Democrats & Liberals Archives

Let us briefly run through the politics of the religious right, just so the comparison will be fresh in our memory. Christian conservatives believe firmly in God, country and family. Self-sufficiency and rugged individualism are highly esteemed qualities; people should pull themselves up their own bootstraps. Becoming rich is a keen goal and almost universally admired. Taxes are seen as a curse. Social programs for the poor are a waste of tax-payers’ money, and the sort of people on those programs (mostly blacks) are lazy and given to crime. As for criminals, they should feel the full force of the law. And that goes for international criminals as well… a nation should deal with its enemies from a position of strength, and should never be afraid to let them feel the full force of its military might.

Were these the politics of Jesus? Let’s take a look:

On defense: Jesus said “Love your enemies” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.” “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:44; 5:9; 5:39.)

On social programs: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Matthew 19:21.)

On rugged individualism and the pursuit of self-interest: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” “So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Matthew 22:39; 7:12.)

On financial success: “Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” “You cannot serve both God and Money.” (Matthew 19:23; 6:24.)

On the philosophy that “greed is good”: “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” (Luke 12:15.)

On paying taxes: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:22.)

On crime and punishment: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (John 8:7; Matthew 7:1,2.)

On climbing the social ladder: “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (Matthew 11:19.)

On money-hungry televangelists: “In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.” (John 2:14,15.)

On the free lunch: “Taking the five loaves and two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves… The number of those who ate was about five thousand men…” (Matthew 14:19,21.)

On the perks and privileges of power: “After that, [Jesus] poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.” (John 13:5.)

On moral absolutes: “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?” “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:11; Mark 2:27.)

On family: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple.” Also: “‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ Pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers.’” (Luke 14:26; Matthew 12:48,49.)

On race relations: In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus praised the morality of a hated foreigner over his own countrymen. (Luke 10:30-37.)

On the superiority of one’s native country: “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.’” (Matthew 10:5,6.)

On letting others pull themselves up by their own bootstraps: “But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Luke 14:13,14.)

Modern Christian conservatives may be horrified, but there is no getting around the fact: Jesus was not just a liberal, but a radical liberal! In fact, except for one pronouncement on divorce, there is not one text in all four Gospels which even remotely supports or resembles the conservative’s most cherished beliefs. It is a standing challenge to the religious right to find a list of Gospel texts, as I have provided here, which advocates the conservative’s philosophies. Not one Christian can give a single example, because these texts do not exist.

And if anyone remains unconvinced about the deep liberal slant of Jesus and the early Christian Church, a review of their economic policies should remove all doubt forever. The early Christian Church actually serves as history’s second example of pure communism! (The first was the Essenes, who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.) In Paul’s Christian Church, the fruits of everyone’s labor went into a collective pool, which was then divided evenly among everyone in the group. The following passages from Acts of the Apostles are remarkable in this description:
“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.” (Acts 2:44-45).

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had… There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.” (Acts 4:32,34,35)
The New Testament itself is filled with countless calls for a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. As for the rich, they are clearly portrayed as wicked; both Jesus and his apostles condemned them in the harshest terms possible:
“But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry.” (Luke 6:24,25)

“Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:25)

“People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evil.” (1 Timothy 6:9,10)

“Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.” (1 Timothy 6:17,18)

“Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who loved him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?” (James 2:5-7)

“Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourself in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.” (James 5:1-6)
Giving to the poor was not just an act of kindness, it was a Christian duty, and Paul ended his letters with a reminder to send money to the poor in Jerusalem. It was this identification with the poor that led them to attack usury, or the loaning of money for interest, in the bitterest terms, for this was seen as exploitation of the poor. In the end, one cannot read the New Testament and escape the conclusion that the Early Christian Church condemned inequality of wealth as one of the greatest of human sins.

I would like to know how Bush continues to have this image as a godly person. Unlike his godless, heathen predecessor, Dubya doesn’t attend church.

Unlike his godless, heathen predecessor, Dubya doesn’t attend church.

You don’t need to go to church if you have prayer circles before important meetings and have had a priest exorcise the White House of Clinton’s sins.

Its a myth perpetuated by single-issue voters…generally the Christian Conservatives. They tend to vote for the guy who is against abortion. I’ve talked to a few Christian Conservatives at work who have admitted that regardless of whatever Bush does, his stance against abortion is THE deciding factor because “killing babies is the most heinous act imaginable”.

Now I find this extremely narrowminded because isn’t bombing Iraqi children “abortion” too?! Or do undeveloped fetuses deserve more special attention over a child of five?!

One of the most shocking comments I’ve ever heard was Pat Robertsons “Nuking the US State Department” on his show 700 Club.This moral pillar of everything the Christian Coalition stands for saying that the US State Department needs to be destroyed by a nuclear device!! Here’s a link(of many) to that old story here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/

Threatening the US State Department with a nuclear device!!! How very Jesus like!!!

Lovecraft- take a step back for a second, and think about if you believe that an unborn child was a human being. Seriously, think about it. Ok, good. Wouldnt it be your top issue too, if you thought within our boarders there was a mass murder of more than a million human beings a year? Wouldnt that take precedent over whatever piddling police disagreements Kerry and Bush will have? Just take it seriously and let it sink in for a minute. (as for your point about Iraq- saying that one should oppose a war that threw Saddam out of power based on caring about the Iraqi children is chillingly sickening, especially if you look at how many children they are diving up in those mass graves.. you can oppose the war on other grounds, but do not pretend its because it would have been better for the iraqi children if we had no acted)

Back on topic- I am hardly a “religious conservative”- in fact, i am agnostic and not even one bit religious. I happen to also believe that an unborn child is a human being, so it makes it impossible for me to ever vote for a democrat (And damn hard to vote for a liberatrian, even though I agree with liberatarians on almost all other issues).

Does that mean I will vote for Bush? maybe. probably. yuck. In my opinion, he has done virtually nothing to stop abortion. In his state of the union, he said NOT A SINGLE WORD about abortion, while prattling on about hogwash like steroids. Yes, he signed the particial birth abortion ban, but like 80% of the country and 50% of democrats supported that, so its not like he show guts or extraodinary leadership to protect unborn children.

But when the next supreme court justice appointment comes up, and there is a chance to overturn roe v. wade in the balance, I fear the possibility of having John Kerry as president at that time will be enough to make me swallow my growing disdain for Bush and for him anyway. In fact, I will probably become a single-issue voter. Its sad, but the democrats’ alliance with groups whose main goal it is to deprive unborn children of their rights leaves me no real choice. sigh.

But what is a life? Is it a child filled with happiness and love? Or simply a set of lungs and a brain existing from day to day? If a stable home cannot be guaranteed, if life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be guaranteed, then why does simple existence become so important? Suppose they made abortion totally illegal tommorow. Completely illegal. Millions of children then will be born each year to woman who never wanted them and who now regard them as an inconvience to their lives. I know this is wrong and women should care..but they don’t. But the child is alive,right?

So now we have a sudden adoption problem to deal with. Millions of children now must be taken into foster homes and state custody. State budgets are already at the breaking point now. And if they are lucky enough to find foster homes, then what? People become foster parents on a “per child” paid basis. The state pays them for each child they care for. The more, the better. I’ve seen foster families with 12 children! Some from broken homes and abuse who find themselves thrust into a house full of strangers..alone and without the care and one-on-one attention they need. But the child is alive,right?

I believe that if the mother does not want the child, nor can the child be GUARANTEED a loving, decent enviornment, then an abortion should be allowed. Besides, if a fetus was considered a human, then why don’t they put miscarraiges in the obituaries? Why don’t they have funerals for the stillborn? Yeah some do, but the rule is the fetus is tossed out just like an aborted one. Just ask any Doctor. I did.

lovecraft- I do not want to turn this topic into an abortion debate. I just wanted you to take a second to see the other side. Later I will make an article about abortion and we can talk about it then in more detail. I will just say now that your view that someone is only a human being worthy of life is someone WANTS them its a rather disturbing opinion in my view. Your reasoning would clearly justify mothers killing newborn children after they were born- there is nothing in your justification for abortion that can make any sort of distinction between a child already born and one in the womb. the reason is that such a distinction is fake. If our country allowed the killing of newborns which some of the more consistent abortion advocates like Peter Singer suggest, then newborns wouldnt be listed in obituries either… as for your last comment, if you mean what I think you do, sigh. Thats why I usually try not to talk about this topic, its way too upsetting.

Misha - I understand your feelings on abortion and have even shared them myself at times. I’m a liberal on just about every issue, but abortion does indeed bother me. However, I see a fundamental difference between advocating abortion and allowing it to be a legal option for women. Abortion will not be eradicated if the Supreme Court outlaws it - it will just be practiced in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, where the wellbeing of the mother is at a much higher risk than it would be in a professional clinic. I guess my “official” position, and one that I wish more politicans would take, is to keep abortion legal while encouraging other viable alternatives, such as adoption.

Is abortion murder?

Not all killing is murder, of course. Murder is actually a small subset of all killing, which includes accidental homicide, killing in self-defense, suicide, euthanasia, etc. When pro-life activists call abortion “murder,” they are suggesting that abortion fits the definition of murder, namely, “illegal killing with malice aforethought.” However, abortion fails this definition for two reasons. First, abortion is not illegal, and second, mothers hardly feel malice towards their own unborn children.

Some might object the first point is overly legalistic. Just because killing is legal doesn’t make it right. Exterminating Jews in Nazi Germany was certainly legal, but few doubt that it was murder.

But why do we still consider the Holocaust murder? The answer is that we hold the Nazis to a higher law. When the Nazis were tried in Nuremberg for their war crimes, they were not accused of “crimes against Germans” or even “crimes against Jews.” Instead, they were charged with “crimes against humanity.” The reason is because there was no legal basis to charge them otherwise. The massacre of Jews was legal under German law. So in order to punish the German leaders for clearly wrong behavior, the Allies had to evoke a higher law, a law of humanity. (1) The Holocaust was condemned as illegal, and therefore murder, because it violated this law.

Many pro-life advocates claim that the same reasoning applies to abortion. Although abortion is legal under current U.S. law, it is not legal when it is held up to a higher law, namely, the law of God.

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the Bible is indeed the law of God. Unfortunately, this doesn’t help the pro-life movement, because there is no Biblical law against abortion. (Abortion is as old as childbirth.) The Hebrew word for “kill” in the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is rasach, which is more accurately interpreted as “murder,” or illegal killing judged harmful by the community. It is itself a relative, legalistic term!

Many forms of killing were considered legal in ancient Israel, and levitical law listed many of the exceptions. Generally, levitical law permitted killing in times of war, the commission of justice and in self-defense. Sometimes, God even gave Israel permission to kill infant children. In I Samuel 15:3, God ordered Saul to massacre the Amalekites: “Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants…”

Unfortunately, the levitical law we find in the Bible today is incomplete, and comes to us in large gaps. That is because the ancient Jews passed down their laws orally, and only wrote down the more complicated laws to jog their memory. As a result, levitical law is filled with tremendous omissions; for example, we know little of their laws on libel, business, lending, alimony, lease, rental agreements and civil rights. But perhaps the most unfortunate gap in ancient Jewish law is abortion. If a law did exist on abortion, then we simply do not know what it was. Fortunately, we have an excellent idea of what the law might have been. The Jews are legendary for their fanatical preservation of the law, and they have never considered abortion to be a sin. That alone should make many pro-life advocates stop and reconsider the legal basis, holy or otherwise, for their opposition to abortion.

Some pro-life Christians claim that just because there is no commandment prohibiting abortion does not give us the right to perform it. Since human life is so precious, we should err on the side of caution, they argue. But according to this logic, we should not drive cars! Each year in America, there are about 40,000 deaths due to automobile accidents. These deaths are accidental, to be sure, but our decision to participate in a mode of transportation that we already know will kill 40,000 people is not accidental. We also know there were virtually no deaths in horse-and-buggy days. We have decided to accept those 40,000 deaths a year simply because we value the convenience — a notion surely not found anywhere in the Bible. But should we stop all automobile travel just because of Biblical silence on the issue?

One could equally argue that if God thought the issue were important, he would have made sure to include such a law in the Bible. The omission of such a law suggests that God allows humans to exercise their best judgment in the matter.

The second part of the definition of murder involves malice. Is it really reasonable to assume that mothers feel malice towards their own unborn children? Why would they even feel that? What has the fetus done to inspire the mother’s hatred, anger, hostility and revenge? This is not the way women react to news of their pregnancy, even an unwanted one, as any woman who has gone through an abortion will tell you. It is a reaction that only men in the pro-life movement find plausible.

Some abortion opponents may then try to claim that the murder is cold-blooded, that the malice involved is really a callous, unfeeling disregard for human life. But again, any woman who has gone through an abortion will tell you that it just isn’t so. They are fully aware of what they are doing and the moral implications of it. All would prefer not to go through the abortion, and feel sorrow and regret for having to do so. But they ultimately decide that the abortion is for the best, that they are not ready for the even greater moral responsibility of bringing a child into the world. Christian conservatives may question the wisdom of such a choice, but they can hardly question the emotions behind it.

The accusation that abortion is murder, in fact, places the burden of proof on the accuser. If women do indeed feel malice towards their own flesh and blood, then the accuser needs to supply the requisite proof, studies, or surveys to make his case. But such evidence will probably never be forthcoming.

I dont believe your legal analysis correct, as I just learned about the legal definition of murder in one of my law school classes….

The model penal code provides the most common definition of murder:

“criminal homicide constitutes muder when:

(a) it is committed puporsely or konwlingly; or
(b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life”

Section 210.2 of the Model Penal Code

If for the sake of argument we grant that an unborn child is a human being, an abortion would clearly be murder. try again.

Abortion, as of right now, is legal. Therefore it is not a crime, nor can it be considered criminal. To call a woman getting an abortion a murderer simply is not fair. She is commiting NO crime!

Here’s an idea: how about, instead of debating abortion, we talk about the Democratic strategy in the South?

-Cf

Although I won’t get involved in the abortion debate within the comments, I would like to encourage everyone, pro-choice or pro-life, to read the Roe vs. Wade opinion. A link to a version of it is: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/#rop

In Blackmun’s opinion, he discusses some historical information of interest including common law, and English statutory law.

Also, thanks everyone for your comments. I’m surprised my first article has generated so many comments.

Bo- we still have a sick ammount of rape and murder in our country, despite strong laws against it. Why would you never see anyone saying we should make those things “rare, safe, and legal”? I think its because we realize that we cannot excuse doing that to another person, even if we cannot stop it all the time. A government that admits that it cannot protect its most vulnerable human beings from murder is one that has failed its most essential function. Before roe v. wade, abortion was rare and unsafe. Now we have over a million abortions a year- which situation is really worse in your view? I understand your struggle and concerns, but this IS the most important issue of our time, and we are clearly failing under the current approach.

Fahey- you are right, I should not have responded to the abortion thing. As for this article, if you really want to know why souther voters are unlikely to vote for a democrat, you really need to take more of the approach of the author of this article and not that of many of those who responded. if you ASSUME that the only reason the south doesnt vote for the left is because they are stupid and do not know that they are better off with any democrat over Bush, you are not going to understand them or convince anyone.

Actually we were talking, indirectly, about Democratic stategy in the south. As you can see, there are millions of single-issue voters in the south..abortion being the main one. When it comes to abortion, most christian conservatives will not compromise. They see it as murder and murder only and will automatically vote for the candidate against it. Therefore, any Southern strategy must include reaching out to the single-issue voters! And since abortion is generally that single issue, then these comments would be a start!

But I was straying a little too much from the topic and from now on will focus on Democratic Strategies in the South. Sorry.

Having lived in the south my entire life, I would say that the perception of southerners by democrats is much further from reality than the perception of democrats by southerners. Most democrats view the south as “white men driving pickup trucks decorated with Rebel Flags”, dismissing them as uneducated rednecks that are simply mislead by scripture quoting politicians. They (the dems) seem to believe that the key to converting these intellectually inferior beings is to help them understand what the party “really” stands for - not that they (we) haven’t already heard it a million times before (jobs, healthcare, etc.). I think they believe that if they simply keep repeating the same thing a million more times MAYBE it’ll finally sink in and these confederate morons will understand.

I would submit to you that the south does understand what the dem party stands for, and those “values” are being rejected and will continue to be rejected. Like it or not, the abortion issue (forgive me for bringing it back up) is one major issue that isn’t “up for graps”. This was proven by Al Gore, who in the 80’s served Tennessee as a pro-life conservative democrat, but who IMHO lost the Presidency of the US because he couldn’t take his own state due to his “change of heart” on the issue.

Another issue close to the vest in the south is military defense. Max Cleland (Senator-GA), a ‘Nam vet who lost 3 limbs in the war, was defeated in ’02 by a republican (that never served a day in his life) on the issue of national defense. How can this be, you ask? Max Cleland voted against many (now vital) military programs in the 90’s (not unlike Kerry), and his opposition to Bush on homeland defense did him in. Democrat’s view(ed) this defeat as an atrocity of epic proportions, I view this as a prime example of how far out of touch democrats have become with southern voters.

There are so many other examples to point to but so little time.

Over the past 10 years I’ve watched family members and friends, die-hard democrats that voted “D” straight down the ticket, turn their back on their beloved party. They may not all vote republican, but (with the exception of local politics) they certainly don’t vote democratic. Many times they just don’t vote. You can’t dismiss these southerners as simply “not understanding what the democratic party is all about”. These voters have followed the party their whole lives and watched it’s evolution, and they don’t like what they see.

I like the comments made by Lovecraft in the first comment. Maybe Kerry (or or Dems) should look to responding to Bush with just the quotes from the bible. It seems to me that this would lead to a better understaning of the Democrats positions. Not just the Positions that the Republicans and the extreme right want everyone to believe the Democrats have. They can not refute the bible.

Christopher. I think the Democratic strategy for the South is to wait until ‘08. The demographics of the South are rapidly changing with (1) the increase in the minority populations (especially Hispanic) and (2) the influx of people from other regions of the country.

Kerry is not a very attractive candidate here, and he really hasn’t tried to change that opinion. His strategy seems to be to write off the South, save Florida. That leaves litte room for electorial votes, and a close call just as in ‘00.

Great comments!

I would like to say that John Kerry will be a very unlikely winner in November, which is why he should not win the nomination. I don’t think that John Edwards would lose a single state that John Kerry would win. But, I cannot say the same thing if that statement was reversed. We will probably be doomed to 4 more years of Bush if we give John Kerry the nomination.

Well Jeff Jesus was a liberal. You just have to shown that conservative philosophy and christian philosophy simply are not compatible. Here’s an old scripture about the value of life which makes a pretty good pro-choice statement: Exodus 21:22-23:
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…”

The traditional interpretation of this text, which even rabbinical scholars accepted for thousands of years, is this: if a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant’s life with the stillborn’s life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person.

So that is my strategy for winning over Southern voters. Actually show them the Bible! If all it takes is for some guy to come along and say those magic words,”I am pro-life”, and presto he gets your vote, then don’t you think the Republicans know this?!! They can do all the dirty stuff they want knowing they’ll get away with it from the single-issue voters having said those magic words, “I am pro-life”. They can start all the wars they want, pillage and loot the treasury till we’re broke for fifty years, and open up the valves on all the smokestacks in America but that won’t matter..they said the magic words!! I bet you the anti-christ will be pro-life!!!

lovecraft’s post is a perfect example of what Mike was talking about a few posts above.

I thought Lovecraft’s assessment of the scriptures was rather interesting. Though scriptures were used to justify positions, they were taken out of context of the scripture:

On defense: Jesus said “Love your enemies” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.” “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:44; 5:9; 5:39.)
Like many of the scriptures quoted, this argument deals with individual conduct- it in no way suggest that entire Nations should lay down their arms and invite occupying armies to conquer and enslave them. Looking at the nature of God throughout the entire Old Testament proves this.

On social programs: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Matthew 19:21.)
Conservative don’t believe “social programs” are bad, there is just a fundamental difference on how these programs should function. An example of hypocrisy on this issue is Faith-Based Initiatives, a program which for some reason (probably because organized religon can play a role) liberals oppose.

On rugged individualism and the pursuit of self-interest: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” “So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Matthew 22:39; 7:12.)
I think terminating a pregnancy is the height of self-interest.

On paying taxes: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:22.)
We are to follow the “law of the land”, no doubt about it. BUT that ends when the “law” contradicts God’s law(s). This doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with paying taxes, but it certainly has a lot to do with the social questions facing this country.

On crime and punishment: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (John 8:7; Matthew 7:1,2.)
This doesn’t pertain to crime and punishment in the sense you are suggesting, this pertains to individual sin. The “her” in this scripture was a woman convicted of adultery- a personal sin such as envy, jealousy etc. I don’t understand how you make the leap from that to advocating there be no punishment for those that break the law (thieves, murderers, etc.) . See 1 Peter 2:14

On moral absolutes: “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?” “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:11; Mark 2:27.)
Some suggest that there is “gray” area in the bible, but Revelations 22:18 clearly points out that if you “add or detract” from the scriptures God will “add unto him plagues written in this book”. Some like to believe the Bible is a “free-flowing” document (kinda like they think that about the constitution) subject to change, but as John 1:1-3 points out God is the same now as he was in the beginning.

On family: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple.” Also: “‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ Pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers.’” (Luke 14:26; Matthew 12:48,49.)
I don’t know if you’re implying that “family” shouldn’t be limited to a man and woman, but read Matthew 19:4-6 “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

On race relations: In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus praised the morality of a hated foreigner over his own countrymen. (Luke 10:30-37.)
To be a bigot is against the basic concept of Christianity. I don’t understand your point.

Many of your other posts dealt with the wealth issue. Again, there may be a perception that conservatives are wealthy and do nothing for those in need. I can promise you this perception is a fallacy. 99% of churches I’ve been involved with are directly involved in outreach programs in the community, buying goods and providing services to the needed—which, I might add, is better than throwing money at a problem and hoping that it fixes itself.
The notion that Jesus was a modern day liberal is absurd. It is the sole intent of liberal organizations such as the ACLU to remove any semblance of Christ or Christianity, not promote the teachings of Christ. The thought of the words “in God we Trust” even disturbs liberals. Pulling Bible verses out of context without reading and understanding the book as a whole does one no good.

Conservatives fight for the, as the bible calls them “least among you”. Unborn children in this country have no rights. I hate to bring this up again, but to believe that Jesus would be pro-choice is (again) simply irrational. Pro-choice advocates believe that a fetus is not human—therefore it is not murder, hence Christ would have no problem with it. But until they can answer they million dollar question - At what point the fetus/infant gain it’s soul, they will never win this argument as far as a biblical standpoint. Liberals would probably argue that the soul enters the body when the head is exposed, but now I’m being stupid.
“Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3).
You knit me in my mother’s womb … nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret” (Psalm 139:13,15)
You have been my guide since I was first formed … from my mother’s womb you are my God” (Psalm 22:10-11).

Well Mike I was just providing a few examples of scripture which doesn’t fit into your typical conservatives philosophies. Many verses can and are taken completely out of context, which is why today we have so many different denominations. Just one verse can mean the difference between a mormon and a babtist, or a protestant and a catholic. But the Bible itself is NOT infallible. Take for instance these verses:

Are we “saved” through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith…not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)

Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)

Are we punished for our parent’s sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Is God Peaceable?
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. (Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36)
Matt. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 22:36)

And of course even people and places often contradict themselves in the Bible:

SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: (Did she have children or not?)

KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD (So how old was he?)

I was using scripture to show the extent of Jesus’ Liberalism, not to prove or disprove a point. Personally, I am not deeply religious. I’ve studied the Bible and come from a religious family, but I have become an agnostic over time. Life has simply made me very cynical. But I in no way condemn the church or wish it harm. Religion just belongs in the home and the church..not the classrooms and the courtrooms. Women used to be accused of witches in the courtrooms and burned alive when religion dominated law. I don’t want to return to that kind of puritanical rule. Do you? And yes it is possible if you get people like Pat Robertson dictating policy. Robertson already stated that the US State Department needs to be nuked!! Read about that here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/

I suppose it helps having gone to Baylor, to see conservative and fundamentalist religion in context. Truth is, these aren’t necessarily bad people. I learned much of my biblical knowledge there.

What I see too much of in the South, though, is fear. And that fear is being manipulated. People are being scared by hot button doctrinal issues into voting for people who are sadly betraying their trust.

Given the real lack of progress on these issues, people in the South are better off voting for those who hold their interests in heart, if not all the moral beliefs. One can always put pressure on a politician to change one or two platform positions, or at least softpedal them. You can’t work such a change on a person who doesn’t hold most of your interests at heart.

Lovecraft, you say that you were just providing a few examples of scripture which shows conservatism is at odds with the teaching of the bible, but your whole argument demonstrates how conservatives (southerners for the most part) are wrongly perceived by the democrats (and especially the liberals). Regardless of how many times the democratic candidates rant and rave about the rich republicans and try to convince us that they have the moral high ground—it just doesn’t fly. I personally could care less what people do in their private lives, I think abortion is wrong but I (like most conservatives) don’t go around condemning people to hell. But if democrats think that they can run an election without the “Gods, Guns, and Gays” issue(s) being on the table, they will find themselves winning as many southern states as Al Gore.

Stephen, you make an excellent point. I will admit that many conservatives probably do vote out of fear. The fear, however, is not of terrorists striking or “gays taking over”, the fear is what we saw during much of the 90’s—if you’re a conservative southerner you are somehow beneath the “enlightened” democrats/liberals, therefore you have no right to voice your opinion. If you think, for example, that abortion is wrong you are labeled “anti-woman”, or if you think homosexuality is wrong you are “homophobic”, or if you think traditional values are important, you are, as Bryant Gumble accidently said on the air “an F’ing idiot”.
Democrats were, not so long ago, complaining that they were being chastised for voicing their opposition to military action, that GOPer’s were making them out to be unpatriotic just because they voiced an OPPOSING VIEW. Maybe now they understand how it feels.

Democrats also need to be appealing to non-religious fiscal conservatives too. Here’s an article from Fortune Magazine perfectly describing how this strategy will be presented:

There was a time when the Republicans could effectively paint the Democrats as “tax and spend” liberals, while portraying themselves as the party of fiscal restraint. This election, however, that logic will be turned on its head, as President Bush is likely to face a Democrat whose credentials as a deficit hawk are surprisingly strong.

Meanwhile, President Bush has his own deficit deficit. Since he took office, the record budget surpluses built up during the Clinton administration have turned to record red ink, and government spending has expanded at its fastest clip in 40 years. As a result, the GOP has lost most of its edge over the Democrats on the issue of fiscal responsibility. In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 33% of respondents said the Republicans did a better job controlling government spending—just 2% more than said Democrats were better at cost control.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, has a long history of fighting deficits. He co-sponsored the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Control Act, which triggered automatic spending cuts if the President and Congress failed to reach predetermined targets (but which ultimately failed to balance the budget). He also backed the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, which helped Clinton achieve those surpluses. Now Kerry says that if he’s elected he’ll halve the deficit during his first term in office.

Bush, meanwhile, has been scrambling to restore his credibility with fiscal conservatives. In his State of the Union address, he matched Kerry’s pledge to halve the deficit, although Bush gets there through spending cuts rather than by repealing tax breaks for those making more than $200,000 a year, as Kerry would do.

As a first step, Bush has unveiled an austere 2005 budget proposal that seeks to hold the increase in domestic discretionary spending to a mere 0.5%. But there are reasons to doubt whether the Bush budget represents a realistic solution to the country’s fiscal woes. For one thing, the 2005 budget doesn’t include spending for Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush’s own budget director says the cost for Iraq might top $50 billion. And, in order to achieve the goal of paring the deficit to $237 billion by 2009, Bush proposes keeping total discretionary spending virtually flat for the entire four-year period, a goal that budget experts say is politically unachievable. What’s more, beyond 2009, the deficit is projected to explode when most of the $936 billion in tax cuts kicks in and the first baby-boomers become eligible for early-retirement Social Security payments.

Kerry, who several polls predict would beat Bush if the general election were held today, has already begun attacking Bush’s budget. While it’s unlikely that many fiscal conservatives would vote for a Democrat, if they remain disgusted they might stay away from the polls entirely. “The lack of spending discipline is starting to alienate a significant portion of the fiscal-conservative base,” says Stephen Bainbridge, a UCLA law professor who runs a conservative website. And if one had any doubts that budget politics have gone through the looking glass, just guess which former GOP punching bag would get the largest funding increase in 20 years under the Bush budget: the National Endowment for the Arts.

The last paragraphs is a REAL doosy because I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard conservatives bash the National Endowment for the Arts!! This became their mantra for reckless spending and all the “waste” that Liberals propose. Now it apppears Bush has given them more money than Clinton ever THOUGHT about!

I don’t feel that way at all! I’ve talked with some very intellecual conservatives, although they were not religious. I work at Texas Instruments in Dallas with MANY conservatives, and they obviously would not have acheived success within the company if they were simply ignorant!

The problem with modern politics is we attempt to generalize the opposition and put them into a nice, preconcieved package that helps confirm our own beliefs, values, ect. Both Conservatives and Liberals do this. But when someone like myself comes along, a liberal is is AGAINST gun control and affirmative action, that defies those preconcieved ideals and new ones have to be created. I KNOW that all conservatives are not greedy, paranoid people filled with self-interest and fear. I also know that all liberals are not God-hating, immoral people who play the victimized role for political or monetary gain! Take for instance this website for Democrats for Life, a pro-life Democratic organization!:

Take for instance your own thoughts when I say these words: “I am a liberal”. I’m sure a flood of negative thoughts swells in your mind from the years of media conditioning! Yet you might find me at an NRA rally..or perhaps protesting affirmative action at a conservative bake sale!

Since I am new to this blog, I guess I should proclaim that I am a moderate-Liberal. Perhaps that will be easier for future classification!!

Your tone has drastically changed from a few posts above where you said, “So that is my strategy for winning over Southern voters. Actually show them the Bible!”. This kind of condescending attitude is exactly why you don’t see any blue states down south. I would love to see Kerry travel down to the Bible Belt and explain scripture to the Bible thumping masses.

Maybe Kerry can run a northern strategy only and come away with a win. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but winning the white house without taking any southern states would be unprecedented.

By the way, there maybe a anti-gun control and a pro-life segment of the democratic party, but I seriously doubt you’ll hear from either of them at the democratic convention.

My tone has changed because I’ve slept since then, had a few good meals, saw a movie, listened to music, played a few games with my daughter, and generally forgot about politics for awhile! Usually I’ll spend an hour or so a day going over a few websites I frequent, and use online forums as a way to vent the days musings. If my mood was particularly confrontational, then you may get a condescending tone, but in this particular instance that was not my intention.

But by all means offer rebuttle and dialog to ANYTHING I may write. I wouldn’t be on a political blog if I didn’t expect otherwise! But one thing I will promise you right now is I will never get personal, nor will I ever deliberately insult a person. I may criticize a particular set of beliefs, or perhaps some piece of legislation I don’t agree with, but it is never personal.

And I am a Native Texan, born and raised right here in good ‘ol Denison, Texas..Birthplace of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Home of the Fighting Yellowjackets, the 1993 Class 4-A State Football Champions! Hehehe! That has a lot to do with why I’m pro-gun and anti-affirmative action right there! Don’t mistake my comments for being condescending toward southerners..I’d like to think of it as “tough love”!! :)

Why charitable organizations are an inadequate substitute for social programs:

The Supreme Court had no illusions in December about the difficulties facing the new campaign-finance reform law when it upheld the law’s ban on so-called soft money, unlimited donations to political parties and other groups. “Money, like water, will always find an outlet,” wrote justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor. “What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day.” Because of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), that day has arrived.

DeLay has made plans to use a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable foundation created by him and operated by his daughter and several of his associates to fund political events at the Republican National Convention over Labor Day weekend. DeLay weakened House ethics rules last year, ending bans on free trips to and lodging at charity events where lawmakers mingle with lobbyists and businesspeople. His latest maneuver could free both political parties to use captive charitable organizations as vehicles for off-the-books influence peddling.

The brochure for DeLay’s charity, Celebrations for Children Inc., openly solicits funds to be used to pay for a luxury hospitality suite for big donors, a yacht cruise, VIP tickets to Broadway shows, a golf tournament and a late-night party. For $500,000, a donor gets a private dinner before and after the convention with DeLay and colleagues as well as high-level staffers. These are functions for which political soft money was used during the 2000 conventions.

DeLay certainly leaves the impression of trading influence for money. The donations are even tax-deductible beyond the amount used by the charity for actual event costs. But it’s not a tax deduction that lobbyists will be chasing. It’s private access to power.

Such grimy use of a children’s charity will ring bells in Los Angeles. In 1997, then-City Councilman Richard Alatorre was hauled before the city Ethics Commission in connection with two charities that he helped create and that were administered by his wife. Alatorre solicited large donations for the charities from companies that did business with the city. It smelled, and Alatorre lost his foothold in politics.

The Internal Revenue Service will eventually determine whether DeLay’s charity meets the federal requirement that nonprofits refrain from partisan political conduct. The House Ethics Committee, however, should not wait for a ruling on the letter of the law. For five years, an unofficial truce has existed between Republicans and Democrats who tired of mutual destruction stemming from ethics charges after House speakers Jim Wright (D-Texas) and Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) had to resign. The pendulum has swung too far the other way. Ethics Committee Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) and ranking Democrat Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.) should issue an advisory opinion to their colleagues on the ethics and legality of DeLay’s use of his charity.

DeLay has worked hard and honorably to help disadvantaged children in the past. Now, unfortunately, he is engaged in a political arms race that will only hurt the reputations of legitimate charities.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-ed-delay18feb18,1,4539306.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

I’m not even an American but hasn’t one issue not been touched on too much here. Hasn’t race always been a big issue in the South? Isn’t that why the ‘Democrats’ - and democratic many of their Southern representatives certainly were not - held the South for so long against ‘the party of Lincoln’. Isn’t that why the South moved en bloc into the Republican column in the late sixties and early seventies?

The Pro-Life issue and Race together form a major bloc to any Democratic success in the South. It would be foolish for any Democrat to ignore the South - states like Florida, Louisiana and Virginia are winnable. However, is it not also true that any Democrat can lose across the South but still win the Presidency so long as they do not lose eminently more winnable states such as Ohio, Missouri and West Virginia?

As for Sen Edwards - Gore couldn’t hold his home state, would Edwards do any better?