Suckers for Jesus

[passthecorn]

As a pastor in what a lot of people here would call a Fundamentalist church (a fundy by the "pop" definition of the word not the true definition--that's another discussion though), I find myself without a political home in either party. I like hanging out here because the website is well-done and I am a closet political junkie. I don't talk politics at church, because our church is a good mix of dems and repubs.

Anyway, the Suckers for Jesus was well done, but there are a few things I would like to add to why my wife and I could not fully embrace the Dem party, even though we lean left on several issues.

1) As an anti-war, anti-death penalty voter, for whom should I vote? I saw an entire thread here dedicated to a Hardball segment where Repub's were showing Kerry said he was the anti-war candidate when he really didn't say that. I agree. He is not the anti-war candidate. There is no anti-war candidate. He also is going to be for the death penalty, just like all serious nat'l candidates are now, including the loved "Big Dawg" BTW, I voted Kucinich.

2) Check any, I mean any religious thread on DU, and ask what truly religious person would feel at home here?

3) There is no compromise on the abortion rights issue, even as I was typing this, I deleted "pro-life" not wanting the flame. The Dem party may be big, but it's not that big

4) Similarly, pubic schools are going out of their way to teach my children a secular worldview. I am not saying teach Christianity, I am saying teach math, let me deal with the worldview. However, it isn't enough for there to be separation of church and state, but further than that, a desire to raise up a generation of secularists.

In the end I don't believe that the Dem party is big enough for me, because I am too liberal in parts and too conservative in others, and in all the wrong ways.

Like my wife said driving home yesterday, "we're practically Democrats anyway"

Not really, not in the "right" ways

[A_Possum]

1. So be an independent

Look at each candidate and make your choice that way, not by party.

That's what I do. There's a lot of people on DU I vigorously disagree with. I've vote Republican/Perot/McGovern in my life, and no presidential candidate I voted for has ever won.

I personally am a secularist and proud of it, but you're welcome here in my view.

Sometimes you just have to take the hard, lonely road. Or it feels like it.

[jackieforthedems]

21. Bush Represents Everything Evil

I agree with you possibly being Independent. Although I have always voted Democrat (since I started voting - Mondale was the first candidate I ever voted for), I like to consider myself an Independent. Bush, no matter how religious he pretends to be, represents everything evil - war, executions, the family/business connections to Hitler and the Bin Ladens, and I could go on and on. Democrats are always accused of being the un-Godly ones, but I'll tell you, they're the ones to always make the peace in wars, they are the compassionate ones who believe in providing for our country's disabled, elderly and veterans, they do a much better job of funding our schools, etc... If those are evil things, then I must really be confused. Read the Bible and think of the lessons Jesus tried to teach us. Wasn't it to help your neighbors, peace, love, etc? Jesus was accused of hanging with the wrong crowd, too.

[salinen]

2. You may be lumping yourself

with the Falwell crowd that are despised at du. Listen, I'm a Jew. So when I here someone condemning the Jews for their treatment of the Palistians, I can't take it personal, because I feel the same way.

The abortion issue is sticky. I have a tough time with this also. But no party will mirror your exact desires. The Dems come way closer for my taste.

I think you are in the right town, but maybe on the wrong street.

[yardwork]

3. As one member of DU, I appreciate your post

I see your point on several issues, but my views are a little different. I hope you are looking for some dialogue, because I love to talk with others who don't exactly share my views. That's the foundation of democracy. I have a feeling you agree.

1. Anti-war candidates. I agree with your statement that neither of the candidates is a pacifist. Neither's stated policy on Iraq is in keeping with Jesus's teaching. The sad reality is that pacifist candidates get nowhere in the United States. Look what happened to Kucinich - he was derided as an unelectable candidate from day one. How can we pacifists change this? By demanding pacifist candidates. By writing letters to the editor and preaching from our pulpits about the evils of war. If we all do our part, maybe in the future the warlike nature of American politics will change. In the meantime, I vote for Kerry because he is a thousand times less warlike than Bush.

2. Religious threads. I am a Christian Wiccan. Very few people in the United States have the same spiritual views as I do, but I don't mind. The U.S. Constitution guarantees me a right to believe as I wish. Bush would like to change that. Democrats want to keep religion and politics separate. I agree with them. Believe and let others believe as they will is my motto.

3. Abortion. There are lots of pro-life Democrats. I am one. I would like to see a much more comprehensive approach to health care and health education in this country. I want to see abortion become unnecessary and unused. Will you join me in the fight for better health care for all Americans?

4. Secular schools. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I certainly don't want Christianity or any one religion taught in the schools as the "right" way to worship. Any mainstream religion would be contrary to my personal views. What is a secular worldview? Are schools teaching that all religions are wrong? Are schools teaching that spirituality is wrong? If so, they are wrong to do so, and that should be taken care of at the local level. I believe that public schools should teach respect for every individual's right to worship as they choose (or not). That is in keeping with the U.S. Constitution.

[passthecorn]

12. I love dialog

1) I understand in a "post 9/11 world" a pacifist wouldn't work, I would just settle for somebody who doesn't believe "if someone threatens us, we're gonna bomb the hell out of them" Some people want to believe Kerry isn't like that, but listen to him.

2) Religious freedom. I would love to believe that Democrats want to keep religion and politics separate. I certainly believe that they should be. The problem comes when political issues and moral/spiritual issues collide. Here at DU the answer is "once an issue becomes political religious people/institutions should shut up or register as a political group and lose tax exempt status" I want to be in a place where religious people can speak publicly and that be OK.

example: Some Catholic priests say Kerry shouldn't be able to receive Mass. Good for them, if that is what they believe their religion teaches. I don't agree with them, but here they do not seem to have the right to say that.

3) Be careful using the phrase "unused" with regard to abortion, you might get blowed up, real good. In the compromise dept, I sometimes I think that I would settle for the safe, legal and rare, but I don't know if I have ever heard anyone, say it, mean it and follow through. So I don't know what it would look like.

4) The creation of the universe and the origin of man are not issues I want schools to tackle. I don't want them defining marriage, family or morality. however, this is what they do. To do these things in a non-religious way, more times than not is to do them in an anti-religious way

Secular world view: The world was created on accident, people were not a special creation from God. Morality flows from this. I say don't address these issues at all, let the family do that.

[yardwork]

15. I think our differences in opinion are becoming clearer

but I believe that we have a lot of common ground.

1) I haven't heard Kerry say that if someone threatens us we'll bomb the hell out of them. I don't think that Kerry would have invaded Iraq. I think his position on the war now is a combination of political necessity and the need to support our troops now that they are in the middle of a disaster. In any case, the choice between Bush and Kerry on this is clear to me.

2) I've read many threads on religion here and I think you are over-generalizing one point of view. There are many points of view on this issue and they are represented here, based on my observations. However, in the specific example you provided, I do think that the threat to excommunicate politicians based on their votes is a political threat, and therefore inappropriate for the Catholic Church.

3) Safe, legal, and rare. You just heard me say it and mean it. There are others here at DU who go much further than that. Democrats are deeply divided on this issue, as are Republicans.

4) This is our area of deepest difference, I think. I do want the schools to teach science. I see no contradiction between the Bible and scientific understanding of the origins of man and the universe. Since you do, it would make sense for you to send your children to a religious school or home-school them. That is your right in the United States. However, I feel strongly that it is the right of public school children to learn about science. This is an area on which we are unlikely to agree. However, if you are choosing your political affiliation on this basis, I will say that there are lots of Republicans who also disagree with you, and plenty of Democrats who agree with your views.

[sinkingfeeling]

18. I just can't help myself, but I disagree with your statement that

"...people were not a special creation from God. Morality flows from this." I do not believe in God, yet I would be willing to stack my morality against any reglious person's. You say that the creation of the universe and origin of man, definition of marriage, family, and morality are issues you do not want 'taught' in schools. But these are either the sciences or issues I do not want religion to define to me. As a divorced mother, do not limit your definition of family to Adam and Eve within LAW. If your church wants to define the 'sanctity' of marriage, that's fine, because 'scanctity' means 'holiness'. But please, what does that have to do with a government's issuing a license, which by having, gives two people special benefits, denied to single individuals? The same can be applied to abortion.... any church can preach their rules and instructions to their flock, but my beliefs are not yours...can you explain why if 'life begins at conception', God destroys 67.5% of those fertilized eggs before they come to term? If you hold that belief, fine...just do not mandate via LAW that those of us who do not hold that belief are quilty of 'murder'.

We will probably never agree on definitions of marriage, family, or possibly even, morality. I do not lie, cheat, steal, harm living people nor animals. I pay my taxes; give cashiers back money I should not be getting when they make change; I donate as much time and money as I can to helping others; I write to GIs in the army; I do not spend money with those corporations I feel cause harm to our planet, people, or animals. But I think that my 'family' is greater than just my son and myself. I think 'marriage' benefits should be extended to gays, not out-lawed. I think corporatism and greed are destroying America and that the US is no more deserving of God's blessings than any where else on earth.

I think that knowledge trumps all. People must be open to new ideas and new revealations of scientific research. I want schools to teach critical analysis and thought. Let all children see, hear and learn about the diverse peoples and places. I do not think God would approve of a homogeneous world.


Left out word....edit

[passthecorn]

24. Epistemology and other 10 cent words

First, I hope that I didn't imply that anyone who didn't agree with special creation was immoral or amoral. I didn't mean to do that if I did. Relativism is the predominant morality that springs from a more naturalistic worldview, which is not what I would want my daughter to be taught.

To me this is the big question for that issue, which belongs in it's own thread, since this thread is about whether or not Evangelical/Fundys can find a welcome home in the Dem party, is this:

Is this a religious belief? Science, which predicates the belief that God is both incapable and unwilling to interfere with the course of nature, is the final authority on the origins of the universe and people.

If this is a religious belief, should it be taught? If it is not, why is it not?

Question for this thread, can these kinds of questions be asked and discussed without a general feeling of ridicule and accusation of fanaticism and shoving religion down people's throats?

Back to the article, secularists in the Republican party at worst tolerate Fundy's and at best respect them. In the Dem party it is best scoffing and snickering and we've all seen in threads at DU what is worst. That is what the article was getting at, and that would have to change if the Dem party is going to be able recruit and cultivate "soft-hearted" fundys

[fiorello]

26. Response from a scientist

The question of "science" is maybe secondary to the min thread - but the response will come back to the thread anyway.

Science is NOT based on the belief that God is incapable and unwilling to interfere in the course of nature. Science is based on the APPROACH of looking just at physical processes, and seeing where it leads. Questions about God are not questions that scientists attempt to answer (as scientists). Period.

I am very uneasy about what I perceive as the tendency among fundamentalists to turn scientists into "hate objects". The same with "secularists", "relativists", :"liberals" and "gays". I suspect, too, that they are not talking about real science, real secular beliefs, etc. Only labels. Only media caricatures.

Let me be blunt: it is hard for me to see religious fundamentalists as based on anything other than hate. I wish it were otherwise.

And if it is otherwise, then Fundies should be very welcome in the Democratic party. Here is the BEST of the Dem's attitude:

"We welcome people of faith..... I don't wear my religion on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by.... from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side.

"These aren't Democratic values. These aren't Republican values. They're American values. "

-from John Kerry's acceptance speech.

[passthecorn]

28. Hate and Fundys and Science

If I had the power to apologize to all the people who have been hurt by those who lean my direction theologically, I would.

I only used "secularist" because it is a word used many times in the article referenced in this thread. I meant to use relativism in its purist sense. It can be an honorable philosophy and the person I was talking too appeared to be such an honorable person. As for the other buzzwords "liberals" and "gays" I haven't used them. All that to say, I understand why you believe that they are used as hot-button words because they are.

As to the word "scientist" I always feel like it is used as a club. Perhaps you didn't mean for it to be used this way. What I mean is that since you are a scientist, you can have the last word and end statements not with a period but with the word period.

I graduated with a Mathematics degree, and my profs would like you to believe that that makes me a scientist, but that's not important.

In the natural science classes I took, and this was at a liberal arts school, that was liberal by every definition of the word, I asked a lot of probing questions on this subject. It was explicitly told me by my bio prof, whose specialty was evol/genetics that scientists had to assume that there was no God intervening and that only natural processes were involved.

Even in what you say:

Science is based on the APPROACH of looking just at physical processes, and seeing where it leads.


You look at physical processes that are going on now, which is great, but when it is applied to origins an assumption is made that only natural processes have gotten us where we are now. That however, is a leap in philosophy--naturalism and uniformitarianism. I know the response, "Scientists have to do this, they can't factor in God" Fine, but that gives me the freedom to disagree with conclusions, not because I don't believe in the evidence, but I don't believe in the necessary premise that was used by the scientist in evaluating the evidence.

Teach my kids the way things work. Teach them the way organisms evolve, but save the philosophical jumps when it comes to origins.

Any theory (and I don't mean this word in the fundy theories are only theories way)about origins based on naturalism should be open to religious dialogue, especially if it begins with "everything came from nothing without cause."

In my mind, teaching this to my first grader as simple fact leaves way too many philosophical questions. I would rather schools wait until the broader discussion can be had and understood.

BTW, having this conversation in a reasonable way makes me feel better about the Dem party as a place for Evang/Fundys

[fiorello]

29. Thanks for the reply - it sounds like we are similar

I'd put it more positively - "scientists assume that only natural processes CAN BE INVESTIGATED by science." How can scientists POSSIBLY claim to know the actions of God?? It would be the ultimate in hubris. Scientists CAN make a go at knowing natural processes, though.

There is a famous exchange between Einstein and one of his colleagues - Einstein objected to the quantum theory because "God doesn't play dice with the universe", and the colleague snapped "stop telling God what to do."

Science should neither validate nor refute religion.

"Everything came from nothing without cause." That's belief; not science.

I'll be fairly assertive about what-is-science, because it is my field, and I'm wary about how it is sometimes misrepresented.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Raised as a Lutheran preacher's kid, now a practicing Episcopalian

1. I'm as frustrated as you are with the lack of consideration for non-military alternatives in foreign relations. I was a supporter of Dennis Kucinich in the primaries, but the mainstream media dismissed him as "unelectable" and then tried to ignore and ridicule him for months before a single vote had been cast. At this point, moving the U.S. toward a less militaristic foreign policy has to be a long-term goal.

2. There are some REAL bitter atheists on this board, and most of the ones I have observed are the way they are because of horrible experiences with self-proclaimed Christians, particularly those of the fundamentalist variety. As my father remarked after seeing Madalyn Murray O'Hair on a TV talk show,"Someone must have hurt her very badly. That kind of raving bitterness comes from deep pain."

I truly believe that some of the prominent fundamentalist spokesmen, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, are not doing Christ's work but with their messages of fear and hatred, are the false prophets that Christ warns us about. Not only that, they hog all the publicity and give a twisted impression of what it means to be a Christian. To hear them talk, a Christian is someone who hates the right people, loves war, and believes in absolute freedom for big business. That rightfully turns people off, and if they have not had contact with Christians who try to follow the whole Gospel, it gives them a distorted view.

3. I am probably more conservative than the average DUer on matters of personal behavior, and I have always had a gut feeling against abortion, so if I had ever become pregnant during my younger days, I would not have had an abortion. However, the tactics of many in the pro-life movement have been counter-productive and uncompassionate, such as being against contraception, against sex education for teenagers (as a former college professor, I can tell you that keeping teens ignorant doesn't keep them chaste--it just means they have sex in a fumbling, secretive manner and don't use contraception), and against laws and social programs that alleviate some of the difficulties in raising a child alone. As Kucinich said when a pro-life zealot confronted him in Minneapolis earlier this year, we have to find common ground and reduce the factors that impell women to seek abortions.

Besides, having observed the Republicans over the years, I see them using emotionally charged issues like abortion as a smokescreen for their real intentions: destroying the middle class in this country and enriching the rich. In effect, they wave flags and Bibles in people's faces while picking their pockets.

4. If your children are going to go into any of the medical professions, engineering, or science, they have to learn modern science. It is even imperative for non-scientists to learn modern science, since there are so many charlatans out there, most of them in league with major corporations trying to sell harmful products or push harmful laws.

I learned about evolution in high school biology class in the 1960s while living in a town where almost everyone attended some kind of Christian church, ranging from Baptist to Catholic to Lutheran to fundamentalist "non-denominational." Funny thing, in this town, which was more religious then than it is now, no one raised a fuss about evolution. No one raised a fuss about Hallowe'en either. Or school prayer (Minnesota NEVER had school prayer, not even when my grandmother started grade school in 1906, although today's young fundamentalist parents don't know that and are easily duped by the Republicans and their stooges into thinking that they've been denied some grand old American tradition.) None of these issues came into national prominence until about 1980 the Republicans discovered that fundamentalists get worked up about them and vote Republican.

I continue to read about science as a regular subscriber to Scientific American and Discover. The wonders described in those articles give me new respect for the grandeur of creation. The multimillion year journey of evolution and the vast reaches of the universe are much more impressive signs of God's greatness than the account in Genesis, which, after all, was written for the world as understood by the ancient Hebrews. Note also that the account in Genesis follows the order posited by science: plants before animals, sea creatures before land creatures, simpler animals before more complex animals, and humans at the end.

I don't understand the insistence on taking the Genesis account literally. The Bible is not a science book and was not intended as such, and fundamentalists simply look ridiculous when they go through intellectual contortions to explain away the dinosaurs or the discoveries of historical geography.

Given the choice of a God who zapped a finite world into existence in seven days and a God who presides over an infinite universe over billions of years, I find the latter much more awe-inspiring.

Now if the schoolteachers in your area are actually telling your children that there is no God, they are just as out of line as they would be if they required them to pray the Rosary or kneel on a rug facing Mecca, and you should complain to your locally elected school board. However, if they are simply teaching them the internationally recognized facts and methods of science, then you are doing them no favors to keep them ignorant.

[passthecorn]

25. Literal Genesis

I totally understand why so many faithful Christians don't believe in Genesis as a literal account. I have no problem with that. I would not want that taught at school. The question I have is should my family be taught that it is not a literal account?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Well, if they're going to teach science instead of religion, they

have to teach it from a scientific perspective, not a theological one. And the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of earth and the rest of the universe being billions of years old and life evolving. Teachers can't pussyfoot around basic concepts of science just because a minority--and it is a minority-- of Christians refuses to believe them.

As I said, I'm really puzzled at the insistence on creationism. It's as if your faith is on such a shaky foundation that if the way some Middle Eastern nomads understood the universe 4,000 years isn't literally true, then the whole faith is questionable. That's what it looks like to me, at any rate.

I personally know people who have felt God's presence in their lives but have been held back by the insistence of some Christians that every word in the Bible is literally true. (It's an impossible position to hold if, for example, you compare the four Gospel accounts of Christ's life.)

God gave us brains to figure out the world with, and if we ignore the evidence that lies everywhere around us, then we are mocking God. Do you suppose that all those dinosaur bones and geological formations and vast galaxies are there just to deceive us?

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Hello, I wish you'd reconsider.....

I do believe that the Dem party can accept you and welcome you. There is variety here. I also am anti-war and anti-death penaly and initially supported Kucinich. I truly believe that there at least three branches of the Democratic party: true liberal, moderate, and conservative.

I'm not religious in any way. However, I have 14 years' worth of perfect attendance pins from the Methodist Church...and it was that church that 'turned' me off to religion. I think most of us respect your right to believing whatever you deem as correct worship, however there are lots of us who bitterly fight to keep religion out of our government and laws.

The compromise on abortion rights is simple....those who believe it is morally wrong do not have to ever opt for a safe, legal abortion. Those who do not share the view, must be able to have the medical operation and not be harassed or imprisoned. All must work to end the 'need' for abortions; be it a lack of finances, medical complications, failed birth-control, rape, incest, etc.

Since my son stopped attending public schools about 20 years ago (I'm getting up there in years)..I do not understand what you were saying about teaching a secular worldview. As a firm believer in complete separation between church and state, what other view could publicly financed schools teach except a 'secular' view? Please explain in more details.

Anyway, back to the real point, I firmly believe that if you were to become actively involved with your local Democrats, you would see a wide range of views....we do not usually agree on much...but we do all agree that the Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right-wing (some call themselves Neocons, but I think they are more neofascist) and that GW must be defeated in November for the USA to survive.

[LoZoccolo]

5. DU must be taken with several grains of salt...

...because it tends toward being a haven for people that want to knock the tendencies of society in this country and the world around in 200 words or less in the comfort of their own home or work behind a computer sitting in the same chair they'll spend two or three hours in and thus does not lend itself to the nuanced, less-prejudiced liberal tradition which exists in the "real world". So unfortunately, in this, you'll find yourself as a fundamentalist (in the true definition of the world, and a few of us have pointed out that true definition), falling victim to it, despite mine and others' pleas that you would actually be one of the more useful people here, having truck and clout with those around you in your church who might be ensnared in some very non-Christian things politically due to the Republicans' efforts. But please stick around, and welcome to DU.

[zeemike]

6. If I was a Democrat I would not be here

I would be posting at the DNC web site if they have one.
But this is the Underground which means that it is a place for those progressives that may not tow the party line and have a difference of opinion from the rank and file.
As for religion I consider myself a follower of the teachings Of Jesus the Christ. And that is why I agree with you on the death penalty. Jesus was against it.
I feel very at home here, even though many here do not share my religious belief. And I feel free to express it at any time I chose.
But as a religious topic you and I would probably disagree with religion in schools when it comes to prayer. Jesus clearly said that when we pray we should do so in secret, and praying in any public place would be contrary to that teaching.

[Beejiggity]

7. Suckers is not quite the right word

Much of the evangelical right won't allign with Democrats because there seems to be no room for discussion when it comes to abortion. "Right to choose" vs. an honest view that "life begins at conception," is not one the Dem party wants to discuss.

The sexuality issue is a big one now too. Christians see it as a defining point. They see it as encouraging a specific sin. Democrats treat it like there is no other way to look at it than "none of your business."

The final point that really draws the line is that religion is not at all embraced or encouraged by the left, unless you ate talking about something other than christianity. Just as the Repubs' once had the market on patriotism, they also have the market now, on Christianity. In progressive circles, christianity is the butt of a joke, not a lifestyle.


Until those issues change, we can't expect the landscape to change either.

[Stew225]

8. Beejiggity, welcome to DU!

May Allah bless your time here!

[papau]

17. Interesting first Post Beejiggity- and Welcome to DU - and I disagree with

a few of your points.

The evangelical is by definition not right or left - and they are certainly not defined by pro-choice versus Government control of a women's body.

Those that call themselves the evangelical right indeed will not listen to anyone else's opinion - they got their info from God, so why should they? But to favor non- Christian policies about social welfare and vote GOP seems a wrong path to take.

I - like most Christians who are not certain the absolutes - the rules - are truly as told to us by the minister - but fall into the tradition of every person is their own minister, have no problem that "life begins at conception" - indeed the sperm by itself is a living cell - and indeed the DNA is encoded for a new life at conception - BUT most conceptions end in menses or mis-carriages - and rather quickly - and we not have funerals for that event. The idea that life can begin, but it is not a viable human until "the quickening" comes right from the Bible - while their have been Jewish folk that feel it is the wrong interpretation of the Bible, it was long interpreted, and is interpreted, that when the Bible assigns a civil fine to the loss of the fetus before quickening, the Bible is saying the human life for a human life rule does not yet apply because the fetus is not yet a human life. As you no doubt know, the question of when the soul enters the body was long thought by Christians as being answered by "a few months after birth".

When Christ augmented the rules on the various abominations by saying they are all summed up in love God, and love your neighbor, and that the specific rules were no longer valid, Christians began to, and have had a fine time eating pork.

And the rules on sexuality - even if you interpret "forcing sex" that is meaning of the Greek as simply having sex with the same sex - are but one abomination rule that has been augmented by the two rules Jesus gave us. Indeed, even if you reject the above, if you buy into "hate the sin/love the sinner", why is it so difficult to say that government should be in a "none of the governments business" mode on this topic?

I do not see that the Repubs' as having the market on Christianity. Indeed on DU there does occur a thread or two where someone reflects their self-esteem affirmation need or the need for youth to be noticed, by trying to make Christianity the butt of a joke - showing their love of science or whatever by rejecting Christianity as a lifestyle.

But that is not a "progressive circles" defining item.

I look forward to your future posts.

peace

:toast:

:-)

[atreides1]

9. My View

1. Has the Kerry campaign made any statements regarding the death penalty, and perhaps you don't know it but Massachusetts doesn't even have the death penalty. As for being anti-war, you're right he's not,
but his vote for the IWR was made with the belief that the US would work with our allies and the UN.

2. Is it the job of DU to make anyone feel truly at home, all here have different points of view. Did not Jesus himself say "Love thy neighbor as thy self", but I don't recall reading in the Bible that
you should expect that love to be returned.

3. Being a man, I don't feel I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, that said, my personal feeling is that abortion should not be used for birth control, except in cases where the life of the woman is in danger, incest, and rape. And up until the late 19th century the Catholic church allowed abortion up until the 16th-17th week. Until a very conservative Pope came into power and made it against church doctrine, this was done mainly for political reasons.
The church was trying to regain control over the European monarchy's.

4. Being a parent myself, I tried to make sure that my children understood that what was said in a classroom wasn't always the truth.
With that in mind I provided information to them that wasn't being provided by the schools, and tried to allow them to make some decisions, without putting to much of my own bias into it. Can you do the same, can you teach your children about the worldview without your
own personal bias coming into play? It's not easy, believe me I know, but to give them an honest and open view of the world you have to show them both sides, not just the one you believe in. And then you have to allow them to make mistakes, because it's the only way to learn.

In closing the Democratic party is big enough for many viewpoints, you just have to accept the fact that not everyone here agrees with
yours, just as you do not agree with theirs.

As far as being Democrats in "right" ways, there is no right or wrong,
there is diversity, something that the Republicans do only when the TV cameras are rolling.

I hope you can find your place here, it would be good to have you and your family join us.:)

Remember Jesus also taught tolerance.

[Warpy]

10. You almost had me there, until I read your last post

now what on earth do you mean "a secular worldview?" Would you rather they teach a religious worldview that is at odds with your own? How about an animist one? Would you be happy knowing your children were being taught that the chair they were sitting in had a divine spirit equal to their own? Really?

You see, we live in a pluralist society, even though Christians are still the majority. Your children may be attending school with children who are Buddhist, Shinto, Santero, Yoruba, Hindu, or any one of a dozen Native American faiths. To try to force your own religious worldview on these people just because you personally find it a more comfortable one is just plain wrong.

If you can't abide having your children in a religion neutral setting, exposed to people who are very different from them, then by all means pull them out of school and home educate them.

Just don't expect them to thank you in the long run.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warpy]

16. Reply to deleted message, self deleted

[passthecorn]

23. Apology

For the record, I would like to apologize to Warpy for my response that was obviously too over the top, because it got deleted. I didn't mean to go too far. It did/does upset me to be accused of "shoving religion down people's throats" when I have always tried to live my life doing the opposite, and have not done so in this thread.

Anyway, my bad. I will be on better behavior from here on out.

[Moderator]

11. A link to the article being referenced and discussed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/08/19_suckers.html

[istruthfull]

20. other view

I agree with most of what you have said but differ a little on perspective.
1) War is unavoidable sometimes, but to start one under the cloak of deceit and lies for all the wrong reasons while telling everyone it is for other reasons. I was one of those jumping up and down to liberate Iraq, not for occupation.
2) Like one reply put it "Hate the sin/Love the sinner" but have only felt a little uncomfortable at times and that is because I'm a little fearful of offending someone. To many people have a bad view of Christians because of a lot of "Sunday Morning" Christians who got out the rest of the week and with no regrets do many, many bad things and hollers out that they are Christians.
3) I am not to thrilled about abortion but if a Republican or their children wanted one they would have it done in a "New York minute" under the cloak of darkness. I only saw one Church protest an abortion clinic. They were handing out tracts to the women going in without calling them any names or stopping their progress. The tracks said if you are doing this because of money "We will help you", if you are doing this because of day care "we will help you" , if you need any type of help for medical care "we will help you". We will help you in any way we can, you do have a choice. These people had my respect - that's how I figure real Christian would protest. Not to judge but to help.
If I'm not mistake the main reason the Republicans are against gay marriage is because the insurance companies would have to cover the spouses. When this administration removed an obstacles that would stop an insurance company from denning life saving procedures they were not looking out for the people.
Anyone can say they are Christian (or any type of religion) but that doesn't make them one. Let the fruit speak for itself.

[PATRICK]

22. An extraordinary article all should read

And this response points out a very important problem the article is trying to deal with. The personal and social moral issues at stake in our political crisis.

There is much to praise in the article in describing the patchwork house of the right wing coalition. it even analyzes very astutely the problems in changing the unnatural alliances of poor Christians with brutal worldly overlords and secularists.

The second step is actually the hardest because the people concerned here, the fundamentalists for Bush, have not taken the first step at all.
It is easier to walk away from the Democrats or liberals they have already deserted in conscience and to whom they feel no pious loyalty and from whom they will receive no false comfort.

You can't tell a sucker he's been had without getting blowback resentment, projection of disillusionment with ALL political parties, fallback into denial, anger. The same great problem of reverse karma that Dems face on all fronts simply for being truthfully responsible and compassionate is the hidden cross of irony here. By some odd twist, absolute moral perfection in the beatitude sense is DEMANDED of the Democrats while the Right under the weird dispensation of the End Times can put the Decalogue in abeyance and declare martial law and consummate the death of creation.

At any rate people bound by tradition with strict Pavlovian language well manipulated by Madison Avenue advisers can be co-opted. Deprogramming would almost have to be as brutal as the brainwashing. Soft persuasion and resetting the moral social compass is not going to be largely practical(ironically it might be settling for individual remnant salvation theory in another form). "We" can't win over betrayed Christians cold turkey or offer easy fantasies to make the transition less painful. We often would be talking nearly of conversion itself.

And there is the problem we are charitably dancing around. The corruption of the faithful by those teachers of pleasing doctrines and easy promises Jesus really warned about, not the open justice seekers who happen to be secularists that appear as open competitors not unctuous friends, wolves in sheep's clothing. I might argue that the naked weakness and doctrinal wandering of fringe Churches leaves them prone for many things we used to term heresies. On the left, large challenges to Christian faith are more open and debated. In fundamentalist seminaries maybe such possibilities are not even recognized. The blindness begins with the basics and insulation is an inbreeder of common spiritual mistakes.

In Catholic seminaries perhaps a younger generation who sees revolution and socialism as reformative might justify a lot of contradictions in means and ends. In conservative seminaries and reactionary Catholic circles a lot of evil practice is glossed over with dangerous ease and enthusiasm in triumph- basically without acknowledging it, taking God's place as Judge and punisher. In the first case, the philosophical concepts are head based and lacking drive and application. Much of it has dissolved as the right marches on. Both are remarkably dysfunctional with regards to actual spiritual faithfulness to their religion.

But the alliance with the powers of this world is creating planetary abortion, Armageddon, spiritual blindness and a very nasty corruption or heresy that is needed to sustain the madness, the evil.

And we say "Give peace a chance". Appeal to basic reason. Basic Genesis stewardship of creation. Appeals to universally valued compassion. Pragmatism maybe? The strongest way to take God's place is on the cross, not to let others die in place of our unacted upon conviction.

We don't need or necessarily benefit from the Dems becoming Christian Democrats when Christians are more weirdly fractionated in the Us than in the rest of the world. You don't have to belong to a party that seems set wrong on certain issues. You cannot side however with the recognizable evils of the other side. Why can't people recognize that? People turn their face from the living God for good reason. For other reasons they will not face the darkness either, surrounded as it is by a comforting lie that reduces stress and existential anxiety.

Let the light shine. More truth. More active example. More encounters.
More definition of government as addressing the infrastructure and social sensitivity that can build the Kingdom- not the armies of Armageddon, the glamorous drama of the damned. Liars always seek wedges to turn the tables. Such things remind us we do share the same flaws as any human, the same failings. Only we do not despair and slink away and give in to the worst. We feel the pain of the truth, the imperfection of goals imperfectly acted upon and renounce the lie, keep striving humbly without surrender.

If a Muslim or a Democrat or an atheist is taking up the cross of victim or justice seeker- how do you place yourself along the Way?
How do you justify your actions if you dare justify them at all?

Right now the Democrats represent justice seekers, responsible stewardship, compassion. Without them- at this time, in this place- this planet will fall into something very dark indeed. The coalition of common interest here is profoundly Christian and one recognized with very energetic impatience by Christ in the Gospels.

Roosevelt built a similar coalition with more bluntly economical motivation. Our need is much broader now. The coalition should be equally broad. There is hardly a danger of it being permanent to the corruption and moral collapse. There will be new parties of less dangerous and more sane balance. Hopefully the Kingdom grows as humanity progresses- which may be much the same thing.

The enemy is depressingly the same except for the novelty of the lies and is absent from this difficult argument. Give them a real pass. Like the layers of an onion, go through the tiers of dominance and betrayal and finally at the top of the pyramid is a sorry group of over-privileged brats with no special distinction or value to society. And those try to structure society into a pyramid of worship- the ultimate tomb of glory.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Excellent and well thought-out essay, Patrick

I think it is terribly difficult for people to admit, even to themselves, that they have been had.

[barb162]

27. your thoughts are totally valid and worthwhile

and I think you should be a Democrat.

I am for separation of church and state and feel every parent should teach their children (if they want) the religious aspects and have that completely out of the public schools. I went to both private and public school and religion can easily be filled in by the parents and/or evening or Sunday religion school. Does that sound reasonable to you? I hope you becomne a democrat.