God is not a republican, or a democrat

[Elvis Presley]

http://go.sojo.net/campaign/takebackourfaith

 

[nbcrusader]

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. Romans 13:1

I agree with the statement that "God is not a Republican or a Democrat". However, if this group was true to their faith, they would exort people to be on God's side, rather than claiming that God was on their side.

The Sojourners simply is a counter group to the "religious right". They have their own political agenda that they are framing as "religious issues". To that end, their hands are just as dirty as the "religious right".



And, a conservative, evangelical Christian says "Vote for Bush" DOES NOT EQUAL the claim that "God is a Republican".

 

[verte76]

St. Augustine, in his "City of God" claims that governments are established by God, and this is still more or less the official position of the Catholic Church. This led to "divine right monarchy" theories in the Middle Ages and early modern era. The monarchs were overthrown but the belief in established governments continued and led to some unfortunate occurances in the twentieth century when the Catholic Church in Germany supported Hitler and Franco in Spain. Still, it's worth noting that Augustine separates the City of God, which is Paradise, from the City of Man, which is the earthly state of things.

 

[Tomer]

god doesnt exist

 

[Elvis Presley]

The Sojourners simply is a counter group to the "religious right". They have their own political agenda that they are framing as "religious issues". To that end, their hands are just as dirty as the "religious right".


[/B]

NB, I dont think Sojourners is simply a counter group to the right, I think they are a group that is saying that there are Christians who dont agree with the Robertsons and Fallwells of the world. That doesnt mean they are Dems, or Kerry supporters. I like the way Wallis puts it......

?Just because a Religious Right has fashioned itself in one predictable ideological guise does not mean that those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart. The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable nor a loyal partisan. To raise the moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left- and right-wing governments who put power above principles. And religious action is rooted in a much deeper place than ?rights"?that being the image of God in every human being.?

 

[nbcrusader]

Reading their "religious position" statements (with bible references!) is nothing more than a counter to Bush.

 

[Elvis Presley]

Reading their "religious position" statements (with bible references!) is nothing more than a counter to Bush.

Maybe so, that however, does not make them Dems by any stretch. A Christian counter to Bush. Blasphemy!
Just kidding of course.....
Im just fed up with the "one issue" voters I guess. Those that see if the candidate is for or against abortion or gay marriage and makes thier decision based soley on that. I cant say that I disagree with the stuff below however....

We believe that poverty - caring for the poor and vulnerable - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)

We believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)

We believe that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)

We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)

We believe that human rights - respecting the image of God in every person - is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)

We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 )

We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates' positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)

 

[RockNRollDawgie]

"God" speaks to Bush. Bush is a prophet.

 

[nbcrusader]

I cant say that I disagree with the stuff below however....

I can fully understand people agreeing with the statements.

But to claim they are "religious issues" with biblical references is abusive.

 

[BVS]

But to claim they are "religious issues" with biblical references is abusive.

But isn't that always the truth when you mix politics and faith?

 

[nbcrusader]

Which is exactly the point the Sojourners started with.....

 

[BVS]

You're probably right. But I think it's inevidible that faith and politics will mix and collide. I do believe this move to be much less partisan than "the religious right" therefore I see it as a step in the right direction. Is it pure? No, but I don't think anything is anymore. Not only do we have to educate ourselves on the issues but we also have to run everything through a filter to get rid of the BS.

 

[Sherry Darling]

How is it abusive, NBC? I'm honestly lost here. Christians ARE called to be peacemakers. We ARE called to defend human rights and be good stewards of the environment. We are callled to defend the sacredness of all life (including "collateral damage" in a war).

Which of those tenants bothered you? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm honestly confused.

And I assume, of course, that you have the same disdain for, say, the 700 Club? The Christian Coalition? The Moral Majority?

SD

 

[Jamila]

Thanks for posting the link to this article, Elvis.

I agree with the main points of the article - that the New Testament DOES call us to care for the poor, tend to the sick, bring Hope to those who are downtrodden and, of course, to sow seeds of Love and peace (not war).

You can find Christ in the Beautitudes stating the above as well as in SO MANY of his sermons and parables.

Then, there the letters of St. Paul to support the teachings of Christ and, by extension, the basic tenets of this article.

I think the most important aspect of this article is the emphasis that NO POLITICAL PARTY HAS A SPECIAL RIGHT TO CLAIM GOD in the upcoming election. God is not taking sides in the Presidential election

I think that is the most important point in this article.

GREAT article .....and a great discussion.

 

[pub crawler]

A Christian counter to Bush. Blasphemy!
Just kidding of course.....

LOL. Thanks for initiating the discussion, EP.

 

[pub crawler]

By the way, the quotes from Falwell and Robertson on the Sojourners page are outrageous. I hadn't seen those quotes before.

Honestly, I wonder if many Americans realize what kind of right wing fanatics are backing the right wing extremist Bush administration?

Crazy.

 

[Elvis Presley]

By the way, the quotes from Falwell and Robertson on the Sojourners page are outrageous. I hadn't seen those quotes before.

Honestly, I wonder if many Americans realize what kind of right wing fanatics are backing the right wing extremist Bush administration?

Crazy.

I think those quotes do two things.

1) they make Fallwell and Robertson look bad

2) they make Bush and his supporters look fanatical, when they all are not

Sojourners in this case is attempting to say that there is another Christian voice out there that does not side with the Robertsons of the world. I find that refreshing.

 

[Klaus]

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. Romans 13:1

That dosn't mean that every governing authority is a good one (Stalin, Hitler etc) Romans 13:1 is easy to abuse and has to be seen in context.

 

[nbcrusader]

That dosn't mean that every governing authority is a good one (Stalin, Hitler etc) Romans 13:1 is easy to abuse and has to be seen in context.

You are most correct. There were many governing authorities that were not good, but God allowed them to power.

Romans 13:1 is not a promise or claim that we can take (i.e., you must submit to me because God put me in power). It shows God's sovereignty over all nations and rulers and that God's plans are beyond our lifetime or our full understanding.

 

[Klaus]

nbcrusader:
I fully agree with your interpretation

 

[pub crawler]

I think those quotes do two things.

1) they make Fallwell and Robertson look bad

2) they make Bush and his supporters look fanatical, when they all are not

Of course I agree that not all of Bush's supporters are fanatical. That goes without saying. I, like most people, run with Republicans, Democrats and people of other political persuasions within my circle of friends. None of my Republican friends are "fanatics." They are cool guys and we enjoy each others' company when we go out for a beer together.

I'm referring to the right wing conservative Christian faction of Bush's base, and even more to the point -- said faction's leadership, which through radio, tv, and from the pulpit constantly pounds the idea into Christians that they need to get out the vote and elect representatives that support "Christian" (read "Republican") values.

EP, I agree with the basic point made by Sojourners: God is not a Republican or a Democrat.