Regrouping after the election.... - Page 4

For the nth time, I'm advocating it. Dems need to have people counter the Dobson's, Reed's, and Falwell's of the world. Strong liberal Christian organizations to counter theirs. Local church leaders to counter theirs. National hurch leaders to counter theirs. That means that Democrats within the Church have to start campaigning and getting into church leadership positions.

Evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for GWB. They are about 25 to 30% of the Christian population. The 25 to 30% of Christians who are liberal have to start becoming more involved in their Churchs to help sway opinion and beliefs.


Sure. But, a representative and winning agenda spans a rather large spectrum that requires a lot of convincing and cojoling. Having more liberal minded Christians, nominally Democrats, in more positions of leadership and power can convince and cojol the Christian electorate to the liberal agenda.


Not to me. Paul Wellstone was a liberal Democrat. Daschle is at best a moderate. I don't know Pelosi well enough to quantify. Lieberman was an ex-vice presidential candidate and a presidential candidate, a leader among Democrats. Miller, as far as I can tell, is at best confused. Bill Clinton is a new Democrat, a right leaning Democrat. DNC Chair McAullife is a Clinton new Democrat, a right leaning Democrat. Gore, a right leaning Democrat. Hilary Clinton is a moderate.


Hence, the Dems need better message-making, and providing a more liberal voice in their Churches is very important in that message-making. The "raising of small business taxes" is a Republican talking point and wasn't part of the platform, but everything else is about correct. Their message-making was horrible and couldn't get them across. On top that, it was a tactical platform and the Dems need a new strategic platform. All of the things Dems wanted essentially made it through 30 years ago.


I mean all of the above. Christians need to learn about liberal values. Christian Democrats need to be leaders among their Churches. Everything is about improving the message-making, and it has to start from the ground up in the important forums in society.

And as I said before, life is a feedback mechanism, beliefs and values change along with the message-making and the leadership.


What sort of attack on Libya did we have? The only one I recall was the Reagan bombing, in what what, 87?

And link, please. Gaddafi said that the invasion of Iraq weighed on his mind? If I was a rogue dictactor, as opposed to the dictators that the USA approves of, I'd be rogue-ing it up right now.


The North Koreans hold all of the cards. We will have to wait and see.


Life is a feedback mechanism. The conservative message-making does in fact change the way Christians believe. Democrats have to preach a liberal message to provide counterbalance.


Democrats have to do it because Republicans have too much of an advantage over Christians. Dems need a strategic platform, new leaders and better message-making. Ceding Christianity to the conservatives is the last thing Dems should do. They have to at minimum provide a counter voice, a liberal voice, to the conservative one being preached by current Christian leaders.

A funny strange thought passed through my head during the day of 9/11 2001.

I somehow thought that maybe the fact that some terrorist act was perpetrated, a horrendous act of mass murder, in the name of god that just maybe people would reflect deeper on the nature of Religion . .

I momentarily thought that rather than create fundamentalism, it would show what is perpetuated by it.

no, no... remember, it was a mandate by the people. the people rejected the democrats message. all of them. even you did. you just don't know it yet. those in new york and california, the ones who have the most gay peopel per square inch and have the most to fear from terrorists? well, you can discount their overwhelming support of kerry*. they are obviously still in shock from 9-11, and the red states need to protect them from themselves. the democrats are doomed on their current godless, baby-eating, fiscally-irresponsible, non-christian path.

*"overwhelming", in this instance, is based on the SDW scale... kinda like using celsius for weather forecasts, except you ignore the numbers completely and pretend that 28 degrees celsius requires mukluks.

jimmac,

What exactly am I dodging? You've admitted that you were wrong about the election, but you were still wrong. It was you who ran around screaming "out the door in 04" and posting all kinds of nonsense to convince others.

The Bush Wins all 50 States thread was about discussing the possibilty of it happening. I'm not sure that it can be characterized as "trying to convince" anyone that it "would" happen. I was arguing with those who said it was an insane thing to even discuss...primarily you. My only argument was that it was possible and that it could....COULD happen. After the polling changed and in the aftermath of the war, it became clear that it would not happen by any stretch of the imagination. I even said so. Yet, you continue to raise the issue for some unknown reason, even after your party was trounced in the election. It's nothing more than a gratuitous gesture on your part. If it was a prediction I would have said: Prediction...Bush Wins All 50 States in 2004. The thread title, as I've already posted above was "Discuss: Bush Wins all 50 States in 2004". I stand by my original assertion that it was fine to discuss the possibility of it happening, especially giving consideration to the times in which it was posted.

As for dodging, I am not the one who brought up the issue. You are saying that it "sounds" like a prediction, when I have stated emphatically that at no time was it a prediction. I can prove it by referencing my posts in the thread itself. What can you prove?



51% to 48% is a solid victory by any standard. Concerning the Democratic Party, yes...they were in the White House for 8 years. However, I'm not sure how that supports your innudendo that the party is not in trouble. In 1994, the Democrats lost the House of Representatives and the Senate. They had held the house for 40 years.

I suggest you look at the party's decline in congress with these links.

Senate: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/his...s/partydiv.htm

House: http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Cong.../partyDiv.html

Since then, they have lost the White House twice. The Republicans now command the same kind of majority the Democrats once did years ago. They have lost control of the majority of state bicameral legislatures, and the majority of Governorships. They got historically clobbered in 2002, where Bush was supposed to lose seats by all historical precedent. The Dems lost a recall election California, where 67% of the state voted Republican. Then, they lost in 2004...losing more House and Senate seats, and of course the White House...again.

If you cannot see that the party is in very grave trouble, I am speechless. It's more than a problem with leadership, although that is part of it. It's the whole platform or lack thereof. I would very much like to see a strong Democratic party emerge, but it's not going to happen until the party has one big, giant and comprehensive makeover.

THT:


As if you do not have liberal religious leaders? Jesse Jackson? Louis Farakhan? Al Sharpton? Do you perhaps mean "white" church leaders?" And let me continue: What platform would these leaders advocate? Abortion on demand? Gay marriage? No prayer in public schools? The removal of religion from all public life? Do you honestly believe that mainstream Christians will follow this example and magically switch their votes?

What you fail to comprehend is that the reason Christians voted for GWB had little to do with people like Falwell and Reed. They voted Republican because they thought Republicans shared more of their values. I know you'd like to think that the aforementioned leaders dictate some kind of edict that all Christians must follow, but that is not the way it works. Many Christians who have no contact with these men voted for Bush, because their biblically derived values and upbringing formed the basis for their choice. The left likes to look at Christians like sheep who will follow whichever shepard steps into the role, and that is not so. Replacing the current Christian leadership with liberals is not going to change anything. People will reject that agenda, because that is truly what liberals stand for, and people that are biblical Christians will not stand for it.

Through all of this discussion, it becomes apparent to me that the left has still not really accepted the force that is the Christian Conservative Right. There is little talk about adapting an AGENDA that will garner them more votes the next time around. What I hear is a form of denial, a denial that the CCR is a real force that is not going anywhere. The focus that you are adocating stems from changing that force. I'm telling you that approach will fail and lose you a whole lot more in terms of elections.





That's totally crazy. Good luck with that.





Wellstone was a liberal. I agree. Daschle, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are liberals in disguise as moderates. McCaullife is an odd one...I have trouble knowing if he believes anything he says. His tenure as DNC chair was an unmitigated disaster.



Getting into churches is not going to help. Get it through your head, please. You will not win that segment of the vote until your POSITIONS as a party change. I would bet my life on that one fact.

Raising small business taxes WAS part of the platform. If Kerry had gotten his tax plan through, subchapter S corps who pay at the personal rate would have paid significantly more in taxes. Subchapter s corps comprise a huge portion of small businesses. I know this for a fact....my dad owns and operates a subchapter s corp. There are over 2,000,000 subchapter s corps in the country, and as you know, small businesss accounts for a large portion of the employment picture.



They have, and they reject them. That's why they voted the way they did.


I did mean the one in 1986. It demonstrated (as did Iraq) that we would follow through. I don't have a link to Gaddafi's statement. It was from an interview with a british journalist, I believe. And let me ask, if you were a rogue dictator, why would you be "rogue-ing it up" right now? Would your plan be to be invaded?



No they don't. Not letting them have the cards is the reason Bush does not want to have bi-lateral talks.



You cannot back that up.




I'm not saying they should cede anything. I'm saying that they should try and get back that segment of the vote. The disagreement comes when we talk about how to do that. I say that the Democratic party needs a paradigm-shift in its philosophies, positions and leaders. You say we need new leaders, new message making (spin) and that in the process we should change the will of the people for political gain. If I was a Democrat I would sure hope that my position wins the day, because as I said...with your approach things are only going to get worse for the Democratic party.

Fundamentalists killed 3000 innocent people

and strangely enough, this makes fundamentalism more popular?!?!

Oh look, a comparison between fundamentalist Christians and Islamic Terrorists. Imagine that.

yeah . . . Imagine that

Yeah... imagine that....

Is anyone else not having trouble imagining that?

Anyone who compares "fundamental" Christians in the US to islamic terrorists is not to be taken seriously.

anyone who fails to notice the inherent similarities between any fundamentalism lacks the understanding of what it means to be taken seriously...

OK, why don't you educate me? Please compare "fundamentalist" Christians in the US to islamic terrorists.

I don't believe I said Islamic Terrorists....

Religious leaders with the power of the Dobson's, Reed's, etc. I wouldn't care if they were one of the Blue Man Group. The ones you mention don't have much sway over 80% of the population. They barely have sway over even half of the black population.


I've already proposed a platform. My very first post in this thread. It scared you remember?

There is prayer in school, just not led by public officials or public facilities.
There is religion in public life, just not funded by public money or public facilities.

I would not expect Christians to magically switch, it will take a many many years to foment a new platform, new leaders and new message-making.


I actually don't think the leaders dictate an edict. I think they are very good at message-making, and Democrats have no counterpart to balance those messages. Democrats need to have leaders provide counter messages to the conservative leaders.


Democrats will have to stop treating Christians like that and take them more seriously. The message however stays liberal. There is plenty of room in the American Christian worldview for a move to the left. Democrats and liberal Christians have to start leading their Churches to help that move. Through time, a change in opinion and beliefs can be made with the proper messages.


Yes. I've heard you multiple times already. But nevertheless, what you say is not necessarily true, and Democrats and Christian Liberals need to start leading their Churches.


Well, good for you. Democrats still need to try, though.


I will trust factcheck.org over you:

A Bush-Cheney '04 ad claims Kerry would raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses and "hurt jobs." But_it_counts_every high-salaried_person who has even $1 of outside business income as a "small business owner"_-- a definition so broad that even_Bush and Cheney have qualified while in office. In fact,_hundreds of thousands of those_"small businesses" have no jobs to offer.

Furthermore, by the Bush definition 32 million "small businesses" would see no tax increase. The_ad doesn't mention that, of course. Nor does it mention Kerry's proposals for some tax cuts specifically targeted for small businesses.

(Update, Oct. 1: After this article was posted, the Tax Policy Center issued a new_estimate that the number of small employers is 471,000 -- barely half the number the Bush ad claims.)


Perhaps only the 50 to 55% of Christians that voted for Bush. Democrats need to swing the vote amongst them by some 5% and they will be fine. Having prominent Christian liberals delivering a good message will help sway.


Which British journalist? Who did the journalist work for? I looked on Google and the closest I got was a quote from Hans Blix.

The 1986 bombing demonstrated we were serious, yes. Everytime we bomb someone we better be very serious. However, 17 years of sanctions didn't do anything to help things along?


I doubt I would be invaded with the US occupied in Iraq. At least within the next few years. So, that means lots of time to do some military development.

I wouldn't even bother developing biological and chemical weapons. I would develop as many nuclear weapons as I could. Before that, I would develop anti-aircraft weapons capable of hitting targets at altitudes greater than 50k ft, detection systems capable of detecting stealth aircraft, a militaristic society, flexable infrastructure, geosynch/geostationary satellites.

edit: forgot to add lots and lots and lots of landmines. Lots of landmines.


We will have to wait and see.


That life is a feedback mechanism?
That the conservative message making machine changes the way Christians believe?
That Christian Liberals need to provide a counterbalance?


You forgot the part where I suggested that Democrats needed a new platform.

I agree that Liberal Christianity needs to spread as an ideal.

We need leaders like Fellowship to start their own bible study groups, concern groups, and even churches that follow the teachings of Jesus, not the Obsolete Testament. I'm being serious. My girlfriend started a Liberal Christian group that meets once a week, and I'm extremely proud of her.

Even though I'm not personally Christian, nor am I gay, I've gone to a gay church for no reason other than to support Liberal Christianity.

We all sould take action and make sure Christian fundamentalism does not continue to spread, for fear of losing all the ideals that made America great, like freedom and equality.

Remember that Germany in 1930 was mainly led by fundamentalist Christians (Lutherans)?

I agree with everything that you are saying, but Germany was not run by Fundies . . . nor was fundementalism very widespread.

Fundamentalism is a pretty new phenomena . . . lot's of people call themselves Fundies who aren't . . . it is characterized by an extreme and extremely simplistic literalness . . . the pretence that there is no such thing as interpretation, and also the belief in the absolute infallibillity of every contradictory word in the bible . . . figure that one out will ya: what that means is that they pick and choose when to use what aspect they like to adopt . . . completely overlooking any contradictions.

It is a form of willful dumbness an completely lacks any real Spirit. . . the Spirit is NOT a literalist phenomena

What gets me about fundamentalism is that the true fundamentals of Christianity just don't match with what the fundamentalists find important. Jesus never said a word about the issues that are important to the fundamentalist/conservative Christians. He never said anything about gays. He never said anything about abortion. And I'm quite certain that both of those existed in his time. What he did say was to care about the poor and the stigmatized, and to dump the stuck-up rule bound "conservatives" of his day. He was a radical egalitarian, and about as far as you can get from a conservative.

Exactly. How much more of the hippy-mentality can you get? And I don't mean 'hippy' in a derogatory fashion either. He really was very anti-war. He absolutely abhored violence in all its forms, even, apparently, in self-defence. He had pity and mercy for the very poor, but notice that when the NT talks about healing and miracles and stuff, he didn't just reserve it for the poor but even for the rich and well off.

Christians today are a paper mockery of what Jesus really stood for.

You might as well have.

THT:


OK, but again...why? With what result in mind...a political goal? Think about what you are arguing for here....religious change for the sake of politics. Seriously?



No, No, No. Chrisitianty does not need to change. The Democratic PARTY does. I'll keep saying it until you realize that I'm right.



But you've still missed the point. You are claiming that one of the prime reasons Christians voted republican is that Christian (not political) leadership has essentially instructed them to do so, at least indirectly. I disagree. I say they voted that way because their values were represented by reps better than dems. I think that leaders, including Christian leaders, derive their power from the people. In other words, if their own leaders didn't represent them, Christians would call for new leadership within the church or leave the church entirely. In fact, I'm totally convinced of that. It's the reason people leave churches and try others...because they are looking for a certain set of values and ideals that they identify with. I disagree that "the tone" comes from leaders who hold a captive audience. When those leaders stray form their congregation's values, those churches fail. I've seen it happen more than once. My point in all this is that you can insert and infiltrate liberals into churches all you want, most people aren't going to buy it because their core values are not based on man, they are based on the word of God.




Translation: US Christians are currently wrong in their world view and need to be educated over time. That's not taking [i]anything[i/] seriously. Good luck with that attitude, which is exactly what I am talking about.

[factcheck.org]


Hey that's great, except you dodged the whole point I made, and argued about Bush campaign claims. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about raising marginal rates on the "rich", who in FACT comprise a large number of subchapter s corporations. Hello?





I don't have the fucking quote. Can you get off of it already? I mean, do you think I have time to sit around and make this shit up?

As for sanctions, yes, I'm sure they had some effect. However, that is not what you argued. You argued that we should "negotiate." I disagree that sanctions are negotiating.






I really don't see your point. The US may not be likely to invade anyone for awhile, but that doesn't mean we couldn't if we had to. And really, I'm not sure of your point, because I doubt you'd be supporting military action for said dictatorships even if if we were not tied up in Iraq. Somehow I doubt that a nation who sees Iraq get invaded is going to be more likely to act aggressivley, especially after the US made good on its threats. You have a tough sell there.





That would be the one you cannot back up.



Really? Please go over that new platform again, and we'll see what's new about it.

And you might as well have said Northern Irish Republicans...

I would prefer neither. Republicans are using it to their advantage, and Democrats can't let that go unchallenged.


Christianity does indeed need to change, is changing and will change. I would prefer it to be outside of the sphere of politics. But it is in the sphere of politics, and Democrats need to play the game. And I've already said that the Democratic party needs to change, it just wasn't in a way you liked.


Not instructed. Convinced. Republicans have excellent message-making intertwined with many different tiers of Church leadership.


Life doesn't work that way. It is a feedback mechanism with opinions and beliefs changing over time. Leadership can change opinions of those they represent and the people can change the opinion of their leadership. It's a struggle between the two with opinions and beliefs moving, changing over time.


The Bible is interpreted in a variety of ways. The liberal one needs more exposure.


That's exactly the opinion that Christian Conservatives have of the Christian Liberals. I'm sure the Democrats will take your wishes of luck too. They need all the help they can get right now.


Factchect.org explicitly states that:

(Update, Oct 1: The Tax Policy Center refined its estimates after we posted this article and came up with a figure of 471,000 small employers who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposal, including an estimate of sub-S and partnership filers who have employees. Buy this estimate, the figure used in the Bush ad is nearly double the real number.)

Fact.org says 471k would be affected by Kerry's plan. You were implying that 2 M small businesses would be affected. Fact.org also states that 32 million small businesses would not be affected by Kerry's plan. A platform that affects 1.5% of small business owners is not a platform of taxing small business owners. It's a platform taxing rich owners, one's making over 200k.


Then why do you ask me to back things up with links and such?


I would be a negotiate and sanctions type of guy. Military invasions are an absolute last resort.


You asked me what I would do if I was a rogue nation right now. I would do the things necessary to fight against an invasion. It's a good time to do so right now with the US military overstretched.

And I would be against invading other nations without just cause.


How many Republicans believe that biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons existed just prior to the invasion of Iraq? How many believe they continue to exist to this day?

How many Republicans believe that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had a direct hand in the Sept 11 attack?

How many Republicans believe that al Queda and Iraq have a direct link?


My platform would be:

1. Infrastructure
1a. Education reform involving ciriculum reform, diverse teaching methods, and cheaper college education
1b. Energy reform involving energy efficiency and alternative energy
1c. Environmentalism in the form of staving off the impending crisis in fish and wildlife populations through planned conservation
1d. R&D institutes need to be funded to support the above
2. Culture wars
2a. Infiltrate the Churches and reinterpret the Bible for the religious folk and bore into their head that bigotry is wrong
2b. Instead of all-out pro-abortion, compromise halfway and provide support for pregnancy issues.
3. Fiscal accountability
3a. Balance the budget
4. Soft power foreign policy
5. Space is our future! (pet project)

I like THT...

I found this one extremely accurate:

I'm sorry. Black is white.

We'll just pretend that 4 percentage points in the other direction would have changed the election.

God you are so full of it.

One thing SDW doesn't seem to grasp is that this is no small occupation. I heard a general on the Today Show the other day say we've just about used up all the man power we can in Iraq. There aren't many more reserves to send. One more group I think he said and that's it.

All this from an operation that was supposed to be in and out.

The main problem here is that you're reading a first century account through a 21st century political lens.

Jesus would have had no need to stress opposition to abortion and gay rights. It would have been weird if he'd spent even one sermon on the topics. His 3.5 year ministry was directed entirely toward Jews, not the Romans. If he'd opposed abortion and gay rights in his sermons, he would have been preaching to the choir.

But you're right. Those practices did exist in the time of Christ and the Jews knew what the Romans thought of their "family values" and despised them for it. If Jesus had thought abortion or homosexuality was being unfairly judged by Jewish society, he had plenty of opportunity to speak out.

Yet Jesus did actually speak out against the Romans and their practices on many occasions. Why not here? BECAUSE HE DIDN"T SHARE THOSE BELIEFS. THAT'S WHY.

Interesting, because I think that using Christianity to condemn abortion and homosexuality is reading Jesus through a 21st century political lens.

I'm not sure it would have been weird for him to talk about them. He did very clearly condemn divorce, for example. And yet Christians get divorced in massive numbers, all the while condemning gay marriage and abortion, which Jesus said nothing about. Isn't that odd? Is it really safe to just assume that Jesus condemned those things without talking about them?

What we do know is that Jesus' primary issues were 1) spiritual "enlightenment" (recognizing the kingdom of God) and 2) helping the poor and those stigmatized by the laws of his time. It seems to me that a truly fundamentalist Christian would follow that, but instead gay marriage and abortion seem to be their primary issues.

Did Jesus have "family values?" What about encouraging disciples to "hate their mother and father" and not to bother burying dead family members and all that?

Did Jewish society condemn abortion? I'm not aware of anything suggesting that it did. Of all the crazy rules in the Jewish Bible, AFAIK there's nothing condemning abortion. I'm aware of some of the statements about homosexuality, but not abortion.

Agreed, and to underscore your point: the last Democrat to win 51% of the vote was LBJ in 1964!

I am full of it? What specifically are you even taking issue with? Perhaps you could actually....I don't know...ADDRESS my post instead of just mocking it with no real rebuttal?

" I don't understand would you please explain the obvious to me ".

You know what we've just been talking about so please don't pretend you don't. Bush didn't win by a very large margin at all and unless you've just survived an extreme brain injury you can understand that also.

I'm not falling for your quasi debate tactic anymore ( and I've explained this to you in the past ) where I spend a lot of time looking things and proving only to have you discount my source or whatever. You are another person who really doesn't debate or argue the facts. You dodge in order to frustrate the other party in to giving up.

What a load of crap.

jimmac,

There is no debate tactic. Bush won by a significant margin, and just about everyone in the country knows it. Republicans, Democrats Independents....they all know it. Your statement is nothing but personal opinion, one which the vast majority of people in the country disagree with . Yet somehow I am the one who has suffered a brain injury. You're being so infantile at this point it's almost amusing.

There is only one reply for this: Only in your mind.

Tell me SDW how is 51% a vast majority? Last time I looked that was only very slightly more than half. And if you're into rounding it is half.

Even if you don't believe this : http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php

as I'm sure you won't this type of situation could only occur in a close election.

Get real SDW! The facts just aren't on your side.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2004/local/...s_protest.html

Jimmac,

First I have to ask you: Do you really believe Kerry won Ohio, or are you just being the intellecutally dishonest slob you usually are?

Now, the link itself: Of course there were spoiled ballots. There always are. does that mean we should count every one of them? We simply cannot do that, because it's impossible to ascertain that will of the voter with a spoiled ballot in most cases. Even assuming that we could do that, we would then have to assume that more than 136,000 of the outstanding ballots (probably 250,000 with provisional and spoiled votes combined) went for Kerry. That's a tall order, don't you think? That means Kerry would have to take 54.4% of the votes in order to MATCH Bush's lead. The only support for that possibility that the author offers is that "most of the spoiled votes come from Democratic areas". Somehow I'm going to need more than that....and more than the Harvard link he provides. Furthermore, the spoiled votes probably only account for 100,000 votes. The other 150,000 provisional ballots might very well have been Bush-majority. In other words, the statistical probability of Kerry winning even if we counted EVERY vote is practicially nill. The exit polls were wrong....accept it.

As for link #2, I don't see why you posted it. It simply reports on people gathering. It provides no backing for your argument whatsoever. Suppose I go to Harrisburg tomorrow and bring 200 people with me and demand that PA be recounted (PA was closer than Ohio, btw). Then that could be in paper and I could post the link for you.

SDW:

You seem to be operating under the assumption that abortion and gays are the only things Jesus Christ ever talked about or found to be important. To point out modern secular liberal values in Christ's teaching is child's play and wouldn't require a smidgen of "change" in Christianity.

Liberal enough would be one of the most basic of Christ's teachings; render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's. (Luke 20 for those of you with Bibles (awesome chapter, Jesus schools those bitch-ass Pharisees ).

Christians would do well to heed the parable of the vineyard. When you marry your politics to your religion you will do nothing but destroy your religion.

The "liberal" movement in Christianity would not change Christianity, it would only rightfully remove it from the political sphere. Sure, there would still be an anti-abortion movement, but American Christendom would not be the puppet of capitalistas and Christians would focus on doing good in the world instead of engaging in petty class warfare.

Matthew 19. Read that one, too.

Not getting this. Liberal Christians aren't political? You ever read Sojouners? The whole idea of a social gospel is almost relentlessly political.
Ummm, lets see. You mean like schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, prison ministries?
Examples please.

No, a social gospel is social. That's why it is a "social" gospel and not a "political" gospel.



Yes, all those things and more.
Christians do that stuff now, but not to the extent they could if they would abandon their status as puppets of the capitalist leadership of the Republican party.



Voting overwhelmingly for Bush who (1) is shifting the tax burden from the rich to the middle and lower classes and (2) promoting "reforms" that would hurt the social services given to the poor.

It is purely a capitalist construction that says that only religious groups should give aid to the poor. The myth that the private and religious sector would be more efficient at handing out welfare than government bodies is completely ignorant of historical precedent. But the religious groups buy into it because that's what the Republican capitalist hierarchy sells.

I don't mean removal from the political arena as in, "stop voting, Christians!", it means "operate as an actual separate group and take your own teachings into account."

Easy for you to say.

Some would argue (myself included) that it's the involvement in "doing good in the world" that drives Christian involvement in the political sphere.

You can only serve so many of the working poor at soup kitchens before you start to wonder why the all-encompassing government takes so much out of everybody paycheques and gives so little back in return.

As an example, Toronto spends somewhere in the range of 150 million dollars a year on "the homeless". That's enough to buy every truly homeless person in the city their own condominium.

Christian conservatives look at government as incapable of meeting a challenge such as homelessness and think charities would do a better job and offer more accountability in the process. (Now, there's a debate on whether government should directly fund these charities a la Bush's "faith-based initiative" - I would say no. The tax incentives on charitable donations is sufficient, and the various groups should be accountable to their members.)

Religious groups take on a myriad of community services. And many who work with those with addictions see a grand stupidity in the idea that marijuana be legalized, or that heroin users be given safe zones to inject themselves.

I'm not saying every position taken by the Christian Right is absolutely correct, but most of these positions proceed straight from the "social gospel" you claim to admire, Grove.

I agree that Republicanism isn't a perfect fit. But for many Christians, it is closer to how they see the world. The Democrats talk a good game but in the end their solutions always seem to end up with an all-powerful bloated government bureaucracy.