Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts) Thu Jun 18, 2015, 07:52 AM Jun 2015

The GOP Needs a War on Christianity

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-chuck-currie/the-gop-needs-a-war-on-christianity_b_7603730.html

Rev. Dr. Chuck Currie Become a fan
Director of the Center for Peace and Spirituality and University Chaplain at Pacific University

Posted: 06/17/2015 6:01 pm EDT Updated: 06/17/2015 8:59 pm EDT

It is a common and hyperbolic refrain that Democrats have been (and still are) the anti-religion party. Now, however, Republicans may be running into religion problems of their own as evangelical and Roman Catholics become more engaged with issues such as poverty and climate change.

"Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians," said Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), on the House floor in 2005.

This perceived hostility by Democrats to faith -- Christianity, in particular -- has been used as an effective wedge issue in tight political campaigns. In 2004, as an example, the Republican National Committee, then under the direct control of President George W. Bush, sent out mailers to voters in West Virginia alleging that his general election opponent, then U.S. Senator John Kerry, a life long Roman Catholic, would ban the Bible if elected President.

Barack Obama spent much of the 2008 election and his presidency defending his Christian faith from other politicians and political commentators who charged that the president was either lying about his faith or being a secret Muslim.

more at link

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The GOP Needs a War on Christianity (Original Post) cbayer Jun 2015 OP

So the point is that because unethical people Promethean Jun 2015 #1

Well said. n/t trotsky Jun 2015 #3

Wait. Did we read the same article? cbayer Jun 2015 #4

Yes, cbayer, we did. People are allowed to hold opinions different than yours. trotsky Jun 2015 #5

Hahahaha trotsky Jun 2015 #2

Better excerpt Lordquinton Jun 2015 #6

Followed by this wrap up paragraph, which I think supports the separation, pluralistic standard pinto Jun 2015 #7

Because a priest has as much authority to speak on climate change as scientests Lordquinton Jun 2015 #8

"the people can freely decide whether or not to listen to the great diversity of religious voices.." pinto Jun 2015 #10

"harsh ... speech of those political leaders who would misuse faith as a tool to divide people" trotsky Jun 2015 #9

Promethean

(468 posts)

1. So the point is that because unethical people

Reply to cbayer (Original post)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 09:04 AM

Jun 2015

will spin opposition to the malign influence of religion to stir up scared idiots to support them we must kowtow to religion to stop them. How about hell freaking no. I'm not going to live my life based on how unethical jerks will respond to what I will do. Silence is consent and I will never consent to letting religion ruin any more lives.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

3. Well said. n/t

Reply to Promethean (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 09:12 AM

Jun 2015

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

4. Wait. Did we read the same article?

Reply to Promethean (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 09:17 AM

Jun 2015

Your interpretation of this is so radically different to my own that I'm not sure what to say.

Where is the suggestion that we kowtow to religion or that you should live your life based on how unethical jerks will respond to you? Where is the suggestion that you consent to letting religion ruin lives?

The article is about how the GOP has used religion to attack and divide, about how that might be changing and how it is important that we push back against that if we want to take that control away from them.

It is also about how some religious groups are backing away from the GOP and taking positions on some issues that are in line with what most progressive/liberal democrats want. Is that what you object to?

Can you explain further what your take was?

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

5. Yes, cbayer, we did. People are allowed to hold opinions different than yours.

Reply to cbayer (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 09:25 AM

Jun 2015

Just read this excerpt from your article:

"President Obama has been unwavering in confessing Christ as Lord and has spoken often about the importance of his Christian faith. Many of the signees on this letter have prayed and worshipped with this President. We believe that questioning, and especially misrepresenting, the faith of a confessing believer goes too far..."

The response to the Republicans' claim that the president is anti-Christian shouldn't be 'he is an unwavering soldier for Christ!', it should be 'STFU.'

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

2. Hahahaha

Reply to cbayer (Original post)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 09:11 AM

Jun 2015

"~~perceived~~ imagined hostility by Democrats to faith"

Fixed that for ya.

Only if you define Christianity as "anti-choice, anti-LGBT, anti-welfare" (which the GOP does, of course) can you possibly think the Democratic party is hostile to that religion.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)

6. Better excerpt

Reply to cbayer (Original post)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 01:13 PM

Jun 2015

Since Pope Francis has taken office, the partisan rhetoric has largely died down from the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican has still continued to advocate for issues that the United Church of Christ, as an example, might take different stands on. But that is their right (I'd argue even their obligation as a church). Still, these debates can take place by religious leaders without replicating the harsh political speech of those political leaders who would misuse faith as a tool to divide people.

Bush and the GOP want a religious political war where the Democrats are portrayed as the opponents of Christianity and all that is good. Pope Francis might be trying to put religion back where it belongs: the public square. Pastors and priests have every right to speak on issues such as climate change. Jeb Bush does not get to dictate to the church universal what issues we can and cannot speak on

pinto

(106,886 posts)

7. Followed by this wrap up paragraph, which I think supports the separation, pluralistic standard

Reply to Lordquinton (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 01:44 PM

Jun 2015

In a pluralistic society like the United States, the people can freely decide whether or not to listen to the great diversity of religious voices speaking on the moral issues of our day. It is critical, however, that while our religious institutions be open to working in partnership with governments to meet the obligations of the common good that churches, synagogues, and mosques never become mere tools of politicians that take orders from Jeb Bush or any else.

The separation standard works both ways, imo. And the key line here is "the people can freely decide whether or not to listen to the great diversity of religious voices speaking on the moral issues of our day." Freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)

8. Because a priest has as much authority to speak on climate change as scientests

Reply to pinto (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 02:17 PM

Jun 2015

They don't, but because of religious privilege they are given de facto authority to speak on it because everything falls under the god umbrella.

If you read the excerpt i posted you would see that this guy is misrepresenting things. The pope is just as conserva5as any oher pope, he just says it nicer. Unless you think his comparisson of women to animals that need preservation as some great leap forward.

He's cementing the idea that religion is intragal to the political process, the last paragraph feels more like a boiler plate, something he can point to and say "see! Freedom!" While still saying a candidates religion is important.

pinto

(106,886 posts)

10. "the people can freely decide whether or not to listen to the great diversity of religious voices.."

Reply to Lordquinton (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 08:59 PM

Jun 2015

Do you think people have no ability to discern things for themselves? If so, I strongly disagree. The guy in the café can speak on climate change from now until the sun comes up. Doesn't mean I have to give his opinions uncritical acceptance. I think most folks get that. Hyperbole remains the hobgoblin in many of these discussions.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

9. "harsh ... speech of those political leaders who would misuse faith as a tool to divide people"

Reply to Lordquinton (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 02:25 PM

Jun 2015

As opposed to religious leaders like Wonderpope Frank, who says marriage equality is from Satan, and that children need male fathers and female mothers and that any other arrangement is "child abuse." You know, real inclusive speech there.

Reply to this discussion