Social Issues

You take the good, you take the bad

The Los Angeles Times ran two stories about the California marriage proposition that deal heavily with religion. The first is a puff piece — a pro-same-sex marriage press release, really — about the gay weddings a rabbi has performed:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Separation of church and football

I suppose there’s no reason that the Atlanta Journal Constitution should have better religion reporting than the average newspaper. But I rarely read anything noteworthy from the paper and sometimes the stories are really lacking.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Catholics ponder abortion rights

The big religion story with voters this year has been white evangelicals. Will they remain supporters of pro-life Republican candidates or will they drift leftward? Despite the thousands of column inches devoted to the topic, it looks like they’ve remained largely in the GOP camp — although anything could happen.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Religious views on gay rites

Californians will vote next month on whether only marriages involving one man and one woman should be recognized. Proponents of the measure have argued in television advertisements that children will be taught about same-sex marriage in public schools and that they will be taught that same-sex marriage is equivalent to traditional marriage.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Faith-based hope in tonight's debate

This season’s presidential election debates have been something of a letdown from a variety of perspectives. One area is a lack of discussion about religion. Feel free to disagree, but I believe that one’s religion informs a person’s public policy to varying degrees.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Do Blue Dogs gather in pews?

Do Blue Dogs gather in pews?

Once upon a time, there were these ordinary people in the great state of Texas called "Democrats." They (I should say "we") were pretty much like everyone else in what was and is a pretty conservative state. There were political differences, but the divide wasn't as great as the differences between tenured political science faculty members at the University of Texas and the ordinary man or woman on a Texas sidewalk. Democrats even went to church, at pretty much the same rate as everyone else. Then along came Woodstock and Roe v. Wade and all kinds of things, pretty much handing the state to God's Own Party.

However, there have always been a few Democrats who managed to retain their old cultural values -- which is a pretty good thing to do when you are running for office in a place like West Texas. For a long time these Democrats have been called "Blue Dog Democrats" and, lo and behold, these culturally conservative Democrats (think pro-Democrats who cling to God and guns) even played a role in the Democratic Party surge in 2006.

So what in the world is a "Blue Dog Democrat," precisely? Click here to go to a website celebrating this strange political breed. It claims, in part:

Blue Dogs represent the values of Middle America. Blue Dogs are moderate and conservative Democrats that do not support abortion, gay marriages or gun control. There are other issues. Primarily, securing the border to stop the flow of drugs into the United States and the hemorrhage of manufacturing jobs leaving the United States for other countries.

But why "Blue Dog"? That site explains that when "dogs are not let into the house, they stay outside in the cold and turn blue." That's the explanation I have heard in the past.

Which brings us to a Washington Post story with the timely headline, "Looking Ahead, Obama Builds Ties With 'Blue Dogs.' " The top of the story explains:


Please respect our Commenting Policy