 pm | #

The sudden increase in public fearmongering without catching even ONE more suspected terrorist undermines Bush's entire claim that thr "war on terrorism" is anything more than a PR ploy.

I have more discussion on my blog at http://blog.bccore.com
Yehuda Katz | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 8:33 pm | #

Just in time for the debate tomorrow another pothole for Dean, but this seems more serious as it relates to national security and Dean’s failure to adequately act. This story has some facets that explain it was not all Dean’s fault, but the spin will be that it is. I hope he can defend this well.

(01-03) 12:47 PST (AP) --
DAVID GRAM
Associated Press Writers
Presidential hopeful Howard Dean, who accuses President Bush of being weak on homeland security, was warned repeatedly as Vermont governor about security lapses at his state's nuclear power plant and was told the state was ill-prepared for a disaster at its most attractive terrorist target.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ ar...1325EST0525.DTL
Robert Deeble | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 8:50 pm | #

Hansel, Dean may be asked about his religious views again. If he's asked about them, the ideal response would be for him to say that he does not want to address that issue. He can say that he wants to focus on policies instead.

Sometimes people put this issue in terms of "rights." People say, for example, "He has a right to talk about religion." Well, of course he has a right. He has a legal right under our Consitution. And he has a moral right. But he should, prima facie, choose not to offer his religious views in public policy debate.

Of course, there is a distinction to be made. It is more problematic for him to just offer his religious views than it is to respond to questions about religion. In other words, if he is asked a question about religion, it's more understandable that he bring up religion. But he should try not to offer his religious views if he is not asked. And even if he is asked, the ideal would be for him to say that he doesn't want to focus on the issue. And then say why. It is important that he says why -- why he doesn't want to focus on religion. That will help people understand who he is and that he is capable of holding a position for good reasons. It also helps people make sense of why the candidate doesn't want to focus on religion.
David in MD | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 8:55 pm | #

How many logical fallacies are in Cal Thomas' column?

We need a new award to give to the most irrational Reptilican each month. We could call it the O'Rielly-Fox-Neocon Award. I suggest that it be a large ball of tangled of barbed wire.
SCforDean | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 9:10 pm | #

but david, when dean is invited to speak in churches, people there want to know how that influence has shaped him. should he deny that facet of his life and pretend it doesn't exist simply because that topic makes some liberals uncomfortable?
niner | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 9:16 pm | #

Thank you for posting about some things I, among others on this board, have mentioned. Dean WOULD be better absent the posturing. Lose the "talk about Jesus" and "confederate flag" stuff with the South. They don't like to be typecast anymore than any other region.
PB | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 9:28 pm | #

This Cal Thomas smear is good news. First, it shows just how desperate the right is. Second, it shows how hypocritical they are.

Third, and more important, it risks the votes of every Republican who believes in religious tolerance, as promised by the First Amendment.

So let this "meme" spread far and wide, especially in swing districts.
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 9:51 pm | #

Dave in MD, I understand what you are saying and you could be right. But Dean's religion is an issue in ways it's not with the other candidates. Cal Thomas has demonstrated why. The right has already raising issues about Dean's religion (he's married to a Jew, he doesn't go to church, he changed religion, etc.) well before he said anything about Jesus.

I think if he does it right it could be disarming. It could just be part of a minute talk on "here's what religion means to me" and, "now let's talk about the issues." I wouldn't be surprised if he brings up Jesus as a way of saying each of us has to define their own individual religious experiences, not the government or the press.

Religion has been made a big part of politics in the South. The right tries to define religion for everyone and make it a divisive issue. Dean might just say it's time to take religion back and make it personal issue again. This is the direction I expect he will take to go along with his "you've got the power" theme.

I could be wrong.
Hansel | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 11:08 pm | #

Bush said something more shallow than Dean when it came to Jesus. When Bush was asked, "Who is your favorite political philosopher?" he answered, "Jesus, because He changed [touched?] my heart." Note that the most religious candidate during that debate, Alan Keyes, didn't even think to mention "Jesus" as a political philosopher, in fact, shooting back at Bush with, "Jesus was much more than a political philosopher."

So why didn't people get on Bush's back for his theological shallowness?
Constantine | Email | Homepage | 01.03.04 - 11:34 pm | #

If Aristotel was alive today, he would say:

"Dean--DO WHAT YOU GOT TO DO TO GET ASSES INTO VOTING BOOTHS!!!"
Bush Whacker | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 3:10 am | #

This is the second time I have made this suggestion and I hope someone at the campaign is listening. The last Moyers show highlighted the Progressive Christian movement and the Head Minister of NY's Riverside Church who is very impressive. Dean needs to court these people agressively since they are saying the same things he is and invoking Jesus with authority at the same time. We need to take back Christianity from the fundamentalists and reframe it as it was meant to be, a movement for social justice. They don't own the flag and they don't own Jesus. I am still conflicted over my own "relationship" with Jesus but I know he would be disgusted by these right wingers.
Rose LeBlanc | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 7:35 am | #

Go to Salon.com for an article by Leslie Guttman, "God is Not a Right Wing Zealot" on liberal and moderate Christians
Rose LeBlanc | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 7:48 am | #

Niner, Hansel and others, thanks for the thoughtful discussion. It's a good discussion.

Niner, let's say that if Dean were to not inject religion into his public policy discussions, he would have a 10% chance of winning the general election. And if he were to inject religion into his public policy discussions, he would have a 51% chance of winning the general election. Then he probably should inject religion into his public policy discussions.

However, this forecast is implausible. I suspect that if he focuses on religion, it will turn a lot of people off -- even those who agree with the religious beliefs that he offers. He might come across to a lot of people as being inauthentic, as pandering. And most people don't like that; when people perceive inathenticity from a candidate, it tends to make them less apt to vote for the candidate.

Moreover, if Dean's religion becomes a major issue in this campaign (I hope it doesn't), it will take away emphasis from his ideas and policies. And I think he would have his best chance of beating Bush if the focus of the campaign is on their ideas and policies. For instance, most people want universal health care and smaller class-sizes and think that wealthier people should pay higher taxes so that we can have those things.

Moreover, if it looks like focusing on religion would not help Dean win, then he should try not to focus on religion. It is not just an issue of upsetting a few people. There is a fairness issue involved. Specifically, if he focuses on religion and one is not of that religion, it often is hard for one not to feel left out. Moreover, many religious beliefs aren't particularly plausible. So voters should not be expected to have to accept those beliefs in order to vote for a candidate or to agree with a particular policy.

A friend of the family ran for city council awhile back. He had a really good position on an issue. But it was an unpopular position. In a meeting, one of his advisors asked, "Do you want to be right? Or do you want to win?" In the case of Dean and religion, it is not at all clear that injecting religion into his public policy discussions would help him win. Moreover, not factoring in winning, the better position is to not inject religion in to those discussions.
David in MD | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 12:02 pm | #

Being perceived as inauthentic is exactly why Dean should tred lightly here -- discuss his own faith experience when asked, sure, but not make a huge deal of it. He's clearly pretty mellow and private about his faith; he shouldn't try to be someone he's not. Because the next right wing attack will be: "See he's just like Al Gore; he has no idea who he is and he changes his personality every week." It's all BS of course but DFA should not play into that game. Play the game on your own terms. I like the suggestions above along the lines of: "My faith has evolved over time and has informed my ethics, etc. and along those lines these are the issues I want to discuss."

On the Judy Dean issue -- I completely agree with the comments above by Dana and others -- BRING IT ON. I feel similarly about the inevitable attacks on Judy Dean regarding here role in the campaign and her job. Frankly, I almost look forward to those attacks because (1) it shows how desparate and scared the GOP really is about Dean's candidacy -- and how little there is for them to put forth on their own behalf in this campaign and (2) I am confident that with very little effort such attacks can be translated by DFA into lucrative opportunities to make Bush-Cheney & the GOP look extreme and thus turn off moderate and swing voters, especially suburban women. BRING IT ON. Let's have that debate. And let's not be scared of it. Beating up on Dean's family stinks to high heaven, recalls the attacks on Kitty Dukakis and Pat Buchanan's gay bashing during Bush I's campaign. These folks are bullies. Clinton's response to the bullying attacks on Hillary was spot on. At some point, Dean will have to do the same -- on the religion issue and on the issue of his wife & family. And I have no doubt that if he patiently but firmly tells them to go to hell, that he will prove himself to be the moral and strong leader he is -- and that the majority of Americans will say: "Right on."
amanda | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 12:45 pm | #

Maybe Dean should carry around a big cross and club people over the head with it, like Priest Vallon in "Gangs of New York."
Conan Dean Carey | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 2:10 pm | #

amanda, amen to that. an added counter is that dean can retort the rightwing are going after my wife the same way they declared open season on joe wilson's wife and thought nothing of stooping so low even to the extent of exposing even a covert cia agent in their desperate attempt to do anything to discredit her husband.

then point out how unacceptable this tactic is by saying it's an approach they would howl against if dean were to attack laura bush. this shows them up as desperate, extreme and hypocritical by acting on a double standard.

another thing, i can't believe the right is going to use "but his wife is jewish" attack, when they've been so eager to court the jewish vote. this approach will not only alienate anybody offended by political attacks aimed at one's spouse but will also offend jewish voters.

if the democrats were to use the "but his wife is jewish" tactic, the right would be screaming about how that is anti-semitic.
niner | Email | Homepage | 01.04.04 - 5:06 pm | #