Jesus: Democrat or Republican?

[Bio-logical]

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?

[McCulloch]

jesus would definitly be a conservative, no doubt about it

Thank you for your opinion on this matter. Please outline why you have no doubts about this.

[cnorman18]

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.

A couple of corrections: Providing for the poor, yes; that's a fundamental teaching of Judaism, that what we call "charity" is in Hebrew called "justice" (tzedakah).

Jesus was not against moneylending, as far as we can see; he was against the moneychanging racket at the Temple, which is a rather different thing. He would have condemned usury, to be sure, since that was also against Jewish law; but that isn't "moneylending" per se. I see no evidence that he was against "big business" at all, especially since I don't know that "big business" existed in his day.

Giving away excess material wealth? Where is that? The only quotes I know of are those where he advocated giving away ALL one's worldly goods.

I don't see that he rejected militarism, either; on both occasions when he spoke to Roman soldiers, he advised neither of them to desert or to stop being soldiers of Rome. He advised one to be just and merciful, and with the other he didn't address the issue at all- he just healed the man's servant (or daughter, I forget which).

I think it makes about as much sense to try to identify Jesus's 21st-century political preferences as it does to decide what kind of Japanese car he would drive. Those categories didn't exist in the first century, and this sort of thing invariably turns out to be a matter of projecting one's own political beliefs into the Gospels. Rightwing and leftwing alike have done it, and it's illegitimate either way.

[Abraxas]

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.

A couple of corrections: Providing for the poor, yes; that's a fundamental teaching of Judaism, that what we call "charity" is in Hebrew called "justice" (tzedakah).

Jesus was not against moneylending, as far as we can see; he was against the moneychanging racket at the Temple, which is a rather different thing. He would have condemned usury, to be sure, since that was also against Jewish law; but that isn't "moneylending" per se. I see no evidence that he was against "big business" at all, especially since I don't know that "big business" existed in his day.

Which is why I said moneylenders, as in the profession, not moneylending, the act. Professional moneylenders do not lend money without charging interest, which gets back into usury. Big business from the day can be inferred from your below point and that they also engage in a form of usury.

Giving away excess material wealth? Where is that? The only quotes I know of are those where he advocated giving away ALL one's worldly goods.

Certainly, but by that I did not gather he meant literally all material goods. I don't recall Jesus telling anyone to strip naked and throw/give away all their food, turn loose their livestock, abandon their homes, etc.

I don't see that he rejected militarism, either; on both occasions when he spoke to Roman soldiers, he advised neither of them to desert or to stop being soldiers of Rome. He advised one to be just and merciful, and with the other he didn't address the issue at all- he just healed the man's servant (or daughter, I forget which).

How can one reconcile turning the other cheek and the rest of that sermon with any kind of military action?

I think it makes about as much sense to try to identify Jesus's 21st-century political preferences as it does to decide what kind of Japanese car he would drive. Those categories didn't exist in the first century, and this sort of thing invariably turns out to be a matter of projecting one's own political beliefs into the Gospels. Rightwing and leftwing alike have done it, and it's illegitimate either way.

I don't agree. If the Bible is to be taken as true, not something I would do granted, you can infer some very definite ideas about how Jesus felt society should look and how humans should behave towards one another and I think those attitudes can be mapped towards similar attitudes that exist today.

[Cathar1950]

I think we need to look at Jesus in context. It is hardly likely that Jesus would even be an American or European.
A better place would be to see him as some religious radical rebel somewhere preaching a radical religion and claiming the Kingdom of his god and his cause.
Some guy in Afghanistan or some country being occupied where the leaders are working for those governing them and most of the people pretty pissed off.

But he wouldn't be an American from the USA or a member of either party.
I bet he would be found with a few followers with guns too.

[WinePusher]

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.

well, lets see of the liberal wing falls in line with the social teaching of Jesus.
Liberals are huge advocates of government assistance programs, but the Gospels tell us to give out of the generousity of our hearts, not because the government is telling us to do it. Conservatives promote ideas like smaller government, personal responsibility, sancity of life and marriage and the family, the left is trying to destory all these institutions, so Jesus teaching correlate more with conservative principles.

[Goat]

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.

well, lets see of the liberal wing falls in line with the social teaching of Jesus.
Liberals are huge advocates of government assistance programs, but the Gospels tell us to give out of the generousity of our hearts, not because the government is telling us to do it. Conservatives promote ideas like smaller government, personal responsibility, sancity of life and marriage and the family, the left is trying to destory all these institutions, so Jesus teaching correlate more with conservative principles.

This appears top be a rationalization about 'let me be greedy and ignore the poor'

Let's see you give scripture that says what you claim Jesus said.

[Abraxas]

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.

well, lets see of the liberal wing falls in line with the social teaching of Jesus.
Liberals are huge advocates of government assistance programs, but the Gospels tell us to give out of the generousity of our hearts, not because the government is telling us to do it. Conservatives promote ideas like smaller government, personal responsibility, sancity of life and marriage and the family, the left is trying to destory all these institutions, so Jesus teaching correlate more with conservative principles.

Where did Jesus advocate small government? Indeed, quite the opposite I seem to recall a quote about rendering unto Caesar. Further, helping the poor because of the government and helping the poor because we want to are not mutually exclusive propositions.

Nothing about liberal philosophy says anything about reduced personal responsibility. However, I will note the Bible seems to put being your brother's keeper in the plus category.

Sanctity of life is really not a conservative ideal. Sure, they trumpet abortion as a core issue, but large parts of conservative thought favor the death penalty (how do you suppose Jesus would feel about that one?), militarism, reduction of healthcare and social programs that keep the poor alive, etc. Conservatives say the words "sanctity of life" but seldom mean them.

Sanctity of marriage, again you mean gay marriage. Perhaps liberals are at odds with the Bible on that, perhaps not. However, the definition of marriage has continued to change for thousands of years. Topics like polygamy, interracial marriage, arranged marriage, the role of both men and women in marriage, the idea of women as property, etc. have all changed through time and tradition, I fail to see what makes homosexuality so far above and beyond those.

The left has done nothing to the family, I have no idea what you are talking about here unless it is more of the above.

So, no. Jesus does not correlate with the conservative principles you mentioned.

[cnorman18]

....And I think my point has been proven. Here we have both left and right claiming Jesus as their own, by drawing comparisons between his statements in the first century and public policy in the twenty-first.


On some issues, Jesus was obviously a "social liberal": he was against bigotry and prejudice, notably againt Samaritans. On other issues he wsa even more conservative than the religious leaders of his day - Jewish law allowed divorce for any reason, but Jesus allowed divorce only for adultery. That was stricter than either of the two most prominent rabbis of his time, Hillel (the liberal) and Shammai (the conservative). In the same way, he regarded fantasies as tantamount to actual adultery, which is something entirely new in Jewish thought and is taken seriously today only by fundamentalists.

When someone can tell me what Jesus's position was on public debt, seat-belt laws, oil exploration, foreign aid, redistricting, and direct election versus the Electoral College, I'll take this stuff seriously. On second thought, not even then, because drawing conclusions about Jesus's position on such issues would be nothing BUT projection. He had nothing to say about any of them.

Jesus didn't condemn slavery, either; and as I've written elsewhere, it's silly to condemn him for that. That was a different time, with a wholly different outlook on many things we take for granted today. I doubt if anyone can even make a case for Jesus being either in favor of or against allowing women to vote, or even democracy vs. monarchy.

As I said, one might as well ask which Japanese car he would drive. These issues, and these labels, didn't exist in his day, and it's silly to try to claim he'd generally support one side or the other. On some issues, he'd probably have sided with the left; others, the right; but on many important modern topics, it's impossible to attribute any position at all to Jesus, and it's an exercise in projection to try. .

[Goat]

As I said, one might as well ask which Japanese car he would driv.

He'd drive an American car, a plymouth to be exact, because it is written that in a Fury, Jesus drove the money lenders from the temple.

[cnorman18]

As I said, one might as well ask which Japanese car he would driv.

He'd drive an American car, a plymouth to be exact, because it is written that in a Fury, Jesus drove the money lenders from the temple.

Were they in the back seat, or the trunk?