http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202386.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

 

And then there is the more dangerous sort of bias. A few months ago, while participating in an early-morning panel discussion in the heart of Manhattan, I was startled fully awake when a man stood up to declare that Democrats who reached out to religious voters, especially evangelicals, were akin to those who collaborated with the Nazis. I put on a sweet smile of Christian charity and counted to 10.

 

Comments like that explain why so many of us liberals who also happen to be evangelicals have stayed in the closet for so long. It is hard to overcome decades of suspicion, much of it richly earned by leaders of the religious right who used faith in the cause of a political power grab and in the name of intolerance and fear. But the lingering misconceptions are also painful reminders of the price people like myself have paid for staying silent while others claimed a monopoly on faith. And the country has paid, too.

 

"There have been times," Obama said, "when our Democratic Party did not reach out as aggressively as we could to evangelicals because the assumption was, well, they don't agree with us on choice, or they don't agree with us on gay rights, and so we just shouldn't show up. . . . And that means that people have a very right-wing perspective in terms of what faith means and of defining our faith."

On the Democrat abortion issue....

Most of these youthful evangelicals are still antiabortion, and many still oppose gay rights. But their priorities no longer stop with those two issues. And it is in large part because of changes in the Democratic approach to abortion that more moderate evangelicals are willing to give the party a chance.

 

Full-throated support of abortion rights has been sacrosanct to the Democrats for most of the 35 years since Roe v. Wade. In the 2004 campaign, all the Democratic primary candidates pledged their opposition to a ban on so-called partial-birth abortion at the annual NARAL Pro-Choice America dinner, a position then favored by only 20 percent of Americans. ("Keep your rosaries off my ovaries," went the liberal slogan.) That November, Bush won a third of the pro-abortion rights vote, while Kerry picked up only 24 percent of antiabortion voters.

 

That was it for Catholic Democrats. It was bad enough that they felt pressured to vote for abortion legislation that made them uncomfortable, then had to endure threats from angry church leaders. But if the result was a Democratic Party so marginalized that its inability to appeal to antiabortion voters cost one of their own the White House, what was the point?

 

So they set out to defuse the abortion issue themselves. In the fall of 2006, two Catholic Democrats in the House of Representatives, the antiabortion Tim Ryan and the pro-abortion rights Rosa DeLauro, introduced legislation to reduce abortion rates by preventing unwanted pregnancies and providing support to pregnant women and new parents. That same fall, an antiabortion Catholic Democrat, Bill Ritter, won the Colorado governorship after convincing his party's activists and donors that a pro-life politician need not be actively anti-choice. In a few states, pro-choice Democratic candidates sat down with evangelical and Catholic leaders to talk about abortion. They didn't back down from defending women's right to choose, but they won with support levels from Catholics and evangelicals that were 10 to 15 points above the party's national average in the midterm elections.

Neither party is the beacon of the Christian message, regardless of what anyone will tell. Democrats treatment towards the poor would definitely receive Jesus' blessing in my opinion, but at the same time I believe Christ would be proud of the republican's stance against things like abortion.

Democrats treatment towards the poor would definitely receive Jesus' blessing in my opinion.

 

I really, really think the Democrats approach to the poor is ineffective. I don't think higher taxes, welfare, and socialized (would) benefit anyone in America. Economically, I think it would result in disaster. But that is just my opinion, from a basic knowledge in Economics. Believe me, it would be hard to justify my position as a conservative and a Christian otherwise.

Neither party is the beacon of the Christian message, regardless of what anyone will tell. Democrats treatment towards the poor would definitely receive Jesus' blessing in my opinion, but at the same time I believe Christ would be proud of the republican's stance against things like abortion.

 

Ironically, Huckabee has been called a liberal for his expectations of treatment of the poor that are more along the lines of the Dems while at the same time being pro-life.

Jesus was a wise man. He wouldn't vote for anybody on Election Day.

I really, really think the Democrats approach to the poor is ineffective. I don't think higher taxes, welfare, and socialized (would) benefit anyone in America. Economically, I think it would result in disaster. But that is just my opinion, from a basic knowledge in Economics. Believe me, it would be hard to justify my position as a conservative and a Christian otherwise.

 

First, remember this thread is about Christians. And treatment of the poor is a major consideration that Jesus threw out there.

 

I don't remember Jesus addressing the economic welfare of a country. I could be wrong and would like to see those Scriptures.

First, remember this thread is about Christians. And treatment of the poor is a major consideration that Jesus threw out there.

 

I don't remember Jesus addressing the economic welfare of a country. I could be wrong and would like to see those Scriptures.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your first point.

 

And I am not talking about economic welfare. I am talking about that, from a knowledge of Economics, I simply don't think that welfare, higher taxes, and universal health care would work to its goal. I think it would wind up hurting the poor more than helping them.

I'm not sure what you mean by your first point.

 

And I am not talking about economic welfare. I am talking about that, from a knowledge of Economics, I simply don't think that welfare, higher taxes, and universal health care would work to its goal. I think it would wind up hurting the poor more than helping them.

 

Debate on whether it works or not, I think is very fair.

 

I think Jesus would want us to take care of the poor through welfare and universal health care. Question is, would he expect that to be done through His church or through government?

 

He came here to establish His church not a government.

 

Ironically, it seems Jesus may have been the first proponent of separation of church and state.

Debate on whether it works or not, I think is very fair.

 

I think Jesus would want us to take care of the poor through welfare and universal health care. Question is, would he expect that to be done through His church or through government?

 

He came here to establish His church not a government.

 

Ironically, it seems Jesus may have been the first proponent of separation of church and state.

 

I guess I haven't thought about it, but doing those things through Churches would work much better. I guess charitable contributions have much less of a negative effect then taxes. I haven't really considered it.

 

Either way, I am all for the churches providing medical and financial aid to the poor in whatever way possible.

 

I don't want it to look like I am against helping the poor, as some conservatives are painted. I am not saying "if they need help, they can work harder". Rather, I disagree fiercely with the Democrat method of doing so.

 

I guess Jesus would vote Republican if he knew any economic theory.

Jesus was a wise man. He wouldn't vote for anybody on Election Day.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I guess I haven't thought about it, but doing those things through Churches would work much better. I guess charitable contributions have much less of a negative effect then taxes. I haven't really considered it.

 

Either way, I am all for the churches providing medical and financial aid to the poor in whatever way possible.

 

I don't want it to look like I am against helping the poor, as some conservatives are painted. I am not saying "if they need help, they can work harder". Rather, I disagree fiercely with the Democrat method of doing so.

 

I guess Jesus would vote Republican if he knew any economic theory.

 

I agree.:thumb:

Debate on whether it works or not, I think is very fair.

 

I think Jesus would want us to take care of the poor through welfare and universal health care. Question is, would he expect that to be done through His church or through government?

 

He came here to establish His church not a government.

 

Ironically, it seems Jesus may have been the first proponent of separation of church and state.

 

 

I am with CCHS that I don't know if we can have universal healthcare. If they privetatize(sp.) it then it will be a disaster. Just like when welfare reform was taken over by Locke-Martin. Those decsions are made by people that have not idea what they are dealing with. But I am not sure the church is big enough to handle everything that needs to be done. LBB you bring up an interesting discussion.

Himself.

Himself.

 

I think LBBC was trying to say that Jesus would have a write in vote for LBBC. :sssh: