HOW WOULD JESUS VOTE?

[NanceGreggs]

How Would Jesus Vote?
By Nancy Greggs

During an appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live (October 12, 2006), guest Dennis Prager responded to a question about the impact of the recent scandals (Foley et al) on voters from the religious right. Prager was quick to point out that although they were “troubled” by these events “religious Conservatives will not stop voting Republican” due to the fact that the alternative, i.e. the Democratic party, “is a party that does not share any of their values.”

While this is certainly not the first (nor, regrettably, the last) time I have heard someone toss out this kind of reasoning, it never fails to astound me.

For discussion purposes, let’s accept the argument from the true believers that incidents like the Foley scandal, the Cunningham scandal, the Ney scandal, etc., are not indicative of a pervasive climate of corruption existing within the Republican party, but merely a case of a few bad apples who, drunk with political power and tempted by forbidden financial fruit, fell off the Virtue wagon with a publicly-humiliating thud.

Let’s also, for the sake of discussion, accept the fact that the biggest hurdle for many voters who consider themselves to be religious Christians in supporting Democrats is, was, and seemingly always will be the issue of pro-choice versus anti-choice vis a vis abortion, and its attendant issues of access to birth control, sex education, and the like.

On this single topic, the Christian Right have been traditionally willing to throw the Baby Jesus out with the bath water. Upon hearing the words “right to choose”, they invariably stick their fingers in their ears in order to shut out everything else the Democratic party has to say. That is an unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless.

So having put aside those two issues for the moment, we are left with the obvious question: What else is it that the current crop of elected Republicans stand for, and have crafted into policy, that is in keeping with values of religious conservatives – or, for that matter, any people of faith?

The disconnect between what is morally just and the actions of the elected Republicans in control of our government for the past few years should be glaringly obvious. Where is the morality in a war that has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis? Where is the adherence to Christian teaching in abandoning social programs that assist the hungry, the sick and the homeless? How does one equate moral rectitude with policies that have enriched and empowered the wealthy, while plunging the hard-working middle class into debt? Who can honestly condone the use of torture and consider it to be in keeping with anything remotely resembling Christian values?

“As you do to the least among you, so you do unto me.” And what has been done to the least among us by the Republicans currently in office is not, I would humbly suggest, what Jesus would consider to be a monumental display of moral values – not by a long shot.

On the other hand, the Democrats have traditionally championed strong social safety-nets for those “least among us”, as well as other moral concepts the GOP have abandoned – things like obeying the law of the land, and rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, without simply handing everything over to Caesar without regard for God’s share of the action, such as stewardship of the planet, and a helping hand extended to our fellow man in His name.

What Mr. Prager, and people who spout the same rhetoric, seemingly fail to recognize is the fact that as we head into the mid-term elections, the poll numbers have shown a distinct Democratic lead over the party that has proven, beyond any doubt, to have a total inability to walk the walk despite an annoying penchant to talk the talk at every available opportunity.

While it may come as a shock to the Dennis Pragers of the world, a lot of those people who are planning to vote Democratic next month are good Christians – as well as good Jews, good Muslims, good Buddhists, and others of moral fiber who have finally had their fill of the GOP slogan-in-practice, “Come for the Sermon – Stay for the Hypocrisy”.

There has been much discussion of late about how Democrats should strike while the political iron is hot, and reach out to the Fundamentalists in an effort to secure their loyalty and their future votes.

I, for one, dismiss this idea out-of-hand. It is not for the party that has proven itself to be more in keeping with the tenets of Christianity to prove itself worthy; it is for those espoused followers of the teachings of Jesus to prove the strength of their own convictions by supporting what is right, what is just, what is morally responsible.

If the religious conservatives of whom Mr. Prager speaks find the Republicans – the party who have placed the Power of the Almighty Dollar over the Power of the Almighty God – to be the party that shares their values, so be it. But perhaps it is time for the so-called Religious Right not to assess the moral values of the two political parties, but their own commitment to the values they allegedly hold so dear.

In the current political atmosphere, where the topic of morality is about to play a key role in the voting choice of millions of Americans, it is not fitting for people of faith who cling to Republican ideals to ask why God has forsaken them and their party. It is, I would humbly submit, more appropriate for God to ask why He has been abandoned by those who claim to be His staunchest supporters.

[RevCheesehead]

1. The Dems need to say to everyone (not just the fundies)

That what we value most of all is FREEDOM. FREEDOM of self-determination. We believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices in life, and don't need governmental interference in these intensely personal decisions.

Great words.

For anyone who is interested, Sojourners has published a brochure called Voting God's Politics. They have run out of printed brochures (great news!), but you can download the PDF free of charge. The brochure conforms to IRS guidelines for non-profit organizations. Check their website at http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display&ite... for ordering information.

[LiberalArkie]

2. Liberals should be screaming the words of Jesus.

Matthew 5:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness'sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


Matthew Chapter 25
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

The Republicans claim to be Christians and be just. Most Liberals though tend to follow in Christ's teaching (whether by desire or accident). The church goers out there need to know the truth.

[Divine Discontent]

3. right on. n/t

[Tigress DEM]

6. Even the "publicans" will scratch each other's back & stick together...

Makes me think that Jesus was referring to what we call these days, "Honor among theives".


46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

[tinfoilinfor2005]

49. Excellent post.

Why have we forgotten that not all Christians are fundies and not all fundies are Christians? Equating most Christians to someone like Falwell or Dobson is insulting and demeaning, and I think democrats should be the first to point out the difference.

[NanceGreggs]

61. Amen!

Unfortunately, too many people are now stereotyping 'Christians', as though they all think the same way, act the same way, vote the same way.

[blondeatlast]

76. As a devoted Christian, I'm not so sure about that.

While we should be ACTING in His name, we should never invoke Him directly in the political arena, ever, IMHO.

As in, we should enact legislation that lifts the weakened, burdened, and unfortunate, but not do it in His anme, as the Radical Religious Right do.

I understand what you are saying, but we shouldn't use the sacred power of the Spirit to gain votes or political power.

The RRR has made the spiritual political, even though Jesus asked us to pray n the closet. as it were. I'd like to see us take the higher road and leave the sacred, sacred.

[Rockholm]

4. Jesus probably would not be allowed to vote.

No ID; no passport; dark skin, potentially of Arab descent. Chances are pretty good that some dumb ass would scoop him up and send him to Gitmo.

Sometimes being the Saviour of mankind only gets you so far in Bush's Amerikkka.

[NanceGreggs]

5. Expand on that thought ...

... and you've got yourself a KILLER article! That's BRILLIANT, Rockholm!

[civildisoBDence]

46. What would happen when they tried to waterboard Jesus?

Would he sink or float?

Newsprism

[Rockholm]

78. Many thanks for your encouraging words.

Let me think and I will pen a reply.

edit: spelling

[RC]

7. I copied & pasted to e-mails to spread the word.

You Name and the thread URL were credited.

I like the way you write. It gives me hope we can regain control of our once great country.

[NanceGreggs]

10. What an incredibly beautiful compliment, RC

I believe we are still a great country -- we've just been (temporarily) hijacked by a bunch of terrorists who are using the White House as their headquarters.

[Tigress DEM]

8. Interesting question from a Christian perspective.

There are many instances of where Jesus shows he understands what goes on in the hearts of those he deals with to an extent even beyond what they comprehend about themselves.

Samaritan woman at the well.
Nicodemus.
The group that was going to stone the adulteress.
Judas.


So if Jesus looked at a pol and listened to the pretty words not matching the dark and vile heart, he'd certainly be able to make the best choice.

[Bill McBlueState]

9. Why should we care how Jesus would vote?

This is a democracy, not a theocracy. I'll vote my own conscience, thanks.

[NanceGreggs]

12. I think you've missed the point ...

... which is that those who DO claim to be followers of the Christian religion are the very people who are supporting a political party with an obviously non-Christian agenda.

Just for the record, I myself am not a Christian.

[hraka]

27. Thank you, I agree

And I am a Christian. And a lesbian. And a Democrat.

[JeffR]

11. And on the sixth day, she ranted!

Amen!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

13. Dodge, generalize, attack...

all too familiar in the GOP rhetoric.

[ktowntennesseedem]

29. The perfect trinity of GOP tactics -- you nailed it!

Welcome to DU, BushDespiser12!!! I love your user name, its so subtle!

[Golden Raisin]

14. Jesus wouldn't vote

because, were he to come back today, it would be to someplace like Darfur, or perhaps even Iraq. Any visits to the Bush/Neocon/Fundie-dominated USA would be to hurl some pre-Apocalyptic fire & brimstone at the modern day Pharisees and Merchants in the Temple, the hate-spewers, perverters & twisters of his teachings, like Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, etal. I suspect he'd also not be too pleased with the bunch of lying, hypocritical fatcats in the White House either, those who cut aid for the poor & needy while enriching the top 1% of the wealthiest.

[NanceGreggs]

15. Sad, but true.

Jesus, being all-knowing and such, would probably look at those who allegedly promote his teachings, and choose not to be in a place where he was so clearly not wanted.

[intheflow]

18. I don't agree.

If Jesus is God, then he knew what he was getting into back in the day. I think if he's planning a comeback, he'd just as soon come back to the heart of the modern day Pharisees and give them what-for on thier own turf.

But I don't think the Christ will come back as a man. I'm thinking (hoping) the next Christ will be something like a mixed-race lesbian in wheelchair. Talk about oppressed!

[AtomicKitten]

16. I actually like that better than my current bumper sticker ...

Who Would Jesus Torture?

[hfojvt]

17. a couple of flaws, if I may speak for the fundies

as usual.

First, this reminds me of the physics professor who was working a problem and said 'we are ignoring gravity in this problem. We ignore gravity in many of the problems we work on. In fact, there was a physicist who was able to prove how Jesus walked on water. He did it by ignoring gravity.'

My point being, that it is no more fair to discuss how a Christian would vote and leaving out abortion than it is to discuss how Jesus walked on water and leaving out gravity. Who is more "least among us" than a helpless little blastocyst or baby? What good does headstart, AFDC, medicare, HUD, LIHEAP, and food stamps do for one of the two million babies who are murdered every year? That is what they would say. We simply cannot win them with a "hurrah for abortion!!" attitude. We probably will not win alot of them anyway, but perhaps some if we emphasize that we want abortions to be safe, legal and RARE.

You wrote: "While it may come as a shock to the Dennis Pragers of the world, a lot of those people who are planning to vote Democratic next month are good Christians ..." Sometimes it seems to come as a shock to DU as well. The newbie named 'Jesus saves' was widely held to be a troll based mostly on his name.

Second, the Iraq issue is not as clear-cut as you make it to be, that we are murdering many thousands of innocent Iraqis. First, because the WMD threat was believed. Second, because Iraq has been freed from the mass-murdering tyrant Saddam. Third, because the 'terrorists' we are fighting against are much more murderous than we are - see the beheadings for example and today's paper tells of a group of women and children slaughtered. Note - I am not saying any of those arguments have merit, but if you went around and around with them on that issue there probably would be enough dust thrown up to make the issue less clear-cut.

Third, the same argument could be made for torture. If we have captured person A who is part of a gang of thugs which is likely to blow up a mosque or slaughter a group of women and children, then isn't torturing him into giving up his co-horts and/or plans a good thing if it saves lives? Why not, other than the hoary old platitude that the ends don't justify the means?

Fourth, and I actually had a fundy tell me this - the command is for the Christian to help the poor himself, not for Christians to force the Government, or the rich people to help the poor. Jesus did not command his followers to over-throw Caesar and set up a democracy. Their view is going to question whether those programs really help the poor as much as they create a bureaucracy and reward bad behaviour and that the high taxes they require punish hard work and squeeze the middle class.

Thus, the virtues of the Democratic positions, and the faults of the Republican positions, are not as clear-cut to those who are not Democratic true-believers. Some other myths and misconceptions need to be cleared up before it is clear to everyone that our party has "proven itself to me more in keeping with the tenets of Christianity".

[rfranklin]

22. I believe you have refined the basic disagreements...

Patting ourselves on the back for being more Christian is not going to win any hearts and minds. I personally believe that the government can address some social problems such as healthcare and education better than the old system of charities. The Christian churches have 2000 years to deal with those problems and was a miserable failure. It was laws and government and unions and Teddy Roosevelt and FDR that made this country great for working people and the less fortunate. How we reconcile that with the views you enumerated is a puzzle but it must be addressed or the Republicans will have the allegiance of people with those beliefs forever.

[namvet73]

24. Counter point to the Point and Counter point

OK, hvojvt makes some good counter point arguments.

I just saw the movie "Man of The Year" starring Robin Williams. Without giving away the movie or giving it an overall review. When Williams' "Dobbs" character begins his campaign, in debate, he points out that there are problems with both parties, showing that the same old promises are made for some common issues, such as jobs, economy, etc. without any action. That is to say that he stands for yet a third point of view, mainly, just plain honesty. It shows audiences (in the movie) yawning at the same old rhetoric from both parties.

In this case he is the third man, which gains the support of the theater audience, in the idea that both parties need "cleaning up." Unfortunately, in real life, third party runners, who have run on this very idea, ala Ralph Nader, seem to wind up as merely "spoilers."

May I suggest that Bush&Co IS or has turned out to be A third party, but not for the better. Instead of a third party for the better, it is a third party for the worse that does not even support the tenets of his own true conservative party. His gang threatens the two party system, which, when applied properly, can come up with some good compromises through debate. We have virtually un-debated pundits on the airwaves, most of whom are pro-Bush. This has become the case because of the loss of the Fairness Doctrine (under Reagan) that demands that the broadcast media risks losing its license to broadcast if it becomes biased. Air America came about because if that loss of balance and, unfortunately, seems to be threatened by extinction. It's all about the money.

I think in these days, the Democratic party now stands not only for it's own base, but for the voters who have become fed up with both parties. In my own mind, I feel that the Bush administration represents only itself and Bush, himself.

The Republicans in general, don't fulfill the hope that we can regain any balance and justice in the system because, for the most part, they are still a loyal, rubber stamp for Bush.

A regain of Democratic control gives us more hope that we can stop this third, Bush, party in its quest to control everything and literally kill our Constitutional Democracy by violating the Constitution in a way that seems to have spun out of control.

It is true that many things need to be made more clear. Does Pro-choice mean Pro-abortion? I think, on the whole, most people are not pro-abortion, but many are afraid to lose an option that may save their own lives or health. Are Democrats anti-corporation and pro-labor? Again, I think that what we seek is that corporations are held accountable for abuse to employees and customers, not necessarily put out of business. The Bush administration seems to give corporations a completely free ticket to do what they want. This makes no sense. Who runs corporations? People. And, people, rich or poor and, especially, ones in control, need to be held accountable for what they do to other people.

The bottom line: Bush IS NOT A REPUBLICAN. HE IS SOMETHING ELSE! The reader can fill in the blank.

As far as religion goes, many in religious power, use fear to drive their followers. Personally, I think the idea of doing right by others should be driven by empathy and a sincere desire to be good to others. "I know what it's like to be screwed, so I will try not to screw anyone else" or "I appreciated it when someone lent me a helping hand, so I will do so for someone else." Instead, it is often driven by the fear of losing a pass to heaven and the possibility of eternal suffering. I think it is a selfish morality that is based on some self gain or loss. This is what drove terrorists to the mass killing of 9/11.


This is not moral: "I must vote against all abortion or I will not get that Mansion in the sky with an eternal orgasm of happiness I can't seem to get here on earth."

[hraka]

26. I don't know where to start...

Let's start with your 4th argument, shall we? The war in Iraq has has put this country in debt. Plain and simple. At the beginning of Bush's 1st term, we had a federal surplus, despite all the federal "welfare" programs funded during Clinton's "liberal" Democratic stretch in office. We now have a HUGE deficit, $8,550,795,125,087.60 as of Oct 15, 2006, 11:11:09 GMT. (According to the U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock /.) Your share of that is $28,531.23. Pay up, sucker.

Might as well work backward - so, #3. Torture is not a proven form of gaining intel. Torture victims, if they break, will say anything they think will stop their pain. Additionally, if we can torture, why can't others? If we torture citizens of other countries, thereby ignoring the Geneva Convention, what is to stop other countries from capturing and torturing American citizens?

Okay, #2. "First, because the WMD threat was believed." Maybe you believed it. But nothing I've heard so far has made me believe that OUR GOVERNMENT believed it. It was a ruse, an excuse to invade Iraq.
And you don't know what we're doing in those secret prisons, do you? None of us do. THEY'RE SECRET!!! You can say how "much more murderous" the terrorists are than we, but we won't even admit to what we're doing in these prisons, where they are, or who is there.

"The newbie named 'Jesus saves' was widely held to be a troll based mostly on his name." Not in this thread.

So now we're to your 1st point: Abortion. It's here to stay, whether legally or illegally. Legal is safer, both for the woman and for the child, whether she aborts it or not. If a woman gives birth to a child she doesn't want or cannot take care of, that child is more often than not going to have a life of neglect, abuse, and misery. Are you going to take care of it? Social programs like headstart, food stamps, school meals, medicare, etc., are gone.
If she aborts it illegally, complications may require a ER visit, jail time (since you consider it murder), all at our expense anyway.

And finally, how can anyone "prove" how Jesus walked on water. You can't even prove he did. It's faith, a belief. GO ahead, "ignore gravity" and see what happens. I guarantee you'll get wet.

[classof56]

32. Good post. Thanks! n/t

[PegDAC]

69. Well said! n/t

[hfojvt]

74. start at the very beginning

"In the beginning was the word ..."

Newton's second law of arguments says that for every argument there is an equal but opposite counter-argument.

Perhaps I should amend that to say that the arguments are equal only in the eyes of various proponents. As I said in my post - "Note - I am not saying any of those arguments have merit, but if you went around and around with them on that issue there probably would be enough dust thrown up to make the issue less clear-cut."

Actually, probably neither would agree that the issues were not clear cut, but would probably simply have hostility or contempt for their opponent.

Was there some reason you felt like you had to answer everything, or try to? For example, your "answer" to my mention of "Jesus saves" is pretty cavalier and insubstantial. Including it weakens your case in my view. So does your confusion of targets. "Let's start with your 4th argument, shall we? ... Pay up, sucker."

The tone is a bit condescending and the rhetoric personal. I tried to make clear that I was not speaking for myself, but from my understanding of what a fundy would say. Thus your use of "your" is faulty, and statements like "pay up, sucker" aimed at ME (or even NE, MN, MT, or SD) are particularly uncalled for. If you care to peruse my journal you can find some of the things that I actually think including, IIRC, my letter to the editor endorsing Gore in 2000 and emphasizing the deficit. Same with comments like "maybe you believed it". Well, actually I rented a car in Feb. 2003 so I could drive to Lawrence and freeze my a$$ off at an anti-war protest.

Your final remark completely missed the point of my humourous Jesus anecdote. Again, it seems uncalled for, unless hostility and condescension were your goal. Not a good way to win converts in Shark territory, although it may be well received on Jet turf.

[NanceGreggs]

60. There was no need to make an argument for the Fundies ...

... because I wasn't talking about them specifically. All Fundies may be Christians (or claim to be), but not all Christians are Fundies - and, by the same token, not all people of faith are Christians, and not all people who have strong moral values are religious people.

I stand by my contention that it is immoral (and unChristian) to ignore the whole of the behaviour of the current crop of Republicans in office and simply focus on ONE point that one finds to be in keeping with their own beliefs.

Let me put it this way, if I may: I am pro-choice. But what if a Democrat was running for president and said, "I plan to defund all social programs for the poor, I plan to enact policies that will plunge millions more Americans into poverty and homelessness, I plan to increase the use of torture, I plan to virtually eliminate free or subsidized health care and prescription drugs for those who cannot afford them - BUT I will do everything in my power to protect the right to an abortion."

How 'moral' or 'Christian' would I be if I supported such a candidate? Would I be morally justified in plugging my ears to EVERYTHING ELSE he stood for, and simply focus on the ONE POINT that was in keeping with my own beliefs?

As for the use of torture, the Fundies have not accepted it, nor made excuses for its use. They are, for the most part, completly ignorant of it -- as are, I'm afraid, too many Americans. You haven't heard the big-mouths like Falwell and Robertson speaking UP for torture - they have been mute on the topic, because they know they can't 'sell it' to the flock.

Force every Fundie in the country to sit through a slide show of the photos and videos from Abu Ghraib, and I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of them would turn on this administration in a second. That's why these people are encouraged to get their news from FOX and Christian radio/TV programming, Christian newsletters and websites. Keeping them ignorant of the facts is the only way to keep them believing in the 'Christianity' of the GOP.

[hfojvt]

73. I think it is more likely that they blame Abu Ghraib on Lyddie and her

boyfriend and other bad apples than they would on Bush. The buck never stops on Bush's desk.

You say that you were not talking about fundies specifically, but the OP opens talking about "voters from the religious right." Those sound like fundies to me.

I am not sure that pro choice and anti choice have the same moral weight. One the one side you have a right to privacy and a right to make your own medical decisions, and on the other side, a million plus deaths (in a fundies eyes). It is hard to see how those rights, important as they are, would be as morally significant as a million deaths. If, for example, the Iraq war was causing a million deaths a year, wouldn't that outweigh all other issues? Shouldn't it? Especially since the other differences are not as extreme as "I plan to defund all social programs for the poor" but are more like a difference between a 2% cut and a 4% increase.

[NanceGreggs]

81. No, Prager as not talking about Fundies ...

... and neither am I. Had he said that the Fundamentalists would still vote Republican, I wouldn't have bothered arguing the point.

He was talking about religious conservatives, meaning Republicans 'of faith' - the same tired old Coulterism concept that Democrats are 'godless', non-Christians who are morally bankrupt - ergo they do not appeal to the 'more religious' voters. Prager himself is a Catholic and includes himself in this group, and he is far from what one would ever consider a Fundie.

This is why I started with 'putting aside the issue of abortion', because with Christian voters (or voters of other faiths), abortion is NOT a defining issue and some Christians are actually pro-choice.

My argument here is that if you look at the actions and policies of both parties, the Democrats' agenda is much more in keeping with Christian and religious values than the Republicans. And ALL voters have had ample time to come to that conclusion about the current administration. They're still TALKING about what godly people they are - while their policies in office have been anything BUT.

That is why I take such issue when I hear people like Prager (and there are a lot of them out there getting air-time) stating that the GOP's values are shared by people of faith throughout the country.

If bankrupting the country, literally stealing from the poor and middle-class to give tax cuts to the wealthy, causing the deaths of 600,000 Iraqi civilians, and adopting the use of torture are now considered to be 'Christian values', then apparently modern-day Christianity has thrown Jesus Christ out of their churches. Who knew?

As for the true Fundies, I think this Administration has lost their loyalty. The promises made to secure their votes - like a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage - have all been broken. And I believe that for many (those few who actually pay attention to the REAL news and not just FAUX) the concept of torture was a final tipping point. They won't vote Democratic - but many of them won't vote at all. They have been betrayed by this president, and they are FINALLY begining to realize it.

[kentjay]

19. other then the abortion argument,

i don`t seen anything about jesus in the republicans,and the abortion problem and it is a problem has more to do with a personal decision between a women,her doctor and her creator.the constitution states NOTHING about abortion,of course unless you read between the lines and i thought rethugs were strict constructionists,that said, if one searches the bible they might discover that the democratic party comes closer to jesus` thoughts then the other party,i.e. caring about people,against war,caring for the sick,elderly,etc.jesus would want the moneychangers gone from this govt.since i`m a deist i can`t use jesus` name too much for i would become a hypocrite like the rethugs.suffice it to say,the rethugs are a horrid political party and there nothing godly i can find about them.sorry.

[7P Dude]

31. You answered your own post in your title

"other then the abortion argument"

Think about it from the point of view of a pro-lifer for a second. If you truly believed that abortion is the killing of an innocent child (which is the only way to be an intellectually honest pro-lifer) would you consider the deaths of those 500k+ children each year more important or social programs more important?

[hfojvt]

56. probably still over 1 million

twice what you estimate
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=...
Although I find in curious that even in May of 2005, they are only able to estimate 2002 and 2001.

[TygrBright]

64. Unfortunately true. To the passionately committed abortion opponents...

...that argument is rather like "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

There is really no way to get one-issue (anti-abortion) voters to vote in favor of a candidate who represents a Party that is committed to protecting women's lives and rights over their own bodies. Nuh-uh. Ain't gonna happen and we shouldn't even bother to go there.

However, (and I *think* this was Nance's point,) there are plenty of Christians and even a few Christianists who do not make every political decision based on abortion politics. For them, expanding the issues of how to express Christian faith in our political decisions should be EXACTLY the argument employed. Note that there is no way to distinguish the committed one-issue voter from their fellow-travelers on that issue, so in addressing a roomful, you'll never convince every one, and the static will never go away. But you might penetrate a few ears and minds.

Honestly, today's Christians from evangelical and fundamentalist sects are uneasy. Look at the growing strength of the "environmentalist conscience" movement among them, and the terror that inspires in the Elmer Gantries of the Christianist leadership. It's a good time for people of faith who are committed Democrats and believe that Democratic policies represent the teachings of Christ better than Republican policies to be talking seriously and respectfully to our fellow Christians.

The rest of you are free to ignore us, and play among yourselves...

magnanimously,
Bright

hopefully,

Bright

[LeahMira]

80. Is it possible ...

... to be a moral individual in an immoral society?

That's basically what's at issue because some people believe they cannnot live comfortably in a nation that permits the immorality of abortion.

Of course others do not think that abortion is even remotely akin to murder, and many of them believe they cannot live comfortably in a nation that permits the immorality of poverty especially in the midst of such extreme wealth.

If you (generically) are someone who believes that abortion is the killing of an innocent child, can you (again, generically) live honestly and with personal integrity among those who allow abortion? Can you understand that those who say abortion is not murder are as sincere in their convictions as you are in yours? Can you simply hold to your beliefs and live according to those beliefs yourself, or must the society in which you live be one where abortion is forbidden and punished as, for instance, homicide?

Can you live as a moral individual in (what you believe to be) an immoral society?

[cleveramerican]

20. if you demand...

religious pronoucements from candidates you are begging to be lied to,and its the easiest lie they will ever tell.
God is within,the rest is showbiz.

Great post.

[theHandpuppet]

21. This deserves to be a bumper sticker!

"The GOP: Come for the Sermon – Stay for the Hypocrisy"

Priceless.

[cornermouse]

23. The problem I have with the neo-cons.

They always assume the worst of the other person.

On the issue of abortion, they always assume that the person who chooses to have an abortion either does so for frivolous reasons without any real thought about what they're doing or is evil in intent.

At the same time, these same people have this notion that mom is supposed to stay home and raise them even though the family won't have enough money to pay their bills. Unfortunately mom can't stay home and raise kids because these same people have tended to support those who opposed raises and higher wages for the "breadwinner" in the family and unions. Around here at least, they have also simultaneously supported people who have tried to cut off free or reduced rate child immunizations for those who can't afford regular price, school lunches, and "communist" things like food stamps which keep a lot of children from going to bed hungry. I don't see anything christian about any of these positions.

The fact is children cost money and if we, as a nation, want to stop abortion then we better bite the bullet, raise taxes, and pay for their education, health care, and physical safety. Some of these issues has the added benefit of making the nation as a whole healthier and, for example, in the issue of childhood immunizations reduces the threat of illnesses such as whooping cough, measles, tuberculosis, and polio from sweeping through the nation again. It would appear they have not yet thought about that little fact. Refusal to properly care for our children is simply not christian. For that matter, refusal to properly care for all those who can't care for themselves is simply not christian.

The best and most effective way to do so is through the programs we already had set up. And due to the fact that a lot of fundies think we have prospered so long is because we were following the will of God (a belief that I have heard a lot), I will add the thought that perhaps the social system which we had set up to care for those less fortunate; the social system which the republicans are bent on destroying, is the reason and when it is gone our prosperity will also be gone.


Okay now that I have that rant off my chest, torture is fundamentally wrong. I don't see any honest way they can work their way around the lack of morality in that one.

The fundie is right. Jesus did not say that christians should overthrow Caesar. He also did not say christians should become Caesar. Not only that, he specifically said that a christian's kingdom was in Heaven, not Earth; something Falwell, Robertson, and others should think about.

[greiner3]

25. I seem to have read somewhere that;

Prayer causes cancer!

[Vinca]

28. One line, more than any, reflects what I feel -

"It is not for the party that has proven itself to be more in keeping with the tenets of Christianity to prove itself worthy"

We may desire the "fundie" vote, but we needn't beg for it - or dangle monetary rewards before their eyes. If this segment of the population is hung up on gays and embryos to the exclusion of everything else, we can't change it. They need to decide if they want to support "crystal cathedrals" or a hot meal for a homeless family.

[7P Dude]

30. "Put Aside" Abortion?

You can't simply throw the abortion issue out if you are going to discuss this issue. It's intellectually dishonest to both yourself and your readers.

Between 500k and one million babies killed each year trumps any of the current scandals in about two seconds in the mind of anybody who is truly pro-life. Social programs vs hundreds of thousands of dead children? Please.

BTW, no I'm not getting into a debate about whether those hundreds of thousands of abortions are abortions of tissue or the ending of lives. In the context of this discussion, the people who you claim should really be Democrats have already decided.

Put aside the abortion issue for for religious voters? Could you ever simply 'put aside' the Iraq War when looking at the current administration?

My only point is this entire article is an exercise in futility and shows your lack of understanding of how deeply anybody who is truly pro-life holds that belief when you simply "put aside" that issue.

[LeftishBrit]

36. But can the religious people honestly put the Iraq War aside either?

If you are 'pro-life', then surely this means opposition to a war that involves killing many innocent people, including unborn babies. And to economic policies that result in many people dying unnecessarily, including unborn babies who die as a result of lack of prenatal care, or in obstructed childbirth.

I can understand that the extreme pro-lifers might choose not to vote at all, or might start/ vote for an alternative small party; but I don't see how they can reconcile their views with those of pro-war, anti-economic justice, Republicans, any more than with pro-choice Democrats. It sounds as though the right-wing are brainwashing people into thinking that their candidates are ordained by God. "Divine right of George Bush".

[7P Dude]

39. I didn't say vote Republican...

...but the idea that abortion can be "put aside" is only allowing yourself to be led down the wrong path on this issue.

If you want to look at pure numbers, even the most inflated numbers of estimated deaths from the Iraq War over numerous years are still below the YEARLY abortion count for just this nation.

If you don't see how war and economics don't trump abortion of three quarter of a million babies per year, you don't understand the pro-life view. For somebody that's pro-choice, abortion really shouldn't be that big a deal any way because it's not really a life that is ended. For somebody that's truly pro-life, abortion is nothing short of genocide based on the situation a person is born into.

[NanceGreggs]

62. If I may?

"For somebody that's truly pro-life, abortion is nothing short of genocide based on the situation a person is born into."

And what would you call 600,000 deaths in Iraq, if not genocide - and not due to a situation these people were born into, but deliberate genocide by the war-mongering GWB and his supporters?

Perhaps the problem is too many so-called Christians who believe that aborting WHITE American babies 'trumps' murdering innocent brown non-Americans every time. I doubt that Jesus would look favourably on that thinking. Maybe these alleged Christians should be reminded that Jesus was a brown, non-American himself.

[PegDAC]

70. Do you

honestly believe that you can know the circumstances of a total stranger's life well enough to be able to tell that person what to do with her life in the event of a pregnancy which may endanger her health, for instance? I don't feel that I do, which is why I am pro-choice. And if the pro-birth crowd insist on limiting access to contraception, as they are trying to do, the need for abortion remaining a legal option will be even greater.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. The point is, I doubt that one in a hundred so-called pro-lifers

really gives a damn about the babies. They may have a hard on for the IDEA of babies, but for the babies themselves? If the nutcases really wanted to do something about the abortion rate, why arent they opening clinics and care facilities which give FREE medical care to pregnant girls, and provide FREE adoption services for them after they give birth? With the kind of resources they command, it should be a simple thing.

So why don't they? Because in their heart of hearts they don't give a flying fuck about the babies or the poor young women who have them. And the poor young women are very aware of that, and that is a major reason they are having abortions to begin with -- they don't see any other option.

[7P Dude]

40. And that's why you will never understand...

"The point is, I doubt that one in a hundred so-called pro-lifers really gives a damn about the babies."

That statement right there is why you will never truly understand the issue. There ARE clinics offering free medical care to pregnant girls, there ARE free adoption services. Do you have any clue how long the waiting list is of parents who would do anything to raise a baby that would otherwise be aborted is?

"Nutcases", "don't give a flying fuck"? If you just want to throw insults, leave the discussion to people who have something resembling a chance of actually accomplishing something on this issue.

Trying to demonize those who do not share your point of view doesn't contribute to anything but misguiding yourself into ignorance.

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. I understand better than you think. But then you probably think that

if I really understood, then I would think as you think. I think not.

This person put it much better, with nifty charts and all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

What do YOU think?

[7P Dude]

43. What? I never said you have to think like me

Where do you come up with these stereotypes?

I fully understand that pro-choice people can have a morally correct point of view if they don't believe that a fetus is alive. There's nothing wrong with that regardless of how much I might disagree with it. You on the other hand have decided that you must put down pro-lifers as nutcases and made numerous false claims to support your view of them. Of course, that type of vitriol is to be expected on an internet forum but it doesn't make that reasoning correct.

For your own good, seriously consider ceasing your desire to demonize your opponents or fit them into a little box. There's no need for it and you aren't going to do anything but drive a wedge between yourself and those you don't agree with.

BTW, when did I ever say that I think people should vote for Republicans because of abortion? Not once. I was pointing out that the entire premise of "putting aside" abortion when trying to court religious voters is accepting the fact that the argument that they should come to the Democratic party due to religious reasons doesn't hold up in the abortion issue.

Abortion is too big an issue to put it aside for religious voters. The Democratic Party must find a way to ADDRESS, not put aside the issue if it truly wants to gain traction with religious voters.

[joeprogressive]

67. Many of them are nutcases

just ask rove or bush. That's what they call them.

[cornermouse]

44. Do you have any clue how long the waiting list is

of older children and disabled children who want and need a home even more than the perfect in every way just born baby? Let's take care of the children who already exist.

Cranking up the baby carrying "machines" (because that's what you're reducing them to) while more or less throwing less able children on the trash heap is not pro-life.

[7P Dude]

45. May I ask

What your point is?

No, that's not pro-life and it's not what I said either. Why do you feel the need to add things to my post that I didn't even say?

[cornermouse]

48. See post #40

And I quote or cut and paste

"Do you have any clue how long the waiting list is of parents who would do anything to raise a baby that would otherwise be aborted is?"

I get really tired of hearing that argument. As far as I'm concerned, unless and until loving homes are found on a regular basis for all those already born there's not really any point in talking about stopping abortion.

[PegDAC]

71. Yeah.

There are free medical care and free adoption services as long as you are willing to be humiliated at every turn by being told what a horrible person you are for having become pregnant, even if it is by rape, statutory or otherwise, incest, or being so naive as to believe a guy you think loves you when he tells you you won't get pregnant, or that he'll be there for you if you do.

[prole_for_peace]

50. to the fundie its about taking the punishment for having sex.

"oh you had sex and got pregnant? well now you have to raise a child for 18 years. and we won't help at all"

that is also why they oppose the hpv vaccine. if the threat of cancer isn't enough to stop someone from having sex then the punishment is getting cancer.

[NanceGreggs]

55. I think it is intellectually dishonest to believe ...

... that ALL 'religious voters' are anti-choice. They're not. Every day, devout Christian women get abortions, because they have decided that in the context of their individual circumstances, it is the right and moral thing to do. Just as millions of Catholics use birth control, even though it is strictly forbidden by the Church - again, because their circumstances dictate that having another child would not be morally responsible.

In addition, many religious people, while they would NEVER have an abortion themselves because they believe it is morally wrong, at the same time believe it is a matter of individual choice and should remain so. To say that ALL religious voters believe EXACTLY the same things in every instance is naive.

The main point of my piece, however, was the fact that while espousing themselves to be the party of good Christian values, the Republicans presently in power have proven, BY THEIR ACTIONS AND POLICIES, to be totally contrary to accepted Christian values. And people of faith have now had more than ample time to come to that realization.

I think the current stance of the Republicans in power was summed up succinctly by Katherine Harris(!) last week, when she stated that Bill Nelson was not truly a Christian, "because he doesn't believe the things that we say we believe." Exactly, Katherine - not doesn't believe what we believe, but doesn't believe the things we SAY we believe.

It was one thing for good, moral voters to swallow the pro-Christian rhetoric handed out by these people before they were in control. It is quite another to continue to believe that rhetoric when you have now seen that their actions have proven them to be otherwise.

[kineneb]

65. easy: Birth=Death

No matter whether the fetus comes to term and is born, or is aborted, it will ultimately die. Period. That which lives, dies. The length of that life is irrelevant to the universe. Look at the infants being blown to bits in war zones around the world. The fundies should be for extreme birth control, so that the only eggs that get fertilized are wanted as full-term births. Otherwise, their position- which is based on emotion, and not logic- can and will be shot full of holes.

Oh, and if all of those children are forced to be born, are the fundie churches willing to cough up the money to completely pay for their first 18 years, so they will not become a burden to society as a whole??? Hmmm???

[jhrobbins]

33. I am a Jewish Presbyterian or maybe a Presbyterian Jew...

I don't really know how to describe myself. I have Jewish heritage on one side and Protestant heritage on the other. I define myself as a Christian, but I am in touch with my Jewishness as well. Anyway, the point of this is to explain my confusion at the way it seems that many of my Jewish friends and relatives are changing their historic support of the Democratic Party and moving to the Republican ranks. This is as confusing to me as African American Republicans and Log Cabin Republicans. I just know that the Republican Party's embracing of Christianity seems so specious and calculated. As stated before, it has been the Democratic Party that has walked the talk of Christianity, so why the egress of so many so called 'opressed' minorities - Dennis Prager to mention one. Is it so crass now as to boil down to economics?

[7P Dude]

37. One Word

"As stated before, it has been the Democratic Party that has walked the talk of Christianity"

One word, "abortion"

Any attempt to ignore that issue when speaking of Christianity is only pushing yourself further and further away from being able to actually understand it.

[NanceGreggs]

63. Again the implied assumption ...

... that all Christians are anti-choice, or that all Christians are incapable of basing their votes on any other issue.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that everyone of the Christian faith is a 'fundie' type, marching in lock-step, unable to come to decisions or make life choices based on their own sense of morality.

Many Christians are pro-choice, just as many non-religious people (even atheists) are anti-abortion.

Many anti-choicers have voted for pro-choice candidates, that choice being based on weighing the whole of a candidate's agenda rather than on its various components. Many pro-choicers have voted for anti-choice candidates, also because they based their support on other criteria they felt was important.

"Abortion - any attempt to ignore that issue when speaking of Christianity is only pushing yourself further away from being able to actually understand it."

This may come as a shock, but millions of Christians are quite capable of 'ignoring' that issue when they vote. Again, not ALL Christians see the abortion issue as 'the' one and only issue that defines their faith. To think otherwise is not giving due to millions of people of faith who practice that faith within their own sense of morality, and not within the confines of what they have been TOLD to do by others.

While I do not agree with the anti-abortion crowd, I certainly understand their position and respect it. However, I have NO respect for people who believe the Republican party is a 'Christian party' because they are (publicly, at least) opposed to abortion, while totally ignoring the rest of their behaviour which is so overtly non-Christian in every way.

[Wise Doubter]

34. the Democratic party, “is a party that does not share any of their values.

Well, let`s hope not !!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. On that most fundamental of neocon policy planks, alone,

corporatism, the remnant of Conservative Christians stand unequivocally condemned in the eyes of God.

If Big Business were a human individual, it would be a psychopath, and not just any cold, conscienceless psychopath, but an infinitely brutal and cruel psychopath, wreaking death and destruction all over the world, although most unforgivably on its own compatriots - its own family.

It stands to reason, therefore, that, unless a person is of substantially subnormal worldly intelligence, if he/she supports such an economic philosophy, they must be either a psycopath, themselves, or arguably worse, an extreme sociopath, still retaining a dim murmuring of conscience, and consequently, all the more blameworthy. There will be no safety in numbers on Judgment Day. If men - the critics of corporatism - are not so easily fooled, we may be sure that God is not.

[Donkeykick]

41. No matter...

what Mr. Prager says, I believe that he is only saying this in order to salvage a devastating blow to the GOP this November.

People, such as Tucker Carlson, is already taking the lead to move the pachyderms away from a platform of embracing televangelists and get the party back to the center.

Think about this. What has the conservatives done for the religious right? There is no Federal Marriage Amendment and countless other religious intrusions that they are not getting support for from their government of conservative thinkers. Do you want to know why the GOP has not given them these sort of things? Its simple really. They know that to do so would be unconstitutional.

Another bit of evidence on this is David Kuo's book explaining what Bush & Co. actually believes the religious right is all about--its been in all of the news here lately. Just Google it.

In conclusion conservatives can not keep this up forever without the religious right catching on--promising to do things for them and never delivering, and then living a horrendous lifestyle while preaching good family values!

[Scooter24]

47. Wonderfully written Nancy...

[madrchsod]

51. he wouldn`t vote for either side

he leaves that up to us to decide. i do think he would be upset with anyone who uses his name to be elected,after all, he thought our kingdom was in heaven..

i just love those"vote jesus" yard signs...http://www.gatconline.org/images/topics/vote.bmp



http://www.votejesus.com /
Vote Jesus! The Campaign Kicks Off in 2006

[Maestro]

52. Agreed, Let the fundies rot in GOP hell.

The dems had better not lend a hand to them. They are very vocal minority that for the past six years has enjoyed and uncontested platform on which they regurgitate their disgusting rhetoric. As usual, a very well written and reason op-ed.

[hvn_nbr_2]

53. The "necessary" "value" that we won't support...

is hate. It's that simple.

They can justify covering up for pedophiles, even hypocritically covering for the gays that they hate, as long as the public stance is hating the people that they hate.

They can tolerate any level of corruption, any level of influence peddling, any level of stealing, any level of lying, any level of unjustified warmongering. They may not like any of those things, but they can tolerate them because they don't hate those things or the people who do them. If someone does all of those things that they don't really like but still hates the same people they hate (gays, sexually liberated people, dark people, Muslims and pagans), then the proper hatred is the winning "value."

[lolly]

54. Pro-punishment, not pro-baby

If rightwingers really did want to prevent abortions (or, as they believe, "save babies,") they would be promoting contraceptive availability and awareness.

Instead, they are working hard to restrict and even outlaw contraceptive--in some cases, even for married couples.

The best way to keep women from having abortions is to help them avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

But of course, that is NOT what the fanatics want. They want women and teenage girls to suffer the punishment for having sex.

The "Help" that is given to these women by the wingers is hardly sufficient to pay for child care, health care, etc for a child. Those "crisis centers" bamboozle girls/women into thinking they'll have all the help they need, then disappear once it's too late to have an abortion.

Right wingers try to cut off any programs that help these women become self-sufficient. An on-site day care coop for pregnant high school girls in my area came under fire from right-wingers for "rewarding girls for behaving irresponsibly." Where's the oh-so-deep concern for the well-being of the baby there?

Hell, right-wing "Christian" schools kick girls out and won't let them attend graduation if they're pregnant (tell me that doesn't encourage abortion?)

Finally, the oft-mentioned adoption option--what this advocates is that teenaged girls become brood mares for upper-middle class families. While I have sympathy for couples who can't have children, and I would fight for laws making it easier to adopt, it is NOT ethical to tell teenaged girls they should undergo the risks, emotional upheaval, and shame of pregnancy so that other couples will get the perfect baby they want.

[lilypad_567]

57. 7p dude

if it was really about life, than there should be health care. abortion didn't came out of thin air, abortion happen because the women seen no other alternative. how could you offer ur baby a better life if ur husband left you, divorce you, are in prison, given the death penality, abuse u, an alcohalic, or fail to be the father that he is suppose to be, or when he refuse to acknowledge that the child is his to began with, oh i heard the arguement, no need for social programs and the like because babies are dying, but many women who chose to terminate their pregnancy seem that there are no point to carry to terms if there were no social programs to began with. how could a women offer there baby a beter life if they are working at a job that pays 5.50 a hour, while their boss want to destroy their union, and they can't afford healthcare because the charties arn't helping enough with the medical so now they have no healthcare, nor are they inform enough about perventing pregnancy. 7p dude, i think that there is a difference between being pro life and anti sex. those that are really pro life i praise, because they are true believer but i believe that there are more people out there that are anti sex. it is all about the father. if the daughter chose to disobey the father than she deserve punishment. it is all black and white, if u don't behave in a certain manner than u deserve to be punish. that how it is with abortion, to those that claim life but are really anti sex, are the one that makes Democrat angry, because they care more about punishing the women for having pre matrial sex and disobeying the father than about the sancity of life. really, many of the reason why the Dem's are turn off by the anti sex people are because they want to outlaw contraceptive for women, because it is a women duty to obey the father and give birth, while denying them the proper health. that isn't being pro life. i hate it when the anti sex people alieg them self with the prolifers, because the prolifer, they are really being for life, but there are more antisex people who are in sheep clothes than there are prolife that are sheep.

[Blackbird_Highway]

58. The American Religious Right Bible

First of all, you have to understand that these people don't use the same edition of the Bible as the liberal cultural elite. In their bible, Jesus stands by the side of the rich people, and oppresses the poor. Jesus is also a big proponent of gun ownership and chewing tobacco. He preaches smaller government, as manifested by increased government spending and governmental intrusion into your personal life. All of this is supported by smaller taxes and borrowing from the Chinese. Jesus also wants to be able to track every move you make, everyone you talk too, and especially everything you write. Jesus doesn't think much of science. It's just a passing fad, and besides, he doesn't understand it too much anyway.

If anyone, anywhere else in the world disagrees with anything that his personal servant, G. W. Bush wants, then Jesus want Americans to kick those peoples asses.

Now, if your bible reads as such, how could you possibly vote for a Democrat?

[lolly]

59. Right-wing Bible

Actually, I think the right-wing "Christian" Bible has been reduced to a list: "Who you Have to Hate to get to Heaven"

That's what they know, that's what's important to them, that's how they vote.

[tlsmith1963]

66. One Thing You Forgot

There is a book coming out in which it is stated that Karl Rove & other Republicans have been calling the fundies weirdos behind their backs. This book was written by a fundie who has worked in the Republican Party. Rove claims that he never called fundies names, but I don't believe him. Rove hates just about everyone. So this could be the thing that drives fundies from the Republican Party. I hope it happens, because the conservatives have courted the fundies so strongly that if they leave, the conservatives are in for a lot of trouble. They deserve to be in trouble after the mess they have caused.

[sofa king]

68. I don't think Jesus digs that democracy thing.

He wants to be King of something, as I recall.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Stephen Colbert said it best

"Posting the ten commandments in public buildings or banning homosexual unions is small government. But if they're caring for the poor, turning the other cheek, or sitting down with tax gatherers, that's big government. To put it simpler, mentioning Jesus in your speech is small government; Doing what Jesus asked is big government."

[blondeatlast]

77. Amen (pun absolutely intended) to that! nt

[The Wizard]

75. The Christian Right is Neither

Christian nor right. Their religion is money that says "In God We Trust" on every piece of it. Can anyone find those words on any house of worship?
Anyone who thinks killing hundreds of thousands of people to bring them democracy is immoral.
The hucksters posing as moral paragons are but mere shysters preying on fools who either can't or won't think. They appeal to the worst fears and lowest instincts. This is the party most closely aligned with a Klan that burns crosses as a means to intimidate. They are in fact un-American and anti-Christian. These self loathing swine could use what Barry Goldwater prescribed for Jerry Falwell, a good kick in the ass.
It's incumbent on patriotic Americans who believe in the Constitution to deliver that kick on election day.

[KikiDisme]

79. For an idea of what it might be like for Jesus to come back

right now, I highly recommend Tony Hendra's "The Messiah of Morris Avenue". It's a hard read at the end but definitely gives you pause as to what it may be like for the son of God, a "subversive" to encounter the religious extremists running the U.S.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "I'm a Christian AND a Democrat" and it's really sad that someone would have to make those (I want one). I do like the new GOP slogan...that should be a bumper sticker!