No, mocking somebody’s faith on a blog is not at all like forcibly desecrating a prisoner entrusted to you. It’s EXACTLY this kind of “ooo, I broke a fingernail, we Christians are so oppressed” garbage that makes people think ill of Christians.

Terrance — I see your point. And while I think there are a lot of winds blowing from different directions that are playing into some of the things you’re angry about, I strongly agree that non-Christians in general and non-religious people in specific are treated poorly by the Democratic establishment.

In this specific case, I think the big cause is really just a reptilian fear of what the news cycle will do — it’s not about what Donahue will do to a particular campaign, but what CNN will do. But the idea that secular people who are troubled by the influence of (a particular kind of) religion in politics are anathema is certainly strong in our society, too, and you’re right that that should change. I don’t want to minimize that.

Obviously the kind of comments cite above are deplorable, but how do we know that the people who wrote her are really “Christians” at all, some may be just angry troll types. Wheneevr I speak out on something that offends the separatist secular left, I get tons of similar angry e-mails and or comments–should I conclude that all atheists are bullies and not interested in real dialogue? Of course not. It’s hard not to take it personally, though–so I understand why they feel upset and scared.

FYI: Obama is not anti-gay for crying out loud. Nor is his church, the UCC church is the most pro gay rights of any Christian church. Let’s not draw too large of conclusions from this unfortunate incident.

FP

My Christian friends don’t spew and call folks sluts or whores. they minister to the dying. they teach in inner city schools. work at food pantries. protest the war. I’m sorry you don’t know more of those folks. I’m sorry the mainstream media doesn’t know more of us, since they just want to quote Donohue and his ilk. We all found offensive what Amanda had to say, because it only confirms all the stereotypes about anti-Christian Dems, but we hate Donohue too. I thought I would offer this perspective on why some of us Christian Dems feel “sidelined,” both within the party, within the mainstream media, and within our own churches.

And there are plenty of non-religious people who do all of the above, only to watch the party back away from other issues they’re passionate about in order to court religious voters who are skittish about those issues; in other words, voters whose progressivism only goes so far.

I wouldn’t say you’re being sidelined in the party though. Getting Melissa and Amanda axed is a big victory. And from Obama’s evangelical outreach, to Howard Deans sitting down with Pat Robertson, to Nancy Pelosi urging Democrats to speak in more biblical terms, to Harold Ford (who justifies being anti-gay based on his religion) taking over the DNC, to the party hiring a consultant who advises them to distance themselves from the issue of separation of church and state, I’d say the party is working overtime to get right with religious voters.

If anybody is being discounted at this point, it’s progressives who don’t happen to be religious.

Is it working? Are they winning?

All of which means shit and fairy dust without money to buy media time.

So don’t be telling me that I’m not hollering enough. I sent them both emails expressing my support, both as an American and as a Christian. I spoke out at work and on the bus and on blogs. But being supportive isn’t interesting, and if it’s not interesting, it’s not fiscally solvent.

You want I should turn into a censor with the flaming sword of My Own Brand of Truth in my right hand? You want I should threaten violence against their homes and persons? You want I should betray my own beliefs, my own faith which demands I work for peace by meeting them on the battleground with the same devious measures, the same fabrications, the same violent measures to gain air time? You want I should become like them, just so I can gain your approval as a Good Christian™?

Sir, I respectfully reply: Fuck that shit.

These are the folks who must be appeased, apparently.”

as i have said before, the people writing amanda are vile. Donohue and his ilk are vile. but to smear all “Christians” with the actions of this loud vocal segment is equally wrong. Most Christians such as myself recoiled at Amanda calling our beliefs “misogynist” mythologies. And I’m a feminist too. But I always have to tell people, “I’m not one of those pro-abortion, anti-religion feminists” and I would hate it if your average voter equated liberals as anti-religion/anti-Christians (which they already do), to be confirmed by the likes of Amanda and co (like this blog…). My Christian friends don’t spew and call folks sluts or whores. they minister to the dying. they teach in inner city schools. work at food pantries. protest the war. I’m sorry you don’t know more of those folks. I’m sorry the mainstream media doesn’t know more of us, since they just want to quote Donohue and his ilk. We all found offensive what Amanda had to say, because it only confirms all the stereotypes about anti-Christian Dems, but we hate Donohue too. I thought I would offer this perspective on why some of us Christian Dems feel “sidelined,” both within the party, within the mainstream media, and within our own churches.

1) She said that the Pope was anti-gay.
2) She referred to right wing christians such as Donohue as “Christofascists”.

“progressive” christians have ever since been bemoaning her bigotry.

She stoutly maintains that she resigned, and was not pushed, because of the hatred and threats levelled at her by the christians, but there is more to the story IMHO.

Why didn’t we see Edwards standing up to oppose the bullies ? Couldn’t he spare a little legal assistance to protect her from the threats and file legal complaints ?

Did she have to be left to swing in the breeze ?

Personally, I have to admit that I thought that she made a mistake supporting Edwards in the first place. He had clearly stated tha because of his religion he opposed equality for gays.

She said she thought he was a good man and she felt she could work from within.

We see how that works out.

After all, Melissa and Amanda’s words and actions haven’t cost anyone their lives.

Honestly, when I look at the current field, I don’t think any of the candidates would have shown any more spine than Edwards did. They’re all bending over backwards to do and say anything that they think will win them more religious voters. And the party is already paying a consultant who advises them to distance themselves from the idea of separation of church and state? What would Obama have done? (Probably been savvy enough not to hire any bloggers who’ve written anything remotely controversial.) What would Hillary have done? Richardson?

I don’t think any one of them would have done any differently? Why would they? They’re getting advised to toe the line on religion, and avoid controversial ideas like church/state separation. And thus they’re timid about standing up to people like Dohonue. And the people who are willing to stand up to people like him, and give as good as they get, are left twisting in the wind by religious progressives who join in calling for their heads, and “leaders” to milquetoast to stand up to bullies.

So, the bullies win.

But we get the candidates we deserve, don’t we? I’ve argued over and over again with members of the netroots that the current strategy — supporting candidates who are partially progressive on some issues, and not so on others like choice and marriage equailty — will yield a party that’s more conservative on those issues. And the constituencies who are passionate about those issues become liabilities.

So, yeah, being a feminist is unacceptable in this political climate. Being non-religious or non-Christian is a liability in this political climate. Being willing to stand up to people like Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin is a liability, because almost no one will stand with you if you do.

I don’t know if that means we’re in trouble. But it means we got what we’ve been working for for the last few years. Now we seem genuinely surprised, and even disappointed that we got it.

Do we know that this was actually something the campaign asked them to do, though? I mean, Amanda’s post seemed to suggest she had chosen to quit because she wanted to be able to respond and address these specific issues (esp. the right-wing use of wedge issues to drive the religious left and the secular left apart), which no one can really do from within a political campaign.

If it did come from the campaign, I’ll definitely be disappointed, too. I was leaning in Edwards’ direction, and this would probably shift me into Obama’s or Richardson’s camp. Already tempted that way.

I did send Amanda an email. She did use some coarse language, and she apologized. I use coarse language about Christians, too. People get angry. What is really going on here is that Donahue et al. don’t like the fact that Amanda sees injustice towards women and others and does something about it. Being a feminist was Amanda’s cardinal sin in his eyes, not saying naughty words. If being a feminist is unacceptable in this political climate, we’re in more trouble than I thought.