Should Democrats Rethink Their Approach to Religious Voters

[Jaw]

As a rrgistered Democrat I vote no, they shouldn't court the " religious voter"

Yeah, we know.

 

[57Brave]

ah, the return of "we"

 

[Jaw]

In effect if it isn't 100% your political/religious stance it is a no go.

No one in this thread has ever said that. But I will say that I won't support positions that are clearly immoral.

This is a diverse society of over 300M

Great! I am glad that you, as a registered Democrat, appreciate diversity. And I am confident that you embrace diversity of thought and ideas too, not just of skin color. Right?

Why would Democrats want such an inflexible constituancy ?

From the outside looking in, it appears that an inflexible constituency is exactly what Democrat want. It just happens to be one that is anathema to most Christians.

My answer to the question is no. Unless said " religious voters" accept they and their religion does not dictate what is and isn't--- religion. And that religion does not dictate policy

Cool. Tell me, how would you feel if a Republican said they would gladly accept "minority voters" as long as they accept that their views don't matter?
Ahhh, never mind, you don't have to tell me. But it's okay to be discriminatory to white Christians, isn't it?

Appear what you seek is a Theocracy.

Appears you don't grasp what the principles were that this nation was founded on, and that made it great. You, or your kids, or your grandkids, will miss them when they're gone.

 

[BedellBrave]

In effect if it isn't 100% your political/religious stance it is a no go.

This is a diverse society of over 300M

Why would Democrats want such an inflexible constituancy ?

My answer to the question is no. Unless said " religious voters" accept they and their religion does not dictate what is and isn't--- religion. And that religion does not dictate policy

.Appear what you seek is a Theocracy.

Ahh, the boogie-man/strawman. That's a losing move there 57.

 

[BedellBrave]

As a registered Democrat I vote no, they shouldn't court the " religious voter"

Or at least that brand of " religious voter"

The recent Senate election in Alabama Doug Jones received over 90% of the AA vote.

Are you telling me there wasn't a large swath of religious voters included in that 90%.

Seems like you (royal) are looking out for "religious voters" you are looking for you brand of "religious voter"

I find that delusional bordering on ... that so few get to brand what is and isn't religion. Morality

Right and wrong

Not sure who you are arguing with, of course Doug Jones received a large swath of religious voters. But don't make the mistake of thinking that now that he won that all those who voted for him are on board with NARAL. Doesn't quite work that way.

Oh, and remember, I'm the guy who says everyone is religious. Some belong to the Church of the Sexual Revolution and one of their holy sacraments is unfettered abortion.

 

[57Brave]

who's arguing ?

You asked if they should and I said they shouldn't then explained why not.

As far as the strawman ---- things appear as they appear
If one goes to a party in a red coat, one is wearing a red coat.

Perhaps you can tell me what this "religious voter" brings to the Democratic Party.
And why said party should waste their time courting them ?

My Alabama reference was meant to say, they already have religious voters