David Kuo interviews John Edwards about his religion

David Kuo has a very interesting interview with John Edwards about Edwards' religion at Belief.net.

Edwards isn't afraid to stress the Christian moral imperative of providing for the poor. Good for him.

Still, I wish that Democrats like Edwards who are devout Christians would go occasionally on the offensive against right wing hypocrites who claim to be Christian while abandoning the poor.

It's important to say that you believe that serving the poor is a core moral precept of Christianity. I want to hear devout Democrats take it to the next level and accuse self-professed Republicans of being apostates and hypocrites when they ignore poverty or otherwise flout uncontroversial Christian moral precepts.

Why are liberal Christian politicians always on the defensive? At the grassroots level, there's are plenty of liberal Christians assailing phony Republican piety. Yet this sentiment never seems to percolate up to the level of the candidate.

As an atheist Democrat, I sometimes feel like an apoplectic soccer coach shouting from the sidelines at the Christian Democrats on the field who refuse to play offense.

The media and the Republicans like to blame atheists and agnostics for driving religious people away from the Democrats. The really irritating thing is that a lot of Democrats buy into the same nonsense. When we atheists attack right wing Christian hypocrites, we're labeled as being anti-religion. Sometimes we even get flack from Christians on our side, as if being anti-right wing hypocrite were equivalent to anti-Christian.

Frankly, liberal Christians in politics are way too nice to their conservative counterparts. Our guys have been taught that it's presumptuous to pronounce about who's a real Christian and who isn't. Actually, all Christians are taught that--but in American politics, only the liberal Christians seem to listen.

As a result of this reticence, even devoutly religious Democrats come across as weak and defensive when it comes to their personal faith. That's just how you're perceived if you always defend and never attack. Democrats are  constantly being second-guessed about their faith. Fair or not, you look weak if you let insinuations go chronically unanswered.

Democratic politicians who talk about their faith are constantly being slurred as panderers. How can they overcome this perception. Well, they can start standing up for themselves and their beliefs by hitting back when challenged. If you claim that being a Christian requires X, it's not enough to affirm X yourself. You've got to be willing to call out people who claim to be Christian while flouting X. If you never make that leap, people will wonder if you're sincere.

The Republican party is a a mix of believers and non-believers, just like the Democratic party. Yet, somehow the Democrats got saddled with the myth of a "God gap."

The reason that Democratic candidates are constantly vulnerable to attacks on their personal faith is that they never directly attack Republican religious pretenses. They tacitly accept the premise that their theocratic opponents are sincere Christians, even when these outwardly pious opponents do blatantly un-Christian things like abandoning the poor.

Democratic leaders who are Christians must stand up and call out their religio-political opponents, especially when those opponents have the nerve to imply that they aren't real Christians because they're Democrats.

We atheists can't fight their battles for them.

Comments

[Tom Hilton]

Why are liberal Christian politicians always on the defensive? At the grassroots level, there's certainly no shortage of liberal Christians assailing phony Republican piety. Why isn't this sentiment reflected at the level of the candidates and senior strategists?

As an atheist Democrat, I sometimes feel like an apoplectic soccer coach shouting from the stands at the Christian Democrats on the field who refuse to play offense.

I think this is true, up to a point; at the same time, I think the efforts of genuinely liberal Christians go largely unnoticed because they don't feed the existing narratives about religion and politics.

That said, when an Amy Sullivan or Steve Waldmann or Mara Vanderslice says we need to 'reach out' to evangelicals, my response is: knock yourselves out. It's up to believers to reach out to other believers; people like you and me would have no credibility at all. If Sullivan et al. would just do what they're telling us to do instead of bitching at us (and feeding the 'secular left hates religious people' narrative), imagine what they could accomplish...

[Uncle Kvetch]

If Sullivan et al. would just do what they're telling us to do instead of bitching at us (and feeding the 'secular left hates religious people' narrative), imagine what they could accomplish...

Tom, people have been trying to pin Sullivan down on this for a long time now, with little success. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that what she wants us non-religious lefties to do is disappear, or at the very least, shut up.

my response is: knock yourselves out

Mine is a little more, um, colorful, but I'm working on my civilitude this week, so I'll leave it to your imagination.

[Hugo]

As a liberal evangelical (not an oxymoron in these parts, especially around Fuller Seminary), I agree that it is the job of the Christian left to take on the Christian right. We've got a common language of justice with the secular left, and a common language of faith with the Christian right.

The fear that some Christian lefties seem to have is that we'll turn off secular allies if we wax too enthusiastically about our faith, especially if we suggest that we see our faith as more than just one "choice" among many in the theological marketplace. But in the interests of a progressive coalition, I think that the seculars are willing to give we religious progressives some latitude.

I've read Scripture. And while I know that in the end all sin is sin, and it all fall short of the mark, it's clear from the Gospel that Jesus cares far more about the misuse of the pocketbook than of the pelvis. We've got to hammer that case home over and over again.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Thanks, Hugo. I have the sense that some Democratic leaders are confused about the diversity that exists within their own big tent.

Some Democrats believe, some don't. I like to sound out the people around me, and I get the sense that people who have a religious ethos of some sort are by far the majority inside our party and out. As an atheist, it's not something I stress about. I don't have to save anyone's soul.

We can all be part of the same struggle for social justice and thrive within shared worldly institutions.

What matters is common values. That goes double for Democrats because we believe in the separation of church and state. There's no reason to split hairs about who has precisely what theology/meta ethics within a political movement as when we all know the government mustn't play favorites.

[Rasselas]

You've got to be willing to call out people who claim to be Christian while flouting X.

Is that the duty of a Christian or a politician?

A politician might not make a point of "calling out" because he or she might prefer not to risk stepping on any of the many toes in the many different churches, synods, denominations, councils and united organizations that support liberal and progressive policies.

[blucas!]

It goes a bit farther, too. I think a lot of Christian moderates pick up on the tentativeness of Democratic politicians to really let go to town and show how their faith underpins their politics. So they end up seeing their religious affiliation as insincere, as a political calculation. Certainly this was a problem for Kerry in '04. Had he been more willing to talk more candidly about faith (especially on how he squares his Catholicism with being pro-choice), it would have gone a long way.

Also, in addition to the poverty angle, I think there's lot of ground to be gained from religious fury over a the war, and even over immigration.

[Rasselas]

The point being, to clarify, that it is sadly easier to offend people who support you out of good will than to shock into reflection people who enjoy the organizational advantages of hate and loathing.

[revenantive]

i'm beginning to believe that the choice of practicing atheism is much harder than it appears from the outside looking in.

that fact will not, however, change my mind given what i know (not) or have learned about so far in my ever so short & brief lifespan.

i have been a proud student of atheism, since my 4th grade of education in a western-traditions influenced school.

as an atheist in today's ever changing world of ideas, to me nothing creates more atheists than good old-fashioned modern family values.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Rasselas, I'm saying politicians are liable to be counted as wishy washy or hypocritical if they claim to espouse certain principles, but fail to attack those who fall short of those ideas--especially when their own credentials are attacked. Democratic politicians are constantly being asked to prove that they're really religious.

Not every Democratic candidate has to go on the offensive all the time. This is a collective action problem. However, if a Democratic candidate is religious and cares about people believing that s/he is religious and therefore wants to defuse the annoying accusations of pandering, then, he or she would do well to strike back forcefully against Republican critics who insinuate that s/he's just pandering.

It's not enough to say "no, really, I'm Christian." You've got to take it to the next level and say, "I'm Christian but my opponent is a pandering hypocrite."

[akugel]

This is petty. It's a shame politics is now dedicated to religion. You hope one candidate is strong enough to cut through the wall of bull in '08 and inject common sense. that is all we want, but perhaps an absurd demand -- It's also absurd that it is absurd.

[Lawrence Krubner]

"I want to hear devout Democrats take it to the next level and accuse self-professed Republicans of being apostates and hypocrites when they ignore poverty or otherwise flout uncontroversial Christian moral precepts."

I'm an athiest but I like to see how my friends express their faith, so I sometimes go to church with them. A friend took me to a Unity church the Sunday before last. Unity is an ultra-liberal church and its emphasis is on being accepting of other's beliefs.

During the serivce, there was a lot of talk of "peace" and how it was our job to bring peace to world, especially in these times. I felt that some of the use of the word "peace" was a coded language for criticizing America's current policies in the MidEast. Nevertheless, it's hard for me to imagine those folks calling anyone else hypocrites. It goes against the grain of the place. The style of conversation there, I think, was, if anything, to admit one's own personal failings first. Simply saying "the other side is wrong" would be too much like what the angry right-wing Christians do.

After the service, as we were walking out, the minister came up to us and introduced himself. He asked my friend how she knew of Unity church. She explained she'd been brought up in the church. The minister said: "You're a rare breed. Most of us here are refugees from other religions."

That, to me, says alot. Most of the people there had childhoods in what they felt to be repressive churches, and they've fled to Unity now that they are adults. I think publically condemning someone else as an immoral hypocrite would bring back bad childhood memories for some of these people. They've come to their current church to leave all that behind.

Having said that, I recall going to a Quaker Friend's Meeting late in 2002, and a person stood up during the service and said simply that the current Administration is proto-fascist. Another said that tax cuts for the rich were immoral. So, yeah, sometimes I guess people do talk that way, even in liberal churches.

[Jerry]

I've been reading the blog for a while now, great stuff.

Anyway, I love Edwards, I campaigned for him in 2004 in New Hampshire. And a lot of my respect for him comes from his dedication to ending poverty. He's the only mainstream politician that does more than pay lip service to the issue.

That being said, I think if Edwards talks about poverty in biblical terms, he'd really open himself up to a lot of debate about his personal wealth (the interview kind of touched on that with his house.)

I loved his line, "If you took every reference to taking care of the least of these out of the Bible, there would be a pretty skinny Bible." I think that's the perfect, indirect way to frame it in religious terms. Christians know what's he talking about, and non-Christians could still respect it as a moral stance.

If he really goes on the offensive, and calls right wing people of faith hypocritical (which I agree a lot of them are), people could use passages like Luke 18:18-25 against him, and say "John Edwards is filthy rich, and he's saying we neglect the poor, who's the real hypocrite?"

[dr2chase]

To be more specific, it might make sense to repeatedly contrast Christ's attitude towards the money-changers, and Christ's attitude towards loose women.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the hard core of the Republican Party is filled with people who, when they hear "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", think, "hey, that's me! Gimme that rock!" These guys seem to be fundamentally un-self-reflective, and also unable to put themselves in anyone else's shoes.

[Lawrence Krubner]

"it's not enough to affirm X yourself. You've got to be willing to call out people who claim to be Christian while flouting X."

That could be true, or, possibly, we are being tempted to imitate the other side at a time when the other side is losing the respect of the public, partly because it uses faith as a political weapon. We can all name some people of libertarian sentiment who have lost their loyalty to the GOP because of the GOP's fanatical right-wing Christianity and the antics that such faith-based religion has lead to (Schiavo, overturning Roe versus Wade, etc).

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Here's a quick question for the protestants... Kuo's last question to Edwards is whether he's giving anything up for Lent (or in the spirit of Lent).

Is that an unusual question for one devout protestant to ask another?

Edwards made clear at the outset that he's a Southern Baptist. Kuo's an evangelical Christian who used have a high-ranking White House job administering Bush's faith-based programs.

[Hugo]

Lent has been increasingly adopted by Protestants, especially in the intellectual evangelical world. There's a lot of adopting of Catholic attitudes, for that matter, some of it not so good (for example, the new opposition to contraception on the part of some right-wing Protestants is completely lifted from their Catholic allies). The rapprochement between Catholic and Protestant conservatives really took off in the Reagan Administration, and while it hasn't always been a good thing, one side effect is that you see a lot of Protestant evangelicals developing a new respect for liturgy and some of the disciples taught by the church.

[Rasselas]

"I'm Christian but my opponent is a pandering hypocrite."

That doesn't seem all that appealing. The air already resounds with accusations of pandering and hypocrisy, and no one looks tougher because of it.

[pseudonymous in nc]

Non-white Christianity in the US doesn't feel tongue-tied about social justice.

Non-religious Democrats generally don't have trouble with those who wrap social justice in Christian terms.

That being said, I think if Edwards talks about poverty in biblical terms, he'd really open himself up to a lot of debate about his personal wealth (the interview kind of touched on that with his house.)

As opposed to the people who talk about gays and abortion, subjects mentioned precisely nowhere in the gospels?

You've got to take it to the next level and say, "I'm Christian but my opponent is a pandering hypocrite."

It's odd, isn't it, who has the right to accuse people of being a bad Christian or an anti-Christian? That job's been taken unto themselves by the Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons and Donohues. Time to start calling out a few whited sephulchres.

[Alon Levy]

The Republican party is a a mix of believers and non-believers, just like the Democratic party. Yet, somehow the Democrats got saddled with the myth of a "God gap."

In all fairness, nonreligious Americans vote Democratic by margins from 2.5 to 1 to 3 to 1. Voters who adhere to religions other than Christianity vote Democratic by about the same margins. That means that while non-believers comprise 15% of Democratic voters and non-Christian believers comprise another 15%, the two groups together comprise only 10% of Republican voters.

[joejoejoe]

Most politicians operate like a peewee soccer team - huddling around the ball instead of operating in space away from the obvious focus. The ball in this case is the conventional wisdom of DC elites. We need politicians who go offsides once in a while to stretch the field, pols who harass from the wings, who use the entire field to their advantage and don't try to jam the ball up the middle again and again. It's boring and easy to defend against.

[aeroman]

The First Amendment status of fortune-telling is actually a very interesting topic. Someone with more time than me should write about it.

[Rasselas]

"Defying the conventional wisdom of DC elites" is to bloggers what "toughness" is to the DC elites and what chastity is to the authors of the lives of the saints.

[blucas!]

Hugo wrote:

"Lent has been increasingly adopted by Protestants, especially in the intellectual evangelical world. There's a lot of adopting of Catholic attitudes, for that matter, some of it not so good (for example, the new opposition to contraception on the part of some right-wing Protestants is completely lifted from their Catholic allies). The rapprochement between Catholic and Protestant conservatives really took off in the Reagan Administration, and while it hasn't always been a good thing, one side effect is that you see a lot of Protestant evangelicals developing a new respect for liturgy and some of the disciples taught by the church."

And mainline Protestantism (Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.) never did away with Lent, really. They just aren't as big on the fasting/no meat thing.

You might be right on a "movers and shakers" level, but when I'm asked the question, "Are you saved?" by evangelicals and/or fundies, and I say, "Well, um, I'm Catholic, uh," I get looks that make me *wish* I'd said, "I'm an atheist." Someone who doesn't believe in God; that's a challenge to them. Someone who follows who they consider to be quite possibly the Antichrist, well...

[blucas!]

Also, a lot of people on the Religious Right have a creepy conflation of the Catholic and the Latino. They project their fear of Catholics onto all Latinos, and their fear of Latinos onto all Catholics.

[Bruce]

I suspect strongly that the reason why Clinton was identified (first by Maya Angelou, then more broadly) as the "first Black president" is that his method of speaking about his very traditional Baptist faith and its confluence into social justice concerns resembled closely what Black Christians hear weekly in church.

It wasn't the saxophone.