A conversation with Michael Wear, a former Obama White House staffer, about the party’s illiteracy on and hostility toward faith
A very informative article. Thanks for posting.
" Emma Green: Many people have noted that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in this election. Why do you think that was?
Michael Wear: It shows not just ineptitude, but the ignorance of Democrats in not even pretending to give these voters a reason to vote for them…"
Clintons so much convinced everybody that is one what you say to the people, another one to the rich and another one what you do, that it looks they can’t get out of it…
I did not read after the first lines…
"The 2016 election was evangelicals saying, ‘Yeah, you’re right! We can’t expect to have someone who is Christian like us. We can’t expect to have someone with a perfect family life. What we can expect is someone who can look out for us, just like every other group in this country is looking for a candidate who will look out for them.’”
Interesting perspective. I don’t agree with it, but it is interesting.
The Democrat’s illiteracy and hostility toward faith has been around for decades, but they have kept up an illusion of interest in religion until this election cycle. Just like the interview says, they no longer thought they had to play to religious people. They were wrong. I’m glad to see they have dropped the charade. Now people can see a little clearer what the Democratic Party represents.
It’s leadership has really become a reflection of Marxist ideology. A wolf in sheep clothing; just like a true fabian socialist.
The Democratic Party has one of two ways forward: they can double down on their true ideology, or they can go back to feigning interest in God.
They will not.
They will not what?
BTW, how do you read, digest and respond to my post in less than two minutes?
Sorry that was a very careless answer of mine. I meant to say they will not return to God as a party.
I second this thought.
They will continue to double down on secularism. The author is right. People who thought they could pull the party back toward pro-life have given up and moved on to other parties. We are in the second generation of Reagan-Democrats now. There is no tolerance in the Dem party for a pro-life person any more.
I do agree with the author on the evangelicals finally waking up on the fact that there is no perfect candidate. There are no perfect people! It’s time to get a candidate who is electable who best advances your position.
Very, very true.
Look at Hillary’s speech the morning after the election. She stated “the country is more divided than we thought”. That’s code for “Wow, we misjudged how many Christians there are in the country still.”
Toward the end of the election cycle I think some were picking up on it. I started seeing more references to Hillary being a Methodist.
I had to just about change my underwear when Tim Kaine compared Hillary to the owner of a vineyard from the paralbles.
I don’t believe for a nanosecond that Tim Kaine really sees Hillary as the vineyard owner. They just woke up to the fact that they finally push evangelicals to far. They were like “Wow, we better throw the some tid bits out to the Christians!”
Good article, thanks for posting.
I like Tim Kaine but I think that the bolded part is why they picked him. I think the problem is intellectual elitism. Even if you believe in God, you should be at least a little apologetic and even a little embarrassed about it. That’s the feeling I get in the Boston area among the more well to do liberals. I think they downplayed it to the point that religion became a personal opinion that you keep to yourself. Kaine wasn’t like that at all, he doesn’t seem embarrassed by his faith but it was too late for that to help the Democrats.
I think it’s odd the evangelicals went in the complete opposite direction and picked someone that appears to be completely irreligious though. He couldn’t even name his favorite Bible story. At least Kaine knows the Gospel enough to try and apply it to concrete situations.
I lost all respect for Kaine (if indeed I had any to begin with) when he made his comment about the Catholic Church will eventually come to accept gay marriage. :rolleyes:
As we know, “…even the devil can quote Scripture”. That ability means nothing in itself.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Trump is not anti-Catholic. He’s just neutral, and probably doesn’t much care what happens within the Church or care what its activities are. The U.S. has had many presidents like that; men who were not Catholic, didn’t promote Catholicism, but didn’t oppose it, either.
Kaine is a different thing. He’s anti-Catholic in the sense that he opposes at least one teaching of the Church and thinks his progressivism will eventually “enlighten” the “backward” Church. He fully reflects the Podesta email stuff in which it is finally revealed that the Dem party disdains the Church and actively supports dissent within the Church; thus further fleshing out Hillary’s assertion that we would have to “change our religion” to accommodate abortion.
As between the two, I greatly prefer the non-Catholic who means no harm to the Church over the person, Catholic or not, who actively opposes its teachings and activities.
Anti-Catholic? That’s a bit harsh isn’t it? Would you say the same to all the folks in the thread about nuclear weapons that are in favor of them? They are also considered intrinsically disordered by the Church but many are in favor of them and promote their use publicly. Are they anti-Catholic?
I don’t think one or two points of disagreement make one anti-Catholic. I agree that making it public and attempting to change the Church are problematic but I would say it’s more ignorance than malice.
Also, you are still running with that Podesta stuff. I recommend taking a look at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and tell me what about them leads you to believe they are dangerous to the Church. You are also conflating the Podesta emails and a speech that Hillary gave to a global audience about women’s issues in world. They are not related in the least.
Tim Kaine is a strange one to say the least. So glad he’s not in charge!!
Oh, I think the Podesta emails are quite in line with Hillary’s thinking. The Church, they believe, is “medieval”, “backward” and “authoritarian”, and said so in the Podesta emails. They were quite open about trying to change the Church in America by supporting dissident “Catholic” organizations. If that isn’t encouraging “changing one’s religion” I don’t know what is. And of course, Kaine thinks the Church will surely affirm homosexual marriage someday (when it’s less “backward”, of course) or at least he says he believes that.
Sometimes the obvious can be reasonably believed.
Certainly the Church decries WMD and rightly so. But never has it declared that the U.S. should unilaterally disarm when others do not. So supporting a nuclear defense system is in no way anti-Catholic.
That’s very different from advocating the unilateral use of them. Maybe someone on CAF has promoted that, but I have never seen it.
And of course there’s the suit against the Little Sisters of the Poor, disqualifying Catholic charities from government aid programs because they won’t refer for abortions. It goes on and on.
Glad a person who is at least neutral on the Catholic Church was elected.