Democrats should pull the Jesus card

[sandyshoes17]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Please,
But I just had a thought. Why does the right own the religious. We should show them up. They are always quoting the bible, we can do the same. Thou shall not kill, love thy neighbor, help the poor, etc. We should throw this in their face instead of shirking from it. Make them look like the evil bastards they are, and show our humanity. Keep pushing how moral we are Show them for what they are for,hate and greed, We are for Love and compassion. We can stop this religious right in there tracks, how could they respond. Push the junk to the top and let everyone see the truth. They have made this backward world, good is bad, etc. We need to push the truth, we love and want to help everyone on this earth, we can all survive comfortably if it weren't for these greedy bastards. They are ruining everything.

[LAGC]

1. Nah, the fastest growing demographic in this country is the non-religious.

And the Republican Party hates them, so where do you think they are all going to go?

[MrModerate]

9. Yes, the non-religious are a growing consitutency . . .

But we're far from being numerous enough to turn the tide. Check back in 20 years.

And non-religious people have pretty much the same moral values as the rest of the population, we just don't attribute them to any particular sky-guy.

So the OP has it right that you can appeal to values that the wingnuts and godsmacked have arrogated to themselves, and yet which also unite progressives and centrists. And it might well stop the Grundyites in their tracks.

[Zalatix]

2. It would bring religious liberals into the fold.

And it would be a step closer toward solidarity.

[Bake]

52. I got news for you ... religious liberals are ALREADY in the fold.

I know. I'm one. Or used to be, anyway (religious, that is).

Bake

[SoutherDem]

3. Good idea

Republicans with hate Christians and Democrats with love Christians.

[freshwest]

5. Nice contrast, huh?

[kestrel91316]

4. I don't elect politicians to be my spiritual counselors.

[freshwest]

6. Yeah, but so many believe Obama is the Anti-Christ. We need a buffer zone.

[thucythucy]

7. Here's a perfect example of how this would work:

right wingers are always quoting the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as some kind of warning about allowing gay people equal rights.

But Ezekiel 16:49 says the crime of Sodom was also "pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease...she did not aid the poor and needy."

Got that, right wingers? "Pride" (USA! USA!) "surfeit of food" (skyrocketing obesity rates while poor children go hungry) "prosperous ease" (for the 1%) and not enough aid to "the poor and the needy."

For every Bible verse the right can throw at us, we can heave two right back at them.

[sandyshoes17]

10. Exactly

We can throw so many right back at them, why do we let them call the shots. We could actually embarrass the hell out of them when it comes to this stuff. We really care.

[iemitsu]

24. i like knowing that when little kids tease old prophets and pull their beards

that god will send bears to eat them.
a very instructive story if you ask me.

[Xolodno]

8. The problem is....

....Dems are not into "social engineering" whereas Republican are. The religious right wing are trying to change the country from a Republic-Democracy to a Republic-Theocracy much like Iran is today (hence probably why they are such a boogey man, they have what they want, but the religion is Islam).

Granted they are losing the demographic war, but majorities can still lose if pitted against each other on the right issues.

But I do agree that we need an outspoken religious left to counter the right, because on that front all they are doing is just pounding away at a weak spot. And I'm sorry, but Rev. Al Sharpton is not enough, the left needs several clones of him to fight back.

Until the left is into "social engineering" and pounding the drums for it...nothing is going to happen. This will piss off the militant athiests here, but for this to work, they need to allow the religious left to do thier thing. In the end, it will benefit them as they won't be in the spotlight (which the religious right continues to focus on). But rather, showing compasion for our "nieghbor", helping the poor, etc. would be the theme. Something the Republicans would lose on hands down. But when the focus is, "godless liberals"....the battle is lost.

[LAGC]

11. "This will piss off the militant atheists here..."

You know, if the so-called "religious left" spent as much time challenging their fundie brothers in their own religious ranks rather than worrying about what the non-religious were up to, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But there's a reason most religious folks tilt to the right... its all about "tradition" versus "change."

[turtlerescue1]

13. It doesn't matter which side someone is on

when they become self-righteous, someone else will be abused and beheaded, it will still smell, walk and be domination.

Here's a quote:

Woe to the legislators of infamous laws, to those who issue tyrannical decrees, who refuse justice to the unfortunate, and cheat the poor among my people of their rights, make widows their prey and rob the orphans.

WHERE in those two verses from Isaiah does the conservative christian(Small "C&quot right fit?
WHERE are they even related to the contents and meaning of those words?

The ONE thing my (decades-long loved) Democrats have repeatedly done is -splinter, and you can't be united if you are splintered. I'm a Christian, what someone else believes, what fills their spirituality, what gives them hope, what sustains them in difficulties, THAT is not for me to dictate, mandate, control or decide. WHY can't you allow me that same courtesy?

Years ago I feared that the conservative christian(AGAIN Small "C&quot right would divide all of us, but was sure we wouldn't fall for it, after all we are liberal, to each his own mind and choices.

[LAGC]

14. I don't really care what your religious beliefs happen to be.

Believe whatever you want to your heart's content. More power to you.

Just keep those views SEPARATE from our government's policies.

Thanks!

[aka-chmeee]

20. If you will please forgive me, but....

Amen!

[thucythucy]

34. Read my post 28 below

if you haven't already.

[thucythucy]

36. There's a lot of excellent stuff in Isaiah

about speaking truth to power.

Who, I wonder, is today's Isaiah? And how long could he preach before some wingnut put a bullet in his head?

[thucythucy]

16. I think it may have less to do with tradition

and more to do with a preference for a simplistic, spoon-fed, right vs. wrong, us vs. them belief system that allows those who buy into it an assurance that they will be "saved" as long as they conform to what their leaders tell them. It also helps that they're encouraged to feel superior to the rest of us "sinners" who haven't seen the light of their narrowly defined belief system.

That said, as I pointed out above, there is a long history of the religious left in this country. The problem isn't so much that those in the religious left haven't challenged "their fundie brothers in their own religious ranks"--they have, and will continue to do so, often at great cost to themselves. The problem, or at least one part of the problem, is that right wing preachers own so much more media than the left--a situation similar to what's happened in talk radio--that the conservatives are able to drown out any message those on the left might want to send. Fundies like Pat Robertson have huge backing from the 1%--so much so that the man has investments in Guatemalan real estate and Liberian diamond mines. They also have the support of the GOP--"faith based initiatives" and "abstinence only" sex education alone have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into fundamentalist coffers.

The religious left, by contrast, doesn't get the support of the 1%, nor does it get much if any support from the Democratic Party.

Frankly, I don't think the religious left SHOULD have the support of the 1%. But where the religious left and liberal Democrats agree: on gay marriage (BTW, leftie religious groups like the United Church of Christ--of which President Obama is a member--were way ahead of the Democratic Party on this issue); a non-imperialist foreign policy; a two state solution in the Middle East; a much more inclusive social safety net; succor for the poor; empowerment for the disabled; civil rights; the environment... I would hope that Democrats wouldn't be adverse to working in coalition.

Like I said above, it's long past time we reclaimed the religious high ground. Even if you're not a believer, surely you can see political advantage to working with those who support your goals, as opposed to needlessly alienating them.

[LAGC]

17. I guess I just don't see how Separation of Church and State should alienate you.

I have no problem working with religious liberals, as long as they check their religious baggage at the door and don't try to implement them as public policy.

That's a big part of the problem right now, there's so much blind respect for people's religious views, that they keep creeping into the public arena, legislating morality and what not.

[thucythucy]

28. As I understand it, separation of church and state

means that the state can't and shouldn't throw its support behind one or another particular religion, or religion in general; that government shouldn't be used to force people to believe (or not to believe) in any particular faith.

On the other hand, "legislating morality" is precisely what Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to accomplish by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to his Christian belief, it was immoral for people to be excluded from jobs, from housing, from education, from medical care, simply because of the color of their skin. He, as leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was at the vanguard of the struggle for civil rights. Are you saying Rev. King should have "checked his religious baggage at the door" when he went to Congress and the White House to support the Civil Rights Act? Along with Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Rev. Jessie Jackson, and all the other ministers who led the marches in Selma, in Birmingham, in Washington? Do you disagree with President Kennedy when he said the struggle for civil rights was the great moral issue of the time? And when Rev. King denounced the Vietnam war as violating his Christian faith, and called for an end to funding for the war, and to use the money instead to build schools, hospitals, and housing, wasn't he trying to legislate his own morality (or at least get others--notably liberal Democrats like George McGovern -- to legislate it for him)?

It all depends on which morality you see as important. Personally, I think the government should have absolutely no say whatsoever in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives. This is in direct opposition to the religious right, who have a fixation, an obsession really, with what other people do with their genitals. I DO think government has a role in providing access to comprehensive health care for all women--including contraception for women who can't afford it otherwise. That, to me, is the moral thing to do. If my reasoning for this is religious, why should I, as a liberal Democrat, be expected to deny it?

Similarly, I think the moral thing to do is to acknowledge the existence of global climate change, and our responsibility for it, and to act to stop it so that future generations won't pay the cost for our own selfishness and consumerism. (To progressive Christians, our consumerism is a form of idolatry: the god of America is money, and if anyone tells you otherwise...well, their eyes still need to be opened). So asking government to step in to regulate carbon emissions is in fact legislating morality--passing laws to force us to do the moral thing by our children and grandchildren.

Again, if you and I have the same goals, including specific legislation and policy we want to see passed and implemented, why should the fact that I might be motivated by religious belief be such a problem?

I think the Democratic Party made a huge mistake in the late 1960s in ceding the religious high ground to conservative Republicans. This happened after the assassination of Rev. King, which left a vacuum in American religious leadership on the left. Richard Nixon pursued a strategy of wooing and co-opting religious conservatives like Billy Graham; Ronald Reagan continued that strategy with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson; G.W. Bush with Ted Haggart and Focus on the Family. By contrast, Democrats have done nothing that I can see to reach out to the religious left.

As I said, whether you have faith or not, it's time we undid that mistake.

[LAGC]

37. The problem is, when you start legislating morality based on religious views...

It opens the door for the right to do the same.

And I'm sorry, but right-wing Christians far outnumber those on the left. It's a losing proposition.

You should support public policies because they make sense and are fair and just IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, not just because your religious views tell you they are a good idea. Religious views change with the wind. It's not a solid foundation to build a political philosophy on top of at all.

The fact is, religious belief is on the decline in this country. It would be foolish for the Democratic Party to play favorites when so many more non-religious people are entering the fold. If the current demographics trends continue, there will be no Republican base in 50 years, because all the old, white, Christian males will have died off. No reason to jump on a sinking ship.

[thucythucy]

39. The right will do the same

regardless of what the left does. They don't need us to open any doors for them--they simply kick the doors down, whether you like it or not.

But what you're advocating in response is unilateral religious disarmament. As if, if only liberal Democrats refuse to allow progressive Christians to have any voice at all in the party, and refrain from using religious arguments to buttress their positions, that somehow Republicans will also play nice and not use the religious club against us, and not try to legislate their brand of "Christian" morality. Given everything we've seen these past years, I highly doubt it.

And here too you are telling me that people shouldn't tell others what they can and cannot believe, and yet here you are saying "you should support public policies because they make sense and are fair....not just because your religious views tell you they are a good idea." Isn't that telling me what I should or shouldn't believe?

Besides which: why can't I do both, that is: support a policy because it is just and fair, AND because my religion tells me it's my obligation to do so? And isn't any principled argument we can muster to counter the right an argument we should use?

BTW, you haven't responded at all to any of my questions on the role of Rev. King and the religious impetus behind the civil rights movement of the '50s and '60s. No offense, but if African Americans had waited on the Democratic Party to wage that fight, and had excluded religious advocates, chances are there would have been no civil rights act passed at all.

As for the demographics, we were told in 2000 that the religious right was on the ropes, going bankrupt, was becoming politically irrelevant. I doubt anyone would make that argument today. Especially with an ever larger Hispanic population, which in coming decades will make up a larger and larger percentage of the electorate. We were told in 2008 that the GOP was so down it might possibly never rise again. And with the seeming ongoing destruction of the labor movement (which also seems to have been abandoned, to a great extent, by the Democratic Party leadership, re: Wisconsin), I wouldn't be so sanguine about simple demographics as a replacement for building coalitions, and reaching out to those who would be allies in our struggles.

In any case, progressive Christians (and Jews and Muslims) are out there now, waiting to be brought into the party. This coming election--no matter what some may believe--is going to be a close one (especially at the Congressional level) and we're going to need every vote we can get.

So it just seems bizarre to me that you'd reject the support of people who, if you take them as individuals, are probably as progressive, if not even more so, than most mainstream (and certainly most "third way&quot Democrats.

Whatever. I suspect we won't settle this tonight, and I have to get some sleep.

Best wishes to you and yours,

ThucyThucy

[LAGC]

40. Well, the civil rights movement was inevitable.

So many social factors converging that change was bound to happen, regardless of religion being involved (on both sides, I might add.)

Rev. King was just in the right place at the right time, being able to capitalize off of people's frustrations. But a lot has changed in 50 years. We no longer need religious figureheads to drive public policy.

When gay marriage becomes legal in all 50 states, it won't be because of religion, but in spite of it. We are becoming less and less of a Christian nation, and more of a melting pot that favors no particular religious views.

No one's saying you shouldn't be able to speak out and try to change people's minds, just don't try to use the government as your vehicle to force your particular religious views on everyone else.

We need more Separation of Church and State, not less.

[thucythucy]

44. There was nothing inevitable about the triumph

of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. It was the result of an incredible amount of work, dedication, and sacrifice by people, some of whom gave their lives for the cause. Remember that after the triumph of the abolitionists in the 1860s, won with the support of more than a hundred thousand black soldiers, we had close to a hundred years of backlash and Jim Crow. Every step forward comes with the risk of two steps backwards. Contrary to what Marx says, nothing in history is "inevitable." It all depends on what people do--as individuals, and as societies.

And to say that Rev. King "was just in the right place at the right time" is pretty demeaning to King and all that he did and all that he sacrificed. Things didn't just magically happen in the 1950s and '60s because of "people's frustrations." Do you think African Americans weren't frustrated in the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s? A lot of incredible work went into achieving what was achieved, and at any point something could have changed the outcome. The Supreme Court could have ruled against the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board. The family of Emmit Till could have opted for a closed casket funeral. The Montgomery bus boycott could have failed (as similiar boycotts before it did). Richard Nixon came close to winning the election in 1960--in which case I doubt the 1964 Civil Rights Act would ever have been signed, let alone the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Every step of the way was fraught with the chance of failure, and there were not a few moments (after the bombings in Birmingham, for example) when people were close to despair.

Anyway, I certainly agree with the separation of church and state. I just don't think alienating religious lefties is a particularly smart move on the part of Democrats.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the rest of this.

And so, best wishes until we meet here again.

ThucyThucy

[LAGC]

49. You're pretty quick to discount Marx.

I actually think there's something to historical dialectics.

It's easy to say things would have gone much differently if 'X' had happened instead, but 'X' didn't happen, because all the historical forces behind that moment pretty much determined the outcome.

I think people put too much stock in individual agency and "free will." So many forces in nature and society are beyond individual control, once the social change train starts moving it eventually reaches its destination, even if there are a few bumps and turns along the way. If Dr. King hadn't been where he had been, I have no doubt someone else would have taken his place.

But no one is "alienating religious lefties." There's just no need to single them out or offer special pleading when we have such a Big Tent including many non-believers, more and more joining our ranks each day. Like it or lump it, the Republican Party IS the religious party in this country. Religious leftists are more than welcome in the Big Tent, forming a secular coalition on political matters we can all agree on, I just don't see a need to single them out for special treatment or recognition at this point in time, or offer religious excuses for political positions that should just be common sense and stand on their own right.

I apologize if any of this offends you.

[thucythucy]

51. Nothing you've written offends me,

and I discount Marx (portions of his work, anyway), only after much reading and thought. (Just a quick aside here: if you haven't heard of this already, there's something called "liberation theology"--developed in Latin America in the 1960s and '70s--that combines Marxism and radical Christianity, which was of major importance in the overthrow of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua. Just a random little factoid for your consideration).

I think James McPherson, in Battle Cry of Freedom, puts it well when he talks about the role of contingency in the unfolding of history--that there are indeed forces that shape the course of history, but also individual actions or failures to act that have substantial impact on the outcome, certainly on the timing, of various historical developments. I wish I could quote the exact passage I have in mind, but I'm traveling and don't have the book in front of me. (It's an excellent read, BTW, if you haven't read it already, and McPherson makes mincemeat out of the argument so popular among Confederate apologists that the events of 1860-61 weren't related to either slavery or racism. Also good, in terms of the backlash against civil rights 1865-1920, is David Blight, Race and Reunion, in case you're looking for some good summer reads).

And I'm not so much asking for special treatment for religious lefties as I am that they not be dismissed out of hand, which some posters here seem to do. That the Republican Party is perceived to be THE religious party, as you say, seems to me to be a definite political disadvantage to Democrats trying to win elections in what is by far the most religious industrially developed nation in the world. This may be changing--slowly--but for now it's a reality we have to deal with, and I'm not sure how ceding the right to argue religion to the most reactionary elements in the country somehow comes out a plus for us. Which is why I agree with the thrust of the OP--that Democrats, some of us anyway, should absolutely be willing and able to argue religion with the best (or the worst) of the other side. He calls it "playing the Jesus card"--which I think is a great idea.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll stake out my corner of our big tent, and you can stake out yours. In the end I do believe we have very similar ideals for a just and sustainable society.

Best wishes

[iemitsu]

26. right wing religious groups

also own 80% of the voting machines in the US.
that is what we need to control.

[thucythucy]

12. There is in fact a long history of the religious left

in this country, from Congregationalist radical abolitionists to Quaker pacifists to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Jessie Jackson, the Berrigan Brothers, the Wilmington 10, the Sanctuary movement, Witness for Peace, etc. etc. etc.

Somehow, the right has managed to co-opt anything having to do with religion in this country. It's long past time we took it back from them.

[JoePhilly]

15. This Athiest LOVES, LOVEs, to call out the right wing on Biblical terms.

Many of us became Atheists after going and reading the bible, and other writings about God and religion because we were constantly being told that we were imoral and hell bound by believers.

Personally, I got tired of having some religious person who wanted to place them self above me, telling me that they understood the bible, and I did not.

Some atheists got tired of this, and simply decided to yell "imaginary friend" at religious people. But that doesn't do much.

I find its much better to allow religious people to enjoy their spirituality as they see fit, right up to the point that they start to push it in my face.

And so, the left should feel very free to drop their own interpretation of what Jesus would do right in the face of the self-righteous crazy right wing.

Focus on the places where their crazy zealotry moves into an effort to control others.

[turtlerescue1]

19. am blessed(??) with

a GOP entering office with $upport from the tea party in the House for my district. His assistant reads my liberal letters, but wanna bet he doesn't? It is with great humor I send him snail mail every month of two. None of which has even been answered....GRIN. The Assistant says she read them because of my humor.

If someone is pushing their beliefs on you, it is still a self-righteous action. I don't know many liberal Christians who would consider that a good thing. After all you catch more flies with honey than vinegar-sorry but couldn't resist.

Are there zealot atheists?

[JoePhilly]

42. I'm sure there are zealot Athiests.

But I encounter very few of them. And I find they usually are not trying to force others to become atheists. They tend to be doing things I consider pretty dumb, like trying to get "In God we Trust" taking off our money. Like that matters.

And I don't encourage liberal Christians to push their views on anyone either. What I do encourage those on the left, Christian or not, is to challenge the many far right wing Christians on the merits of their position, by debating Christianity directly with them we necessary.

Take school prayer. They push that. So I ask them logistical questions. Which prayer do we use? Does it change each day? Does everyone repeat it out loud? Can I pick the prayer? Which prayers from which Christian denominations? On Catholic day, would the kids say the Rosaries? What about Jewish, Muslim, and Hundu prayers?

Same on Creationism as science. They don't seem to realize that by teaching this in schools, their children will be exposed to criticisms of it, just as they criticize evolution. They think it will be taught they way they would teach it in a Sunday school, which is not how it would work at all.

Or on the claim that the bible is the literal word of God ... well, if so ... why are certain books of the bible, particularly the 4 Gospels, attributed to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John? And why do their descriptions of the resurrection differ?

And I agree, your teabag rep doesn't read your stuff ... I find that the Christian zealots don't want to talk to me for very long, once they realize that I am not intimidated by their moral superiority and godliness. My questions make them uncomfortable.

[turtlerescue1]

43. Yeah, its got to be a

wicked pleasure I get from "communicating" with this GOP. The best of irritating was in a different State, literally the Governor saw me and turned and went another direction, I didn't see it until someone standing with me started laughing and told me why. For the briefest of instants my feelings were hurt, then realized "it must've been something I said". Still gives me an enormous grin.

Those folks can ignore and dismiss many here at DU, for whatever reasonings they use. BUT those of us who refuse to have our Beliefs manipulated, they just don't know what to do with.
Its even better if we can match them with opposing Biblical verses. We take a battering from our side, had no idea how abusive it is to be a Liberal Progressive Christian among the Democrats.

Still is there good to come from any of this? Good that will spread and bring change? Not unless we allow each other to just simply BE what it is their soul follows.

[Major Nikon]

18. There's a good reason why the wingnuts have the godnuts

The GOP is the party of irrationality, and by definition, belief in a supreme being is irrational.

Besides, the left doesn't want the godnuts. When their religious institutions tell them something, there is no compromise. These people truly believe their leaders speak for god, and when someone believes they are getting their direction from god, there is no higher authority in which you can appeal.

[tomkoop]

21. GLORY BE NOT TO THE REPUBLICAN JESUS!!!

I agree wholeheartedly!! The dems need to stand up on every street corner and let it be known they will fight for them. I do it. I am not in office. I am a pauper with a voice they hate.

[AJTheMan]

22. I don't want the Democratic Party to be in bed with Big Religion.

You put religious into the fold, and before you know it we have pro-life, anti-freedom Democrats running. This is because the religious bloc votes uniformly in favor of restricting rights and passing judgement.

[turtlerescue1]

31. Define bias? Define exclusion? -thanks

[thucythucy]

32. Progressive and left Christians are not "Big Religion."

Typically, they are smaller, more grass roots denominations such as the United Church of Christ, the Friends (Quakers); Unitarian Universalists; liberal Episcopalians like Rev. Gene Robinson (who was celebrated at today's gay pride activities in Boston). Historically they're radicals like Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (arrested multiple times, then assassinated); the Berrigan Brothers (arrested, sent to prison); the Wilmington 10 (arrested, framed, tried, eventually released). Some of the most vehement denunciations of the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan came from religious progressives. Today there are religious progressives, including ministers, involved in Occupy Wall Street.

These groups also tend to be pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-women's rights, pro-labor, pro-civil rights, anti-death penalty. The Metropolitan Community Church, to cite another example, was founded in the 1960s to be a Christian church of, by, and for the GLBT community. Again, they are hardly "Big Religion." Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco came out in support of gay rights and marriage equality years before any Democratic leader. Not even Barney Frank supported gay marriage until years after Glide.

One problem Democrats have reaching out to religious progressives is they have no idea who they even are, let alone what they believe.

[sandyshoes17]

23. Not that we should become wingnuts

But, we should challenge them, and call them out for their hatred. I personally am not religious , I meditate, and veer toward budism, if anything. But I cannot understand how they hold the higher ground on this. We are so more compassionate. They are trying to convince us that evil is good, and the masses are buying it

[thucythucy]

38. They are also trying to convince us that money is god;

that corporations are people (does this mean corporations have souls?), and that financial and material success are a measure of someone's spiritual development.

All this is in direct opposition to what Jesus taught, to wit:

It is more difficult for a rich man to enter heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (sounds pretty difficult to me!);

blessed are the poor;

blessed are the peacemakers (and no, he didn't mean high caliber firearms).

Not to mention Jesus staged what was perhaps the first Occupy movement in history, when he chased the money changers out of the temple.

Jesus arriving on the scene today would be condemned by the religious right as a socialist dead beat hippie who hangs around with prostitutes and even (heaven forfend!) tax collectors! Providing free health care, forgiving adultery, empowering people with disabilities, urging anyone who wanted to follow him to sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor. Redistribution of wealth! Social engineering! An attack on the job creators!

No, if Jesus ever does return the Christian right in this country will fall all over themselves to have him crucified all over again.

If we can somehow get this message out, it will de fang one of the rights's most potent, and vicious, attack dogs. Not to mention potentially gain us tens and hundreds of thousands of new allies.

Too bad there doesn't seem any effort on the part of the Democratic leadership to embrace this as a strategy any time soon.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

25. This was done on a fairly large scale in the sixties.

The hard part was actually living by those high standards.

[turtlerescue1]

33. But much has been destroyed since then.

Muskie was my guy, and looked what happened there.

Absolutely loved Paul and Sheila Wellstone, Paul always listened, he always made you feel cared about, and he fought for beliefs. And that plane did what? The first words out of my mouth when informed was "Damn, they killed him." Of course-maybe not.

POW/MIAs were always a concern. But ya know when a particular Senator got off that plane when he was let free, sure didn't seem to spend much time or effort for the others, including one Lt. Franklin A. Caras, captured just about the same day as my h.s. graduation-the ones left behind. Not with seven homes, couldn't spare the interest.

We also don't have the access to information, like the Top 50 War Profiteers of 1968 that came out of Berkley. Had to have a copy after listening to the guys I grew up with when they got "back" from TDY. Today, not going to happen.

The weekend RFK was murdered, his entourage drove past my home after a rally, on the way to the airport to LA. We just can't seem to keep the ones that we could call "heroes" alive, or not "discredited".

That is why the normal splintered shape of the Democrats is so irritating. Drove me nuts for years, and it still is.

[dawg]

27. Ever read much about Anton Lavey and the Church of Satan?

If not, read up sometime. I saw an interview done with him once, and his political beliefs would probably seem eerily familiar to you.

(hint: they certainly weren't liberal)

[Poiuyt]

29. How Would Jesus Govern

http://voices.yahoo.com/how-would-jesus-govern-2272795.html

Also, read anything by Jim Wallis, especially God's Politics.

[frogmarch]

30. Dems could say anything as long as

they inserted "Jesus" and "God" and "Bible" into it:

"blah blah blah God blah blah Jesus blah Bible..."

Like that.

I've long believed that republicans use the name of Jesus as bait to pull the suckers in.

[trusty elf]

41. Maybe the Jesus action figure?

[IMG][/IMG]

[cynatnite]

45. Great...religious wars between political parties...just what we need...

That's what would happen. It'll be a contest for who loves gawd the most or the best.

These things never go well and it's a bad idea.

[Autumn]

46. I get disgusted when any politician pulls their religion card out.

They really creep me out. Seems to me all the ones being so pious are the worst at wanting people to suffer. I have never seen anyone as disgusting as this current crop of "christens' in office.

[Harmony Blue]

47. Most of the right

is composed of Western Christianity. When I confront them with the more spiritual based Eastern Christianity their heads are left spinning. Simple logic and truth can do wonders.

[w8liftinglady]

48. Honey- that's how you do it in Red Texas

I'm a nurse in a large Religious hospital system.

I make prayer beads for all my patients and their families....ones with crosses,stars of David,Hamsa and secular.I tell them to focus on a positive force,irregardless of their belief system.Most of my patients believe in "Our Heavenly Father".I usually will give them a little hug and say" I love caring for you,just like Our heavenly father- no strings attached".

They can't corner the belief system.I'm sure our heavenly father shakes his head in disgust when he sees how the Republicans screw the world while "Blessing" him loudly.

[99Forever]

50. Why would I...

... "throw the Bible in their faces" when I know it's nothing more than a book of stories written to explain things beyond the technology of that era to understand in a rational, logical way?

There are of course some very good ideas in it, but I cannot pretend that magic is real, in an attempt to turn sociopaths into decent human beings. Let us know how this works out for you, however.