There’s a new religious political action committee, the Matthew 25 Network, that may very well have an impact on the political scene this year, far more than any religious progressives have had in quite a while.
To briefly review, the Matthew 25 Network is spearheaded by Mara Vanderslice, who served as director of religious outreach for Kerry-Edwards in 2004, and who has been active in encouraging Democratic candidates to discuss matters of spirituality more openly on the campaign trail.
The PAC’s efforts have been kept under wraps for a while, but we learned this week about the group’s first initiative — a minute-long ad that will begin airing on Christian radio stations.
The ad anticipates trouble, and addresses it head-on. It implicitly acknowledges that the audience may have seen those ridiculous smear e-mails, and it’s “hard to know what to believe.” That’s why, the Matthew 25 Network argues, Christians have a duty to consider a person’s testimony.
Now, I can appreciate the fact that non-Christians may not find any of this compelling, and may not even like the fact that these ads are running. But keep in mind, the ads aren’t coming from Barack Obama or anyone associated with his campaign or the party — this is an independent Christian PAC, targeting Christian voters, on Christian radio, with a Christian message.
And it sounds like the group is offering a message not usually associated with Democratic politics.
No Trackbacks To “Matthew 25 Network gets to work“
is it me or does this pic try to make him look whiter? and therefore more “angelic”?
All the evangelical base belong to us.
If the sky ghost worshipers want to play politics, then the church should pay taxes.
This guy is all about religion. Bringing religion into the campaign when he had previously said he would not. Sounds like political expediency to me. Where’s the new kind of politician? Where’s the new way to change Washington? Where’s the beef?
Look, this is all part of the game. And politics IS a game!
Why must we play the game on their terms?
Let’s keep religion OUT of politics. I’m with johnx on this.
As a lifelong dem, I can’t exactly say I’m thrilled at all of these contortions to attract evangelicals, especially living through all the BS and division this country has had to put up with from (most, not all) of these groups since Reagan first sucked up/lied to them. Gay Bashing? Check. Irresponsible environmental policies (because Jesus is coming back anyway, of course)? Check. Warmongering, especially towards Islamic countries? Check. Science-bashing, leading to teaching our children nonsense while ignoring facts and evidence (plus denying advances that would allow better medicines, less human suffering)? Check. Con artists and scammers bilking old ladies out of money so they can buy Mercedes, theme parks, and of course more satellites to beam their BS? Check.
I could go on, but suffice to say, these people need to return to the margins of the political process. I’m sick of them.
I dont believe in any religion myself… however I really appreciate it when religious people use their religion as an excuse to actually help people in need instead of just hate them or convert them.
There IS a place for them in our society for example as Ron Paul has suggested if they were encouraged to do so we could END the war on drugs and instead of using the police and prisons to deal with people we could rely on society turning to the religious to try to help people CHOOSE to stop being addicted and get their families more involved in HELPING them choose to stop being addicted. And considering how many people there are in this country that are religious that is a real alternative that doesnt include the violence of the police.
Putting the religious in such a position of responsibilty just might help reverse this trend that the republicans have grown where the religious think more like racists instead of more like purveyors of good…
Gollum @ 6:
That might work in a perfect world, but this Earth. And on Earth, in the US, people vote based on their religious convictions. Either you use this, or you let the right run crazy (as they have) and declare themselves the holy political side despite their warmongering, hatred of the poor, or love of wealth. Let these folks spend their money how they want. It’s not like they’re forcing you to listen to Christian radio.
Disclaimer: I’m an agnostic.
After the Rev Wright deal and the other minister (can’t remember his name) then the question about whether Senator Obama is a Muslim, something like this was probably necessary.
Not all people who are religious are nut cases. Many are now taking responsibility for the environment and the realities of life.
I think it’s unfair to put all people who believe in a god into one giant group. Just as there are differences among liberal groups, there are differences among religious groups. Some religious people do wonderful things for their fellow man and stick to the kinder side of the Bible, the New Testament.
And no, I have no religious beliefs at all, unless you think that believing that the Golden Rule is a great way to live, is considered in some way religious.
(now I’ll prepare to duck as the rotten tomatoes are thrown at me)
Is it only me that hasn’t “heard the Lord”.
Seems like every politician or convict has at one point. Am I tuned to the wrong channel or what?
We have to win. Period. If this means he has to say he disagrees with the Supreme Court on the death penalty and child rapists, that he agrees with the hand-gun decision, and that he has to bring religion into the campaign, than so be it. No only do we have to win, but we have to win by a big enough margin so they can’t steal the election. Again.
There is no other option - if we lose this time we lose everything.
Were this the reformation I might be inclined to care about the next monarch’s choice of religion. However since this is supposed to be the 21st century I find it disturbing that we’re still attempting to use loyalty to tribal deities as a selling point for a future leader.
It’s sad that we are held hostage to these people and their insane world view. If you find it “hard to know what to believe” when you’re being told that Obama is a Muslim who attends a radical Christian church, or if you find it “hard to know what to believe” when you’re told that he’s both an inexperienced outsider but also “the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette”, you might be a complete moron.
But then again, what do you expect from a group of people who think that the world is 6,000 years old and flat. Anyone who thinks that “God did it” is a scientific theory is going to have a hard time knowing what to believe, because they have been raised to believe whatever they are told, rather than thinking for themselves.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that Obama has a chance with the evangelicals, but I’m pretty tired of evangelicals infecting our national discourse with superstition and backwards thinking. Evangelicals are running away from the GOP because of the damage it has done to people’s view of Christians. So, instead of taking religion out of politics and back into the church (where it belongs), the fundies switch sides. At some point these people need to wake up and realize that religion’s only real purpose is political - it was like that in the time of Constantine and it’s still like that today.
The last line said, “…we think it’s time for a better christian witness in politics”.
Just what is it about these people that the meaning of seperation of church and state seems to escape their comprehension?
I agree with johnx @ 3 about imposing taxes of all religeons but also suggest that all religeons be licensed and audited regularly. If they think religeon is real and important to our existence then lets require certified leaders that graduate from approved (by the state) schools. If they want to screw with people who don’t believe their crap than it will be necessary to screw with them.
Like it or not - if we don’t reach out to the Christians (who at least TRY to follow Christ’s teachings), all they’ll hear is attack ads from the KK-Kristians (who use cropped quotes from the King James version of the Bible to justify their own hate-filled screeds).
If you’re still having trouble stomaching it, think of it as attacking the Republican Party’s current incarnation at its sick, twisted core - the Reagan deal under which Wall Street money came pouring in to dupe trusting church-goers into voting for tax cuts for the wealthy and massive cuts in the social programs forming a “safety net” for the less fortunate.
Steve,
When you say, “it sounds like the group is offering a message not usually associated with Democratic politics”…
Do you really mean, “it sounds like the group is offering a message not usually associated with progressive politics”…?
‘Cos with timorous Obama twisting in the wind, breaking promises, betraying supporters, giving the thumbs-up to wiretaps and pandering to fascists, he’s acting exactly like the same freaked-out paranoid dumbass scaredycat Democrats that we’ve seen undermining genuinely progressive political positions for the past decade.
pissed off patricia
They probably aren’t rotten tomatoes, just tainted!
Agent_M @ 2:
Oh, well done, BTW… Hilarious.
The change I am looking for is a politician who leaves religion at the door when they enter the political arena.
On this point, when folk insist that Obama MUST do this it’s fulfilling a self imposed prophecy. Keep saying democrats must pander or adopt religious language and of course that’s how it’ll be.
Again change would be the candidate who doesn’t feel the need to go all religious once the elections get close.
Anyway back when Obama was new on the scene he said this…I think he should heed his own advice.
“I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. We don’t need that.” -Barack Obama
“TRANSPARENT” “INAUTHENTIC” “DANGEROUS”
There is a difference between the Fundamentalist and Evangelical vote. The Evangelical vote is up for grabs. To be an evangelical is to spread the word of Christ and how it relates to your life. Obama has never been one to shy away from telling his story of his faith. I even do it when I get a chance and on open ear and therefore could be call evangelical. If Obama expressing his faith can shift the votes his way, I’m all for it.
Fundamentalist usually beleive the Bible is the word of God andquotes single lines out of Leviticas to give backing to their hatred such as gay bashing. It makes me cringe to hear them quote one line out of context. Those voters make up Boosh’s base and may stay home when it comes to McSame.
I can base my liberal beliefs such as universal healthcare, environmentalism and social justice on what what Jesus taught. I also know my history and understand there HAS to be a clear seperation of church and state. I want the freedom of religion and that means all faiths and those of no faith.
Revs. Farrakhan, Wright, Plegler, Jackson, Sharpton are all smiling broadly! Thank Jesus for Barack! Thank God for Barack! Our biggest payday ever is coming after he’s sworn in as POTUS! [no thanks]
Agent_M @ 2:
FTW! LOL :D
Oh and they can have them back. We don’t want em.
RepubAnon @ 16:
so what are barack’s plans in that regar (i.e., tax cuts, social progams, etc.)?
Mary @ 4:
Not to be confrontational, but I’m actually interested. What exactly did Obama say (when/where if you know) that defined a commitment to not bring religion into the campaign?
How can you say on one hand that Senator Obama suddenly got religious when the question a few months back was how could he have gone to Rev. Wright’s church for twenty years and not know Rev. Wright’s attitude.
It would be nice if we could elect a president without bringing fairy tales into it.
My question to Obama would be: What is he going to do about the threat posed by the Vogon Constructor Fleet? (Apparently not much, since he’s cutting manned space exploration.)
SlowBurn @ 24:
Hop over to his website and find out.
I don’t like this, but I can see why he has to do it. Obama will be alot better than McCain and if he screws up, We’ll just vote him out of office in 4 years. But that would give the repugs an opportunity. So he better do a good job, alot is at stake.
RepubAnon @ 16:
But I don’t want my part to have the same sick, twisted core. A liberal theocracy isn’t any better than a conservative theocracy. And by putting so much emphasis on religiousity, that’s what we’re going to end up with: Two parties chained to religious myth.
Jefferson and Paine are spinning in their graves.
SlowBurn @ 22:
And might you be willing to explain in a coherent manner how that would even be such a terrible thing? Let’s say, and I highly doubt you’re anywhere near the truth but for the sake of argument, let’s say those Revs you listed have access to Obama as POTUS. How is that any different or worse than the people like Hagee and Parsely and Dobson (not a rev) and Robertson and Fallwell and Bob Jones III, all of whom have had access in some degree to Reagan, Bush N (nefarious), and Bush R (retarded)?
All this Christian shit makes me nuts. It would be so nice to elect a president and not bring any religion into the discussion, ever.
Obama gave a speech called “Call to Renewal” I think two years ago. (I quoted from it above). He talks about how progressive must be careful about adopting religious terminology, etc.
Also in that speech he points his finger at secularists. He says that secularists are just as bad as the religious right. He also frames the debate in the exact same manner as the religious right would. How secularists want to remove god from the public square, etc. He even specifically mentions the pledge of allegiance and howe secularists are wrong for wanting to restore the pledge to it’s pre-1954 wording (i.e. without the phrase ‘under god).
I’m gonna quote Obama a bit (I hope this is ok on these comment boards).
http://obama.senate.gov/speech.....o_renewal/
“I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap — off rhythm — to the choir. We don’t need that.
In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they’re something they’re not. They don’t need to do that. None of us need to do that.
But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition….
Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.
This goes for both sides.
…
But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase “under God.” I didn’t. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.
So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don’t want faith used to belittle or to divide. They’re tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that’s not how they think about faith in their own lives.” - Barack Obama
Matthew 25 Network is a political PAC, and as such, is subject to taxes. Contributions to this PAC are not tax write-offs.
Therefore, I have no problem with their existence, per se.
I have far worse problems with Senator Obama supporting the anti-constitutional FISA bill, then with him expressing that he is a Christian.
And after all is said and done, I would like everyone from the Bush Administration to start travelling abroad, starting in January 2009. You know, sorta enjoy their retirement. They could start with the Netherlands.
The hard core evangelicals are never going to vote for Senator Obama and I think we all know that. Since he has flatly stated he is for a woman’s right to choose, that rules him out in their book. This is an appeal to regular religious people who feel religion is a large part of their life and it’s to tell them that no, he isn’t some radical black man, or a Muslim.
The saddest part of this to me is that he wouldn’t have a chance in hell of being elected if he were a Muslim. I hope one day our country can get past that attitude too.
Fcuk that, the Obi campaign is just trying to keep the Republicans and the media from defining him.
Whatever it takes
The ONLY thing that might make me not vote for Obama (which means I won’t vote at all) is his desire to expand the so-called “faith-based” policies of Bush. I realize, of course, I’m in the 10% crowd in this country (the rational minority) when it comes to having no religious leanings.
Why is there NO discussion of a national divorce? I’d absolutely support a secession of liberal states from the Jesus-drunk south and midwest.
I’d absolutely support a secession of liberal states from the Jesus-drunk south and midwest.
I think Obama shows us that there are Jesus-drunk people all over the country, and that secession will only mean we have to deal with different kinds of religious tomfoolery.
Yes, of course, I’m voting/volunterring/giving money to Obama, and voted for him in the primary… But please! Obama asked groups not to run ads for him, but this is ok? I never expected Obama to be my progressive dream date, and thought HRC was a tad more progressive on domestic policies, but at least I thought an Obama ticket could create more of a space for a progressive movement/agenda. Sigh.
The key here is the title of the organization: Matthew 25.
As a lapsed Catholic, I always point out to people that my nuns taught me the core of Jesus’ teachings are in Matthew 25 in the parable of the sheep and the goats. Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers. If you can get the fundies and evangelicals to remember that there was a list of things Jesus told us to do as good moral beings, and that none of them included persecuting gays or seeking great wealth, then we have a chance of turning this country around.
Here is the passage: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa.....version=31
And here is, in my opinion, an interesting exchange I had on my blog about this subject as it relates to single payer healthcare:
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2007.....bible.html
Cheers,
loosehead len @ 17:
Obviously Obama isn’t timorous or he wouldn’t be taking on the hard left on this.
It is a politically smart move.
And IF we honor MLK has a hero we have to acknowledge that he galvanized his movement through the church, but did not ask that you hold fealty to that church.
Does anyone here know what progressive actually means? A step by step process to examine and evaluate challenges and take pragmatic steps to get things done.
Without the church their would have been no civil rights marches. The right co-opted this strategy with their compassionate conservatism. Obama intends on taking it back from the righties, the mega-churches and actually make faith work the way it is supposed to. Helping local communities!
Seriously, what does supporting Obama have to do with the 25th chapter of the Book of St. Matthew? That chapter is all about the Divine signs and admonitions of the end of this age. Is there something these sweet saints are trying to imply here?