QFT. This has been my experience as well, and I say this as a former Protestant.
Question: Can Democrats improve among white Evangelicals?
bobot: Nah, they’re intolerant and Democrats should instead court the people who don’t vote at all.
Bassman: What about Black people? They’re intolerant too.
The thread is about white evangelicals, ignoring folks like William Barber, leader of the Poor People’s Campaign and the founder of the Moral Mondays movement in North Carolina, an African American preacher in the tradition of MLK, Jr. Here’s a very interesting article by Barber and others about the hijacking of the evangelical movement by reactionary politicians; perhaps we need to listen to those like him to figure out how secular liberals like me can ally with evangelical liberals like him.
This thread is about discussing evangelicals, how they relate to society, and how to maybe reach out to them in order to win them over to our side. this thread is not about the experiences and difficulties that evangelicals face in education, the work place, or in their day to day lives.
If any evangelicals want to start a thread on how persecuted they are, what difficulties they experience in their daily lives due to their faith, I will listen, but as that is not what this thread is about, you have missed the point.
And what do you mean that they will think is is anti-male “in the context it is presented to them”? This is a discussion that we are having. If this is presented to them, it is done so specifically to take it out of context and to present it in as bad a light as is possible.
How do we do messaging that is difficult to spin, when it is isn’t even the messaging that is being spun. It is conversations that people are having. There is the complaint about using the word “whiteness” to describe the phenomenon of white being the default, and everything else being different from that norm. Everyone in this thread understands that meaning, so not using that word to describe that effect doesn’t seem to have much of a point. Unless, of course, other people get ahold of these words, and then spin them in order to try to make people offended by them.
I would not use the term as part of messaging, because you are right, there are many out there that do not understand the term, and would take offense to it, rather than educate themselves. But you are saying that we cannot use it for internal discussion either, because people may pick it up and use it to create offense among those who had no reason to be a part of our discussion.
If you are offended by the spin that someone puts on my words, is it really me that is at fault, or is it the people who misrepresented what I said in order to offend you?
I think the Democratic Party would have to change so much in order to win the evangelical vote that it would no longer be the Democratic Party. It would be like asking what the Republican Party has to do to win Antifa’s vote.
They might get half, so, what? Couple hundred?
Let me pose this question. And I will also say I am not intending this to be snarky.
There was a belief among some conservatives that liberals were going to attempt to enact Sharia law in the United States. (I don’t know why liberals would want to live under Sharia law but we’ll let that go.) Conservatives who believed this argued against the principle of the government enacting laws derived from religious beliefs on people who didn’t share those religious beliefs.
How is this different than the pro-life position on banning abortions? The overwhelming majority of people in the pro-life movement acknowledge that their opposition to abortion is based on their religious beliefs. And they are seeking to enact laws that are derived from their religious beliefs on people who don’t share those religious beliefs.
Should people who are not Catholics be required by law to comply with Catholic beliefs? Should people who are not Muslims be required by law to comply with Muslim beliefs? Shouldn’t the government have a single policy on enacting laws based on religious beliefs that applies to both Catholicism and Islam?
I can’t speak for conservatives and their motivations, since I don’t consider myself one. However, I would base the outlawing of abortion on natural law rather than on specifically religious beliefs. Being Americans, our Constitution guarantees the right to life. I recognize that there is debate about what constitutes “life”, but I believe that with the advancement of science, it is getting much more difficult to assert that a fetus is not a human life.
I believe in religious freedom. Non-Catholics should not be compelled by the state to attend mass or participate in Catholic devotions. Non-Muslims should not be compelled by the state to attend Muslim services or participate in Muslim prayers.
Religion does inform the debate regarding abortion, but abortion is not fundamentally a religious issue. It’s a human rights issue.
What makes you think that they are arguing on the that principle? Lots and lots of conservatives are happy to say that US laws derive from Christian or Judeo-Christian beliefs. They often, though not always, don’t like the idea of forcing people to comply with religious rituals (e.g., forcing people to attend church), but they certainly believe that laws derive from fundamental religious principles or beliefs, as long as the beliefs in question are Christian in origin.
<aside>
That’s true but completely irrelevant, because there’s nothing special about “human life”. A fetus is human life, but a cancer tumor is also human life. What’s important is not whether a fetus is human, or whether it’s alive, but whether it’s a person, and that’s a lot more difficult to answer.
Thanks for your response! which I am only just now seeing upon returning to this thread.
I agree that Catholicism is certainly much less “book-oriented” than Protestantism, so your response makes sense there. Historically, at least, Catholics have tended to be much more reliant on the authority of clergy than has been the case with Protestants (“Every man his own priest/interpreter of the Bible” was Luther’s idea, not any Pope’s idea)," so that part makes sense too.*
Your reference to tradition and reason sounds very familiar to me as an Episcopalian! I don’t have a lot of direct familiarity with the RCC, but I was baptized into that tradition (we never went; my mom did it only to get her mom off her back, repeated it three years later when my sister was little, and then my grandmother died and that was that) and still have many relatives who are Catholic. What’s interesting to me is that they are rather more Episcopal in outlook than standardly Catholic…for one branch, their parish got a new priest whose theological ideas on some things (including sexuality, not sure about abortion) were in stark opposition to what my relatives believed, so they stopped going. (They would tell you that their reason led them in a different direction, and that the “official” Church version on these subjects ignored plenty of biblical and moral evidence that they thought should be considered. You may have guessed that they pretty much all had Jesuit educations :).)
My own view of (Episcopal) church teaching is, well, sometimes they’re right, and sometimes they’re wrong, they’re a human institution that (hopefully) tries harder than most others for virtue and honesty and all that. Interestingly, the times when I have been most at odds with the “teachings” and “moral policies” of my church (at the national, diocesan, and “Anglican Communion” levels) have been when it has tried to argue in favor of denying full participation to people who are gay. “Reason,” and what I see as the big meanings behind church “tradition,” lead me in this direction. Since scripture has so little to say about it, I don’t pay much attention to it in this context.
*Though you and others (I believe?) have pointed out that many evangelicals have now reaffirmed the original Catholic notion that the pastor knows best. Which is kind of weird if you think about it. What would Luther say? 
That’s because that is what they can get away with. It is not as though Christianity never had secular and severe penalties for not worshipping the right god, even in this country.
There are many secularists that would fight against a return to theocracy, and god willing, there will be enough to prevent it. Theocracts will not have the same reservations, and would welcome a return to religious law, so long as it is their religion that is enshrined. I pray that never comes to pass.
There is no doubt as to what life is in this context. The fetus is alive, there is no question about that. The fetus is also made of human cells, there is no question on that score either. To make the assertion that that is what is being debated is to completely miss the point. If you thought that was what the argument was, you were very badly misled.
The question is, ethically, should this clump of living cells that contains human DNA be treated as a person, with all the rights of personhood? Science has nothing to say on that. I ripped a mole off my back a few weeks ago, it also was alive and had human DNA.
It is a balance of human rights issue, in that you have to ak, who has rights here, a woman, or a clump of cells? If we put a clump of cells as having greater rights than full fledged human women, then we are not addressing human rights, we are forcing our religiously informed views on others.
Can’t we just convince them that an omniscient God would be smart enough not to bother putting souls into fetuses that he knew were just going to be aborted anyway?
If by “they” you mean human beings, I agree. Given unchecked power, human beings often do what they can get away with.
Right, and we have fought rather hard to make what the religiously motivated able to get away with to be as small and insignificant as possible, and it seems they resent that.
I was responding to when you said “They often, though not always, don’t like the idea of forcing people to comply with religious rituals”. I disagree with your evaluation here. You are saying here that most would be content with letting everyone else do their own thing. I think history paints a different likelihood, should theocracy take root.