Jesus: Democrat or Republican?

Bio-logical · Post by **Bio-logical** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:26 pm

I was having a discussion with a friend specifically about why Christians (devout ones) always seem to vote republican. Both parties pander to them during election time but no matter what they are almost exclusively single issue voters, and that issue is of course abortion. This lead to the following question:

Would Jesus be a Democrat or a Republican if alive in America today?

Of course the logical statement would be neither, he would be independent because neither party follows his word exactly, but the question really is designed to weed out if Christians are doing the right thing by voting Republican, if that party more closely resembles what Jesus taught or not.

I will get the ball rolling by offering the dissenting opinion, I think he would be a Democrat. Jesus was, according to the bible stories, sort of a bleeding heart liberal. He gave food and healthcare to even the most downtrodden in the society, He did not believe in making personal wealth more important than the welfare of others and he was very much against violence in favor of talking it out instead.

What do you think?

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:30 am

East of Eden wrote:I believe the Republicans were the anti-slavery party in Lincoln's day.

They were. But the Republicans of Lincoln's day are nothing like the Republicans of today. Indeed, much of the Republican platform of Lincoln's day (legal guarantees of racial equality, infrastructure improvement, high Federal involvement in the economy as per the American system) was adopted piecemeal by the Democrats between Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson - while the Republican party was co-opted by large business interests under Taft, a trend which reached its culmination in Barry Goldwater (who accordingly cast off what was left by that time of the politically-progressive platform of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt).

East of Eden wrote:Lots of Christians do donate significant time to charitable causes. The book in question is about charitable financial giving, which Christians do more of.

The question was about whether 'liberals' or 'conservatives' were more generous, not whether 'Christians' or 'non-Christians' were. Within modern American Christianity there is a huge political spectrum running the gamut from Christian anarchism through the mainline and evangelicalism to fundamentalism.

Again, I claim that the Brooks hypothesis is bogus in how it ascertains what 'generosity' is. Jesus would claim that for a working-class family making $60,000 a year, giving 10% of their income in tithing is far more generous than a multi-billionaire giving 10% of his income away; this is something Brooks fails to account for.

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:34 pm

MagusYanam wrote: They were. But the Republicans of Lincoln's day are nothing like the Republicans of today. Indeed, much of the Republican platform of Lincoln's day (legal guarantees of racial equality, infrastructure improvement, high Federal involvement in the economy as per the American system) was adopted piecemeal by the Democrats between Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson - while the Republican party was co-opted by large business interests under Taft,

Large businesses don't seem to be doing too bad under Obama's bailout/stimulus.

The question was about whether 'liberals' or 'conservatives' were more generous, not whether 'Christians' or 'non-Christians' were. Within modern American Christianity there is a huge political spectrum running the gamut from Christian anarchism through the mainline and evangelicalism to fundamentalism.

I've read conservative Christians give more to charity.

For the record, what kind of Christian would you describe yourself as?

Again, I claim that the Brooks hypothesis is bogus in how it ascertains what 'generosity' is. Jesus would claim that for a working-class family making $60,000 a year, giving 10% of their income in tithing is far more generous than a multi-billionaire giving 10% of his income away; this is something Brooks fails to account for.

How many multi-billionaires are there?

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:15 pm

East of Eden wrote:Large businesses don't seem to be doing too bad under Obama's bailout/stimulus.

The stimulus is actually a good example of investment in infrastructure and scientific and technological R&D. It's classic Whig economics.

East of Eden wrote:I've read conservative Christians give more to charity.

Where? Is this just another parroting of the bogus Brooks/Kristof hypothesis?

East of Eden wrote:For the record, what kind of Christian would you describe yourself as?

I fail to see how this matters, but I'm the type of Christian who gives 10% of his monthly income to certified charities. My political views, as represented on the political compass, would be: (-4.88, 1.54) left-authoritarian.

East of Eden wrote:How many multi-billionaires are there?

Enough to skew the data if you're working with raw means. Basic statistics.

theAtheistofnoIllusions · Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:29 pm

If I had to chose one:

Conservative.

He wouldn't be down with gay marriage, abortion, promiscuity and drug use, or even socialist policies (he never forced anyone to give charity or help).

Plus I'm not sure if the J-dubs would care too much about "separation of church and state."

mrducky · Post by **mrducky** » Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:42 am

theAtheistofnoIllusions wrote: He wouldn't be down with gay marriage, abortion, promiscuity and drug use, or even socialist policies (he never forced anyone to give charity or help).

as opposed to christian policies which drain 10% regardless...

IMO, jesus was the first "socialist" he repeatedly said in Luke to give of all material possessions to the poor and needy, something televangelists could learn from.
"something something rich man, something something eye of needle with camel."

and im sure he would be down with gay marriage considering the great strides made from openly stoning them to tolerance and gay marriage in many european countries.

abortion, promiscuity and drug use not so much.

Vladd44 · Post by **Vladd44** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:04 am

Easyrider wrote:I don't see any hypocrisy there, McCulloch, considering God allowed free will and evil to enter Creation in the first place.

There is no freewill in the bible. See Exodus where god hardened the heart of pharoah and Gen chapter 20 where God keeps Abimelech from having sex with Sarah.

Hardly freewill.

As far as Jesus' politics? Considering his affinity for suicide and theatrics, it seems obvious to me that Jesus would have been a suicide bomber.

MikeH · Post by **MikeH** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:00 pm

I know you didn't want to hear "independent", but that's exactly what he would be. Both parties are a marionette show which are used to divide the public and keep the current power structure in place. If anything, look at the history of early Christian church - they were a sort of voluntary socialist commune, and they were not allowed to lend anybody money with interest. This is neither Republican or Democrat, as both parties support the current credit/money/power system and the accumulation of power and wealth by a few to rule over many.

DeBunkem · Post by **DeBunkem** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:58 pm

Maybe God's Own Party. Of course passions have cooled between the GOP and Christian conservatives since the crashing failure of their Messiah, GWB. But it seems that "faith-based" solutions were a prominent part of any social program usually covered by government. Maybe Jesus would institute a faith-based healthcare program. Mental health could be handled by skilled exorcisms.

WinePusher · Post by **WinePusher** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:23 am

jesus would definitly be a conservative, no doubt about it

Abraxas · Post by **Abraxas** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:46 pm

Let's see, Jesus was in favor of providing for the poor, against moneylenders and big business in general, believed in giving way excess material wealth, rejected militarism. If Jesus were to run for office today he would be branded a radical leftist communist by the Democrats and never make it past the primaries.