The Democrats have begun to respond to this perception. In my home town in a very Red state, a billboard recently went up proclaiming something like "Jesus cares for the poor. So do we. Grassroots Democrats."
So, the question is, to put it a little baldly
Which party is really more Godly?
Obviously 'Godly' is a loaded word, and I am not going to help you all much be restricting the definition. In the U.S. context, it would often be interpreted with respect to traditional Christian notions of God, especially conservative notions. However, debaters should feel free to make their own cases for what they consider Godly and why. Evidence from a variety of religious traditions is appropriate.
Now, I certainly have my own opinion, but I will say at the outset that I think there is ample evidence that can be cited for both parties that they support 'Godly' policies, and also that there will be ample evidence that each party supports ungodly policies.
I will note that this thread is arising out of some discussions in the Pat Robertson thread. Here is a relevant portion that can serve as initial examples of how the Republicans (in the sense that the religious right and the Republican party are allies) act in un-Godly ways.
AlAyeti wrote:
Please list the blindness and hypocrisy of the religious Right?
Now, obviously there is a lot of potential here for over-generalization, and I have even engaged in some of that in the above comments regarding the 'religious right'. There is certainly great diversity within the political parties and their supporters including groups like the 'religious right.' I would simply ask that we be aware of this as we proceed.micatala wrote: Although this is off-topic (since the topic is Pat Robertson), it is a legitimate question.
Item 1: This is an old one, but is courtesy of Pat himself, as well as Ronald Reagan. Both Pat and Ronald in the 1980's, although claiming to be supporters of democracy, instead supported the Contras in Nicaragua. The Contras were largely run by the CIA and ex-thugs of the former Somosa dictatorship. Somosa and company had ruled Nicaragua with a brutal fist for some 50 years prior to the Sandinista Revolution. Reagan had the audacity to call the Contras "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." THis has got to be one of the most blatantly hypocritical political statements of all time.
Item 2: Many in the religious right have supported the war in Iraq, and have done so regardless of the rationale that has been offered for it. They have also done so despite the fact that a large number of innocent civilians have been killed. It is arguably hypocritical, given the teachings of Jesus, for a Christian of any stripe to support war.
Item 3: The religious right is all over homosexuals for deigning to suggest they should be allowed to get married. They cite Biblical passages like those in Romans. They conveniently forget that the passages mentioning homosexuality in the New Testament all (check me on this, but I believe it is ALL) mention a multitude of other sins. Most of the other sins are given little if any mention, and no one seems to be pushing for laws to regulate them, except murder. Is it not hypocritical to single out homosexuals for special legal treatment and not the other sins, especially when there is little if any Biblical justification for making religious beliefs have the force of civil law and apply it to believers and unbelievers alike?
Item 4: The religious right has a significant 'prosperity message' that tries to get believers to buy into the idea that 'rich is good'. Sadly lacking is Christ's teachings about the poor and the warnings against being rich. This preaching often amounts to little more than a way to extort money out of gullible believers.
Item 5: The religious right cries foul every time somebody takes issue with a government endorsement of Christian religion, conveniently ignoring that Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S. and that Christianity deserves no more special legal protection than any other religion.
Item 6: Many in the religious right demonize their fellow believers who do not happen to share their political views. This is contrary to scriptural teaching as presented, for example, in Romans Chapter 14. "Who are you to judge another man's servant, to his own master he stands or falls?" When Christians of whatever stripe try to deny the Christianity of fellow believers simply because they believe evolution is a perfectly reasonable scientific theory, or because they vote democratic, or because they don't believe we are truly in the 'end times', they are taking unto themselves judgments that only God has the purview to make.
