a self-perpetuated bias born of willful ignorance

[acroyear]

How Would Jesus Vote? - washingtonpost.com:

A few months ago, while participating in an early-morning panel discussion in the heart of Manhattan, I was startled fully awake when a man stood up to declare that Democrats who reached out to religious voters, especially evangelicals, were akin to those who collaborated with the Nazis. I put on a sweet smile of Christian charity and counted to 10.

Comments like that explain why so many of us liberals who also happen to be evangelicals have stayed in the closet for so long. It is hard to overcome decades of suspicion, much of it richly earned by leaders of the religious right who used faith in the cause of a political power grab and in the name of intolerance and fear. But the lingering misconceptions are also painful reminders of the price people like myself have paid for staying silent while others claimed a monopoly on faith. And the country has paid, too.

Whole article is a good read on the recent history of the relationships between the more vocal faiths and the two parties.

Relatedly, there's another article/editorial on the challenge on who will replace the lates Fallwell and (D. James) Kennedy as the self-proclaimed speaker for the faithful in the political world.  I personally find them all appalling, as do most of you.  Then again, I seem to have evolved a different interpretation to what blasphemy means than they have.  Holding the name of the Lord before you as a vanity is what was originally meant in that, and that is precisely what these men do, and always has been.

Comments

[stori-lundi.livejournal.com]

I've always said that the evangelicals would support Hitler if he was pro-choice. Deciding a party line based solely on one issue is ridiculus. "We don't care if you are actually competent just so long as you don't murder unborn babies." Egads.