I went to Scranton to canvass for Obama, and for the most part it was kind of fun. There were certainly a few unpleasant people—LI’m a racist” said proudly; “I’m just not ready for Black people to run the country”; “I wouldn’t vote for Obama! I’m a patriot!”
Thank you for being a pro-democracy warrior. The thought of you trying to survey the possible serial killer’s apartment reminds me of Clarice Starling on the Silence of the Lamb when she found Buffalo Bill.
Your parallel between political canvassing and religious evangelism really resonated with me. Having gone door to door during the New Hampshire Democratic primary, I understand and appreciate the difference you highlight. Mobilizing like-minded voters feels markedly different from trying to convert someone to a whole new belief system.
Still, I’d like to raise a more foundational question. How do we determine that our political beliefs are more justified than religious ones, which we often dismiss as unverifiable assertions? That line of separation, I think, merits closer scrutiny than you gave it.
There are three ideas worth considering here...
To begin with, whether rooted in religion or secularism, all moral systems ultimately hinge on certain unprovable assumptions. Your belief in the importance of protecting democracy or your conviction that some acts represent “concrete evil” can’t be proven through empirical observation, material “facts”, etc. These are value-based positions, deeply held ones, for sure, but like religious tenets, they arise from a set of basic unfalsifiable beliefs about human dignity and what constitutes a meaningful life.
Second, in advocating for political change, we’re effectively asking society to move toward our vision of what is good and just. In that sense, we’re not so different from the evangelicals you critique. Politics, after all, involves the state—an institution defined by its power to enforce compliance. So while our methods may be democratic, the outcome still involves advancing certain moral commitments that others are expected to live by.
The Arab anthropologist Talal Asad argues that secular, Western liberalism isn’t some neutral, rational default but rather a structured belief system with its own embedded assumptions. Recognizing this doesn’t delegitimize political engagement, but it should give us pause when we draw sharp lines between “faith” and “reason” in the ways that you do.
Third, your historical argument about the religious relationship to slavery reflects a common but incomplete narrative. Howard Thurman's analysis of spirituals demonstrates how belief in divine judgment provided enslaved people with what he called "a terrible right to live" amid seemingly hopeless circumstances. As Shelton and Emerson document, this transcendent hope functioned not as escapism but as a foundational resource for resistance against oppression. This historical reality directly complicates the claim that "fixation on the afterlife minimized earthly injustice."
In the end, maybe the real distinction between political canvassing and religious proselytizing isn’t about which beliefs are more grounded in evidence, but about the kind of response each seeks. Political advocacy often involves a targeted ask—support this candidate, vote this way—whereas religious outreach usually invites a much deeper, more transformative shift in worldview. That’s not a trivial difference, but it’s one that still respects the integrity of both forms of conviction.
So yes, I’ll keep knocking on doors in defense of democracy (though I, too, draw the line at phone banking). But I do so with the understanding that all of us are animated by beliefs that stretch beyond what can be proven.
Wow this is so thoughtful! I agree with you on the whole that all political debate contains values judgements and some articles of faith. However, political positions are more testable with real world evidence than religious beliefs. Certainly, I think it's a pretty objective fact that Trump does not believe in the Constitution and therefore is a danger to it. There is also ample historical/political science research on the benefits--for security, economy, human thriving--of liberal values vs. authoritarianism. It's also an objective, provable fact that vaccines save lives for instance, and vaccine hesitancy costs lives.
In general, though, I think the key difference in whether pressing one's views on others is OK is whether there is impact on others. Again, in a democracy, political persuasion is part of the system/culture by necessity. In religion, I think people should be left to live out their beliefs as long as there is no harm to others.
As to Black Christianity--I think your point is that Black Christians also focus on the afterlife? Black Christianity was actually derived from pro-slavery Christianity, too--that is the context by which they became Christians. The emphasis on the afterlife was deliberately cultivated by masters to control slaves. However, slaves took something that was meant for their harm and turned it into something that gave them hope and courage to fight for justice in the here and now. Black theology is dominated by themes of justice and liberation. The afterlife is the inspiration for that, the model for what we should strive for here on earth and the promise for those who don't get to see that. It's of a very different cast than how white evangelicals talk about it.
Hmmm, just thought of this also. But we’ve easily killed and oppressed more people in the last 100 years over politics and probably democracy itself, than over religion.
True--I think in most cases, this was the result of a political ideology that became almost a religion, however. Fascism and Communism not only take political positions well beyond the realm of the practical and testable, they deploy force not persuasion.
I don't think a democracy movement by definition can use force and violence.
I street witnessed in downtown Calgary every Friday for several years with our very fanatical charismatic evangelical youth group. I knocked door to door in Maui HI with my DTS outreach team, YWAM; As well, I also street witnessed there.
I disliked all of the above. I've never prayed with anyone, aside from my kids( maybe🤔) to ask Jesus i to their heart.
Your telling resonates strongly with my experiences. Thanks for sharing and stirring up all that muddy water. 😅 Perhaps I should join a campaign team in the next election here in Alberta, Canada.
Reminds me of the canvasser for Representative Lauren Underwood (D) IL a few years back near Chicago, who approached my wife in front of our home. She mistook his mumbling to mean he wanted to talk with her about "long underwear." "What?" she asked in surprise. After a nice, hilarious exchange about the merits of cotton versus silk long underwear, she finally heard his spiel about Lauren. Having voted for her, we were delighted to see the way she stuck it to Sec Kristi Noem and DJT at a recent hearing, grilling them for their abysmal failure to uphold the constitution, and flagrant violations of due process for immigrants. Go Lauren! Go canvassers!
But we’re not a democracy. We are a republic. Democracy in broad general terms is universal suffrage. One person, one vote, and encompassing the rule of law, but in its purest form its mob rule.
We are literally not a democracy and our founders sought to assure that we weren’t by establishing a republic.
One practical matter re canvassing, in most places there is no news source for local news - so canvassing in person is helpful to get a campaign going.
And then there was the ever-memorable crack den. We left a pamphlet.
OMG! amazing
It was unreal.
I went to Scranton to canvass for Obama, and for the most part it was kind of fun. There were certainly a few unpleasant people—LI’m a racist” said proudly; “I’m just not ready for Black people to run the country”; “I wouldn’t vote for Obama! I’m a patriot!”
Sounds like you encountered Sarah’s Focus Group participants while knocking
Thank you for being a pro-democracy warrior. The thought of you trying to survey the possible serial killer’s apartment reminds me of Clarice Starling on the Silence of the Lamb when she found Buffalo Bill.
Still fun
Your parallel between political canvassing and religious evangelism really resonated with me. Having gone door to door during the New Hampshire Democratic primary, I understand and appreciate the difference you highlight. Mobilizing like-minded voters feels markedly different from trying to convert someone to a whole new belief system.
Still, I’d like to raise a more foundational question. How do we determine that our political beliefs are more justified than religious ones, which we often dismiss as unverifiable assertions? That line of separation, I think, merits closer scrutiny than you gave it.
There are three ideas worth considering here...
To begin with, whether rooted in religion or secularism, all moral systems ultimately hinge on certain unprovable assumptions. Your belief in the importance of protecting democracy or your conviction that some acts represent “concrete evil” can’t be proven through empirical observation, material “facts”, etc. These are value-based positions, deeply held ones, for sure, but like religious tenets, they arise from a set of basic unfalsifiable beliefs about human dignity and what constitutes a meaningful life.
Second, in advocating for political change, we’re effectively asking society to move toward our vision of what is good and just. In that sense, we’re not so different from the evangelicals you critique. Politics, after all, involves the state—an institution defined by its power to enforce compliance. So while our methods may be democratic, the outcome still involves advancing certain moral commitments that others are expected to live by.
The Arab anthropologist Talal Asad argues that secular, Western liberalism isn’t some neutral, rational default but rather a structured belief system with its own embedded assumptions. Recognizing this doesn’t delegitimize political engagement, but it should give us pause when we draw sharp lines between “faith” and “reason” in the ways that you do.
Third, your historical argument about the religious relationship to slavery reflects a common but incomplete narrative. Howard Thurman's analysis of spirituals demonstrates how belief in divine judgment provided enslaved people with what he called "a terrible right to live" amid seemingly hopeless circumstances. As Shelton and Emerson document, this transcendent hope functioned not as escapism but as a foundational resource for resistance against oppression. This historical reality directly complicates the claim that "fixation on the afterlife minimized earthly injustice."
In the end, maybe the real distinction between political canvassing and religious proselytizing isn’t about which beliefs are more grounded in evidence, but about the kind of response each seeks. Political advocacy often involves a targeted ask—support this candidate, vote this way—whereas religious outreach usually invites a much deeper, more transformative shift in worldview. That’s not a trivial difference, but it’s one that still respects the integrity of both forms of conviction.
So yes, I’ll keep knocking on doors in defense of democracy (though I, too, draw the line at phone banking). But I do so with the understanding that all of us are animated by beliefs that stretch beyond what can be proven.
Wow this is so thoughtful! I agree with you on the whole that all political debate contains values judgements and some articles of faith. However, political positions are more testable with real world evidence than religious beliefs. Certainly, I think it's a pretty objective fact that Trump does not believe in the Constitution and therefore is a danger to it. There is also ample historical/political science research on the benefits--for security, economy, human thriving--of liberal values vs. authoritarianism. It's also an objective, provable fact that vaccines save lives for instance, and vaccine hesitancy costs lives.
In general, though, I think the key difference in whether pressing one's views on others is OK is whether there is impact on others. Again, in a democracy, political persuasion is part of the system/culture by necessity. In religion, I think people should be left to live out their beliefs as long as there is no harm to others.
As to Black Christianity--I think your point is that Black Christians also focus on the afterlife? Black Christianity was actually derived from pro-slavery Christianity, too--that is the context by which they became Christians. The emphasis on the afterlife was deliberately cultivated by masters to control slaves. However, slaves took something that was meant for their harm and turned it into something that gave them hope and courage to fight for justice in the here and now. Black theology is dominated by themes of justice and liberation. The afterlife is the inspiration for that, the model for what we should strive for here on earth and the promise for those who don't get to see that. It's of a very different cast than how white evangelicals talk about it.
Hmmm, just thought of this also. But we’ve easily killed and oppressed more people in the last 100 years over politics and probably democracy itself, than over religion.
True--I think in most cases, this was the result of a political ideology that became almost a religion, however. Fascism and Communism not only take political positions well beyond the realm of the practical and testable, they deploy force not persuasion.
I don't think a democracy movement by definition can use force and violence.
I street witnessed in downtown Calgary every Friday for several years with our very fanatical charismatic evangelical youth group. I knocked door to door in Maui HI with my DTS outreach team, YWAM; As well, I also street witnessed there.
I disliked all of the above. I've never prayed with anyone, aside from my kids( maybe🤔) to ask Jesus i to their heart.
Your telling resonates strongly with my experiences. Thanks for sharing and stirring up all that muddy water. 😅 Perhaps I should join a campaign team in the next election here in Alberta, Canada.
Reminds me of the canvasser for Representative Lauren Underwood (D) IL a few years back near Chicago, who approached my wife in front of our home. She mistook his mumbling to mean he wanted to talk with her about "long underwear." "What?" she asked in surprise. After a nice, hilarious exchange about the merits of cotton versus silk long underwear, she finally heard his spiel about Lauren. Having voted for her, we were delighted to see the way she stuck it to Sec Kristi Noem and DJT at a recent hearing, grilling them for their abysmal failure to uphold the constitution, and flagrant violations of due process for immigrants. Go Lauren! Go canvassers!
But we’re not a democracy. We are a republic. Democracy in broad general terms is universal suffrage. One person, one vote, and encompassing the rule of law, but in its purest form its mob rule.
We are literally not a democracy and our founders sought to assure that we weren’t by establishing a republic.
One practical matter re canvassing, in most places there is no news source for local news - so canvassing in person is helpful to get a campaign going.
Glad you survived the encounter, and as always, I love how you weave your current experiences with your upbringing.
i handed out campaign literature 6 years ago, i was 14. Some people came to the door and screamed at me. Lots of fun.
Feds are a allowed to canvass if they're not asking for money.
Not cia! No work of any kind for partisan campaign