The Rise of the Religious Left -- Why Christianity Isn't Just for Conservatives »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 2 months, 1 week ago in Political Opinion
It's easy to paint American Christians as right wing free-marketeers -– but the truth is far more complex. Many commentators believe that the presidency of George W Bush, which undoubtedly revitalized conservative Christians, was possibly their last act as a major force in the political landscape. The "religious right" has long played a pernicious role in US politics. Its insistence that preachers should be interested only in saving souls -- a good alibi for neglecting the material needs of the poor -- has consistently been contradicted by their complicity in free markets and vocal opposition to abortion and gay rights. But this is not the only story to tell about American Christianity. Arguably Obama's election -- won in part due to the successful courtship of a large section of the religious vote -- suggests that it is not the most important one either.
Nearly every major social justice battle fought in the US has been supported, if not driven, by religious groups -- which in statistical terms overwhelmingly means Christians. It's widely known that the historically black church has been a key player in promoting justice for African Americans -- from the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movements to peace initiatives.
Read Full Story at alternet.org »
258 Views Share Story 28 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Radiofreeeuropa
All progress comes from unreasonable people.
Rats live on no evil star!
Wasilla: All I saw...
Sorry, just palindroming around with terrorists.
Are you still ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 28 (view all)
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have long said that familiarity with the teachings of Jesus do not in any sense lead to GOP affiliation. Rather quite the contrary. No doubt a messiah would not endorse one political party or another, being concerned primarily with ethereal realms and all. However the teachings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament implore feeding the poor, treating each and every one with respect, equality, and seeking peace. Isn't it obvious that this would apply to the material world? How does one reconcile those teachings with CEO pay rising astronomically while workers see their wages diminish year after year when adjusted for cost of living? With the "Money changers" being given carte blanche to run roughshod over the temple? With any bigotry? With war...particularly a war of choice that had nothing whatsoever with defense of the nation?
Reply-
93%
Goppy2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Christianity has NEVER NOT been an integral part of the Left.
Reply
Growing up Catholic ... we were drilled in the Bible ... and the life of Jesus.
We were taught empathy for others ... and a social conscience.
It's one reason so many Catholics vote Democratic ... because there is a sense of Social Justice within the Democratic Party that is absent in the Republican Party.
Now granted ... the issue of Abortion has led many Catholics to vote Republican ... but of course ... as history has shown ... Republicans are DEATHLY afraid that Abortion will be outlawed under their watch.
That's why they never bothered with the issue when they controlled ALL branches of government for SIX YEARS.
They want the issue of Abortion for it's 'Get Out The Vote' aspect.
Now I ask ... what is more morally reprehensible ....
A) . Working to keep Abortion Legal ... BUT SAFE
B) . Creating an issue around Abortion ... for the sole purpose of motivating voters to vote for you ... even though you never intend to change the issue.
.
-
-
50%
slate2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let's see how the argument that somehow all the things you attribute to being 'conservative over liberal is really valid.
Reply
Feeding the poor:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/...
Liberals giving less to charities does not make them the ultimate provider of support of the poor. It's giving personally that makes one charitable not just belonging to a party that claims they are for the poor as they use free tax money to make themselves look good (as they keep as much of their own money and selfishly spend it on themselves.
Treating others with respect? Now that's a good one. Obviously, a tri around just this site and looking at the news of how Rush was treated because he wanted to be a co-owner of a football team (when Fergie did get the nod) will disprove that notion.
CEO's? Have you seen the difference in pay between a stage set hand verses an actor or how many millionaire congress people and billionaire liberals there are that run major corporations?
Bigotry?
Joe Biden making jokes about Indian store owners, Obama saying 'typical white woman', Sheets Byrd, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the way Black Conservatives are treated?
WAR? Which party has been responsible for the most dead people and has actually dropped nuclear bombs of civilians? I really hope you hated Clinton attacking Bosnia, I hope you hated the Vietnam war ( I know for sure neither of those wars had nothing to do with the defense of our nation).
Why don't you just face it, both parties a majorly messed up and Jesus would have nothing to do with either party?-
100%
dunkirk2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seems you overlook a few things.
Reply
a) Liberals giving less to charities does not make them the ultimate provider of support of the poor
You can provide links to articles that show the wealthy serving food other then when a camera is around?
b) Treating others with respect?
ROFLMAO, you are kidding about using Rush as an example? The ultimate example of someone who DOES NOT treat anyone with respect? It seems he reaps what he sows.
Im not totally sure what your point is with the CEO;s and stage hands and actors and billionaire liberals. Seems the billionaire liberals are trying to work for the betterment of the avg person not something most billionaire neo's can claim, i.e. the CEO's.
Its interesting you comment about Obama snce his comment was made to characrterize how WE look at individuals. Bidden did apologize for his comment something that liberals have a tendency to do vs the righties like Bush and Cheney who seem to blame the person they talked about for taking offense,.
You seem to like to get stuck on that WAR thing. lets look at them, Im wondering are you saying we shouldnt have been involved in WWI or WWII? Do you also forget that in WWII WE were attacked and Germany declared war on us? Would you have preferred we sat back? Im quite happy we had Dems in charge then since the Republicans, especially in WWII, favored appeasement since dealing with the Nazi's was so profitable. In fact wasnt Bush grandfather charged with just that? Hmmmm
yes both parties have the9ir problems but the party that seems to miss the mark the majority of the time always seems to be the REPUBLICANS. -
83%
Sageparadox2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Treating others with respect? Now that's a good one. Obviously, a tri around just this site and looking at the news of how Rush was treated because he wanted to be a co-owner of a football team (when Fergie did get the nod) will disprove that notion.
Reply
Betcha think that Hitler is treated a bit too harsh in the history books too.
Just look, you are sticking up for Rush Limbaugh.
I mean common!
Really, common. -
75%
mesodude2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Liberals giving less to charities does not make them the ultimate provider of support of the poor. It's giving personally that makes one charitable..."
Reply
--Why? Because cons are the sole arbiters of what "giving personally" means? In what household, church, or school were you taught that only money qualifies as charity?
"…not just belonging to a party that claims they are for the poor as they use free tax money to make themselves look good (as they keep as much of their own money and selfishly spend it on themselves."
--Ok...But since at least some of the "free tax money" they're using is theirs, aren't Liberals, in fact, giving more to charity than you're giving them credit for? Or are you more concerned about the portion of "free tax money" that's yours? If that's the case, maybe you should give less of your money to charity. Since, according to you anyway, you give so generously and it's obviously a hardship for you--why not just not give any? That way you can keep more of your own money and you won't feel that you're being oppressed. Plus, you won't have to keep track of who is giving more to charity than you are--because you won't be giving any. Unless you're worried that you won't "look"as good as you would by simply paying a little more in taxes? -
100%
Tangent0012 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As to the notion that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats, that is likely true. But since Republicans are more prone to be devoutly religious, the question then becomes is it the religiosity or the Republicanism that is the root cause for the giving?
Reply
"Have you seen the difference in pay between a stage set hand verses an actor...?"
I had to guffaw at this one. In anything other than a Broadway setting with a really big name star, the answer is likely that the stage hands make on average the same as, if not more than, the talent. The ones who make the real money are, of course, the producers.
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe our involvement in Vietnam began under President Eisenhower whom I respected...he was a Republican president though. The UN action in Bosnia which the U.S. participated in was to stop "ethnic cleansing" was it not? Another cause that one could find at least some Biblical support for.
Reply -
100%
fjgalt2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Christianity has always preached altruism (the sacrifice of the individual), as every dictatorship has. The connection between Christianity and Marxism is strong. St. Ambrose (4th century, I believe) stated that anything above the basic necessities is not yours but belongs to he who does not have. Nikita Khrushchev (1956?) stated that communism was merely putting the percepts of the bible into practice.
Reply
Obedience is the cardinal rule in Catholicism as it is with dictatorships. Most dictatorships of the communist type merely substitute worship of a deity with worship of the state. Whether the individual exists to serve a god, king, or the nation is immaterial. The result is always the same.
Most of the founders were deists, not Christians, as conservatives would have you believe. (Basing Liberty on Christianity is contradictory to the teachings of the bible; they base freedom on faith, not reason, and wonder why they fail.) It was only the United States that put the individual first, and has been criticized ever since by the Pope and other religious leaders.-
100%
sinophil492 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fjgalt - Superficially, your statements have the sheen of truth, but you misunderstand some basic concepts of Catholicism and Communism.
Reply
Catholicism (and really, all of Christianity) imposes the obligation to help the downtrodden, because of the intrinsic value of each human soul in the eyes of God. He loves each and every one of us and commands us to love each other as He does. So we are bidden to help the poor to relieve their suffering. We glorify each individual.
Communism demands that we surrender our individual possessions and identity to the State in order that the goods can be distributed to all the populace equally. Communism stamps down the value of each individual for the glory and power of the state. The individual has no status. That is why the Catholic Church has been so adamantly against Communism since its inception.
The cardinal rules of Catholicism and all Christianity are 2 - (1) You shall love the Lord, your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind; and (2) You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Obedience to the pope is demanded ONLY inasmuch as he represents Jesus Christ in his teachings and theological doctrines. The pope is not any smarter or more correct than anyone else when it comes to matters of science, politics, medicine, and other secular matters. That is why I, as a Catholic, am dismayed at some of Pope Benedict's recent public statements - like the one where he claimed that condoms actually increased the spread of AIDS.
You are absolutely wrong about the Church criticizing the USA because our political philosophy puts the individual first. The church takes no part in the internal politics of any nation.
However, the Church raises its voice when the our government DEVIATES AWAY from the principles of the importance of the individual. That is why there are encyclicals on the importance of work and its rewards, on the importance of fighting poverty and social injustice, on the importance of social development of impoverished countries, on the importance of each and every human fetus.
I did not neg you on your post, because you present something that I feel you have thought about carefully. However, you are wrong in your basic premises and understanding of Catholicism and of Communism.
-
-
100%
sinophil492 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a fascinating article about how the religious conservative right has cloaked themselves in the language of Christianity, but has consistently been against all the progressive social movements of recent history that try to better the poor and downtrodden.
Reply
From civil rights, voting rights, anti-poverty programs, community organizing, gay rights, the religious right has consistently fought against the passage and work of all of these. Everyone remembers the insults hurled against Obama for working as a community organizer to help the poor of Chicago.
Now Slate has slyly turned the discussion into one about who gives more to charities, instead of focusing on the Christian attitudes and political philosophies that pulse thru the respective right-leaning and left-leaning Christians of our society.
Okay - so conservatives give more to charities than leftists. How does that dovetail with their decidedly unchristian attitudes to the poor and gays, AIDS patients, etc?
How does that relate to their overtly hostile and aggressive acts of carrying guns to peaceful Democratic gatherings?
Why do conservative Christians want to use bombings, war, and invasion as the standard modus operandi in foreign affairs? Bush and Iraq are what come to mind.
Why do conservatives react so angrily to people with differing political views and treat them with insults, exclusions, and fear? Sarah Palin and her remarks about "REAL Americans" epitomize this. -
100%
cowboygrandpa2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why do we even try to politicize Christianity ???
Reply
I don't remember Jesus Christ ever claiming any political party. When we politicize Christianity. We remove Christ as the center and place mans political views as the base for the beliefs espoused.
I still believe that is why Christ warned not to go left or right but to remain on His Path.
Man continues to mess things up when he tries to lead instead of allowing the word of God to lead.
Just my humble opinion.
But take a look at what is happening no matter who the president is. Degrees of difference is all. Money still rules, greed is winked at, war is still waged, the poor remain poor, the wealthy continue to become more wealthy, the middle class is disappearing and the world continues to become more violent.
Quite frankly. I can't wait for Jesus Christ to return and place us under His rule.
Come quickly Lord Jesus. Amen.
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.