Opposition to the NDO: Phantom of its Former Self

One could say a great deal about why the effort to pass the Metro non-discrimination ordinance succeeded. I had thought about writing extensively about that, but I think I'll leave it at this. A very smart, strategic group of Metro Council Members led by Megan Barry were masters of the process and the arguments. It was an honor to help develop the ground game to support their efforts, and TEP is extremely grateful for their work.

But I will say a bit about why the bill didn't fail. The opposition really never materialized. Despite the press continually pointing out that the bill was "controversial," the controversy was a mere echo of 2003.

Churches: I think we can put to rest the old canard of the "churches vs. the GLBT community" with respect to policy issues that come up in Metro government. There were certainly some Evangelicals who opposed it. But Family Action itself indicated that efforts to mobilize congregations against the bill were failing before third reading:

"Although Family Action of Tennessee (FACT’s 501(c)(4) sister organization), a few churches and other organizations tried to rally Nashville-area Christians to urge their council members to defeat this ordinance, it moved forward by a vote of 23 to 16, with one abstention."

Nashville congregations had other things to do, like the support the ordinance, for example. Ten congregations--Jewish, Christian, Unitarian--supported the effort. In fact, we kicked off our campaign in October 2007 in a Church setting. Councilman Bo Mitchell's comments yesterday during the Personnel Committee meeting reflected the changed situation when he said that his "God doesn't discriminate." Sure, the inflammatory comments of Councilman Jim Hodge made an appearance in the debate, but they didn't seem to have any persuasive force.

Local vs. Imported: The opposition also failed because they could not mobilize support inside Davidson County. I heard again and again that Council Members were receiving negative emails from Franklin and Murfreesboro. The one letter to the editor in the Tennessean against the bill came from Cookeville. In fact, last night, some came from as far away as Bartlett to oppose the bill:

Among them was Liese Thomas, who drove from Bartlett, Tenn., in Shelby County.

"I believe that one man and one woman's marriage is the stabilizing force of all healthy civilizations, and where there are any deviations, the civilizations start to crumble," she said.

Even though the bill didn't address the issue of marriage, Thomas said her argument applied because approval of any "deviant behavior" inevitably leads to destruction of values.

I guess she missed her chance to say that back in June when we were working on the Shelby County non-discrimination effort. I have no idea why the opposition thought the Council wanted to hear from people outside Davidson County.

Web vs. ?: I don't know what tactics the opposition used to reach people. Their use of social networking media seemed non-existent. I know that we used it extensively as one tool among many to drive contact with Council Members. The opposition's resources, not to mention their language, struck me as primitive.

Obviously we'll be doing a great deal of thinking about what worked and what didn't work over the coming days as we prepare for the non-discrimination effort in Memphis City Council. But today we celebrate a great victory! Thank you, Nashville.

In search of the God vote

Politico examines some Gallup data and Pew Forum analysis on the fact that Barack Obama is not performing well in attracting the bloc of white voters who attend Church weekly. That's about a third of voters. 29 percent backed Al Gore and John Kerry in the last two elections. Obama is coming in at 28 percent. (The unspoken assumption in the article is that Obama will garner a huge percentage of African-American Church-goers.)

He is not failing because of lack of effort. Obama's campaign specifically and Democrats generally have been doing a great deal to reach out to religious voters and put on a friendlier face to people of faith. The social conservatives in the piece cite the issue of abortion as a key to understanding the divide.

The so-called God gap manifests itself in interesting ways, particularly in the South. Democratic Congressman Lincoln Davis of Tennessee has made clear the connection between his faith and his Democratic values, though he has hesitated again and again when it comes to embracing Obama who is still losing to McCain in our State. Meanwhile, next door in North Carolina, Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole, who is running behind in her reelection bid, has launched an ad attempting to link Democratic opponent Kay Hagan to an atheist PAC. Obama, of course, is running a strong race in North Carolina, but Dole has picked a place where she senses Democrats are vulnerable.

Sen. Dole says she isn't concerned that the voting trend may bode ill for her."Republicans are outnumbered in registrations, so you can't win without Democrats," she said. "I've had people tell me they voted Obama-Dole."

Now that's something I never imagined I'd read.

The overall trend and the specific Southern examples bring up some questions. If the Democrats keep plugging away at the Church-going vote, can they eventually gain some ground, say a 10-point increase? And how long would that take--4 years, 8 years, 12 years? At the State and local level in the South, Democrats clearly cannot afford to give up their messaging and outreach to religious voters. But if there continue to be diminishing returns in the presidential race, might Democratic strategists be tempted to give up on the religious vote, thus recreating an opening upon which a chastened Republican party might build?

The key, of course, may be the ways in religion is changing in America. While white Evangelicals remain a strong voting bloc, the Catholic vote now receives a great deal of attention. Latino Catholicism, Evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism may become the key constituencies targeted for outreach in the next 10-20 years if their voter registrations catch up to their explosive growth.

In terms of this election, the white religious vote will probably remain stably Republican. But the results represent an opportunity for Democratic party leaders to dig in and wait for the ethnic demographic of religious voters to change.

Preach it!

Sorry for the quality, but it was snapped with my phone's camera. The sign says, "The God Vote A Three Sermon Series September 14-21-28." You can still catch parts 2 and 3 at the West Nashville United Methodist Church on Charlotte.

One of our few exceptions--'Boro discussion of Rev. Jeremiah Wright

We've made a deliberate choice not to say much about the presidential race at this blog. Coverage and then some is rampant all over the web. It's important to have spaces dedicated to state and local politics. However, this story at the Daily News Journal seems to fit the bill of a Tennessee angle on a national story.

Doug Davis took some time with Murfreesboro area African American pastors to discuss the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The article focuses on the pastors' reactions to characterizations of the Black Church by Wright and the media. The pastors are also grappling with the distinction between prophetic religious speech and politics. Reading the piece, you can't help but be left with the conclusion of the Rev. Graham Matthews of Key United Methodist Church that "there is no monolithic black church in the United States..."

Reactions to An Evangelical Manifesto--Part 1

A group of leading Evangelicals released a document this week called An Evangelical Manifesto. It is addressed not only to other Evangelicals, but to all American citizens for their consideration. Although I didn't notice anyone from Tennessee among the leaders, the document is worthy of discussion in our state since over 50% of the people identify themselves as Evangelical Protestants.

"The two-fold purpose of this declaration is first to address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the United States and much of the Western world today, and second to clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life."

An important signal of a shift comes in their list of what Evangelicalism means. Biblical authority is listed fourth and not first as is often the case in historic Evangelical statements of faith. The leaders are drawing a clearer line between themselves and Fundamentalists.

The document underscores this shift by calling for Evangelicalism to be "defined theologically and not politically." The authors concede that they "cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman..." But they express the desire to move "beyond single-issue politics..." They call for "engaging the global giants of conflict, racism, corruption, poverty, pandemic diseases, illiteracy, ignorance, and spiritual emptiness..."

Those who are more political than theological in their interests should still consider reading the theological rationale in the document. I think it presents an honest effort at struggling with a long, distinguished tradition of Christianity that has influenced our public life. Driving every sentence are theological reflection and the negative reaction from outsiders. It shows that this group of Evangelicals have taken seriously their own roots and the broader conversation in which they find themselves today.

While there is little movement on the marriage issue that is so important to America's GLBT community, An Evangelical Manifesto moves the marriage issue away from the center of concern. Or perhaps I should say a host of other basic issues have joined marriage and abortion at the center with the effect of putting those concerns in a broader mix. The laser-focus on so-called family values is gone.