Christianity vs Republicans

[amanda]

Question: How are the teachings of Christ compatible with Republican ideology?

[rickus]

Duh, Nanda!!! When Jesus wasn't visiting gun shows, in his XXL SUV, he was protesting outside abortion clinics and beating the shit out of homos who want the state to recognize that they love someone exclusively. Come on. That's a no-brainer.

[Jeff]

I don't know, Amanda, how the party that protects the rich made it through the eye of the needle, how the party toting guns thinks they can preach neighborly love. The time is ripe for another Amos, one of my Biblical heroes, someone to stand up in the temple and give a real testimony.

Jeff

[Jeff]

Amanda,

I think that you had a more subtle thought, and I hope that we didn't derail you. What exactly were you trying to get at?

I used to think that I could prove that every Republican was either stupid or evil. Now I see much of their stupidity as belligerence and much of their evil as blindness, whether willful or no. So, a person can be a Christian and a Republican if her conception of faith is really a kind of spiritual belligerence or blindness. Such a person could envision faith primarily as an act of will, which would accord well with Republican “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” ideology.

It all sounds very American and wrongheaded to me. I’ve argued all over the board that it is ludicrous to conceive of faith as assent to a set of propositions, however benign. I can’t see how that has any spiritual value at all.

Well, it did make for a droll exchange in Alice in Wonderland:

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Jeff

[CaptAdam]

I suppose the imposible only exists if you never believe.

[Jeff]

Do you really mean that, Adam? Is it possible that 1 + 1 = 3? Is it possible that both P and Not P are true?

[amanda]

I honestly just don't see the compatibility. What prompted the question this time was an email I had received from MoveOn.Org regarding the upcoming budget fight. Republicans in the House(?) were suggesting $50 billion in permanent cuts to vital services to the poor (programs which make up a teeeeny tiny portion of the overall budget, by the by) in order to offset costs for Katrina. This makes sense how? And how does that fit with our charge as Christians to love and care for neighbors, especially the needy and poor?

I work with a woman at DHS who is a proud born-again evangelical Christian. She goes to church every day. She sings hymns while she works. Yet she'll be the first in the office to talk about how undeserving some of the families we serve are of the benefits they receive. Unfortunately, this has NOT been the exception when I've encountered other conservative Christians both in and out of the office. They are against entitlement programs that supplement the cupboards of low-income families and provide health insurance and day care assistance for their children.

How is the Republican Party being good stewards of the earth with the environmental policies they continue to push? Is it really just the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage that makes the Republicans the party of faith?

Adam, I don't mean to single you out, but I know you are a Christian who votes Republican. Can you explain how their positions reflect your faith?

[amanda]

Here is a list of some of the programs that were proposed for budget cuts:

Medicaid and Medicare—the primary health insurance provider for America's poor and elderly.
Federal student loans—which make higher education possible for millions of American students.
Child Nutrition Programs (school lunch and breakfast, summer meals, day care meals)—which provide basic nutrition to underprivileged children in every state.
Food Stamps—the highly successful federal program that keeps millions of Americans from facing hunger and even starvation.
Earned Income & Child Tax Credits—vital tax relief for low-income working families.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation—the federal guarantor of private pension programs, needed more than ever in this era of major bankruptcies.
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and TANF—which provide basic cost of living support to millions of extremely low income and disabled Americans.
Unemployment Insurance.

[Jeff]

It's a great question, Amanda, but I think my answer is the same: Christians who would vote to cut these programs see individuals responsible for themselves and see aid as an individual decision, too. The granting of aid is also a role that should be held exclusively by the church, if it is held by any collective body. (It sounds ludicrous and simple-minded to me, but I think that’s the logic.)

Gov't programs make us feel better about ourselves than we have a right to. They give us an excuse to walk by the sick and hungry with a simple gesture toward the DHS building. Further, such programs reinforce an inappropriate role for gov't in the lives of citizens. When individual believers and the church are responsible for the needy, then the church assumes its normal (powerful) place within a society. Not a wafer should be doled out without a sermon.

All of this is traceable, in my mind, anyway, to a theologically inadequate notion of faith. Faith is not a matter of will. Getting out of the gutter is not a matter of will. Getting the church to be a meaningful moral body in the civil life of this country is not a matter of will. In fact, I’d argue that will stands in the way of each of these goals, and when it does that is where I find the true Christian message. When the prodigal son had spent his money, had lost his friends, and had given up hope, i.e., when he had exhausted his capacity for self-determination, he returned to his father in humility…maybe I can be a servant. And when his father saw him he did not worry about tough love or that his son would now be sponging off him. He embraced his son. Humility and love. Not Will.

Jeff

PS In that story Will cannot explain the need to go home, or really any of the facts about home (except the elder brother's initial reaction). Similarly, Will cannot explain the need for eternal life except as selfish continuation of disinterested non-involved existence, which sounds a lot like Hell to me.

[kyle]

My name is Kyle...and I'm a Republican. I'd like to start off by saying hello and thanking Rick for setting me up on this board.

I do think that the responsibility if supporting yourself falls on the individual. All of the entitlements that Amanda listed for kids, and those that were not mentioned for the mentally and physically handicapped, would have to be my exception. These people do not have the capacity to care for themselves so those are people that I would like to see helped.

What gets me, and many of my friends are the people who "work the system" I am all for helping people in their time of need, but people need to be held accountable for their actions. People like Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Mike Brown, Karl Rove, and President Bush. I'll just list off some Republicans and leave it at that. These are all people who may or may have not made bad decisions and their careers may or may not be damaged. I think I should be able to have the same expectations for everybody else. If ordinary citizens time and time again make the wrong life-choice, why should we keep giving them more money and letting them think it's OK. Jeff, I like your reference to the Prodigal Son, but the story stops too soon. Does that father give the son another cut of the inheritance and let the on go off to blow that money away, time and time again? Or does the son make the commitment to make better choices and better himself?

That's all I've got for now.

[Jeff]

Hello Kyle!

I am sort of in a rush now, too, but it's good to hear from you. I think Jesus’ answer to your question can be found at Matt 18:21-22:

“Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.”

PS About the Prodigal Son: I think the point is that inclusion in the community/family is spiritually prior to divvying up the wealth.

[Tyler]

Here-Here, Kyle! I've been waiting for somebody on this board to speak up with some sense. It's about time that those people that have, time and time again, done nothing but suck resources from the rest of us be forced to provide for themselves. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not completely heartless. I think that if they can demonstrate that they aren't repeating the same mistakes they've made in the past and that they're actually trying to do good instead of just causing everyone heartache and holding this country back, that we should give them as many chances as they need. In this spirit, I think, just as a matter of practicality, that we should start with those people that are leaps and bounds the largest tick on the side of America, those that cost us the most money:

Fossil fuel industry: $5 billion in annual subsidies

MCI - between $6.7 - $9.5 billion in taxes in 2003 (not including the 19-27 billion in the bankruptcy)

Over the five-year period from 1996 to 2000, Enron received a net tax rebate of $381 million. This includes a $278 million tax rebate in 2000 alone. Over the same period, the company’s profit before federal income taxes totaled $1.785 billion. In none of these years was the company’s pretax profit less than $87 million. At the 35 percent tax rate, Enron's tax on profits in the past five years would have been $625 million, but the company was able to use tax benefits from stock options and other loopholes to reduce its five-year tax total to substantially less than zero.

The Joint Committee on Taxation’s most recent compilation of these tax-code-based spending programs, issued last December, found a total of $843 billion in such programs in this fiscal year alone, rising to $915 billion by fiscal 2007. That's not including the tax cuts that recently have been made by our Republican leaders. People like Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Mike Brown, Karl Rove, and President Bush.

Now, if we're talking about individuals and not corporations, here's some quick fact sheets:
- Myth: Welfare gives people an incentive to avoid work.
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm
- Facts on corporate welfare:
www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/428/1/87

The statistics above, I cut from other websites, rather than having to type all that out. I hope my tone here wasn't read as adversarial. I don't mean to be. I have been anxious to hear a good argument for this sort of theory and haven't, as of yet, heard one. Doesn't it seem to make more sense to give money to poor people, who will spend it locally, then to give it to corporations, who will place it outside the sphere of influence of the country?

[kyle]

I see where your going with Matt 18: 21-22, but what about verses 11-18:

"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

I understand the never-ending forgiveness that you are talking about but I think that 11-18 talks about situations that letting go of someone who has shown that they have no desire to change their ways is acceptable. I think that having forgiveness and continually giving handouts are two separate things.

Tyler - Don't forget to throw in the airlines and Amtrak to your list of corporate leeches. My thinking goes the same for the corporate world. If the airlines had had no trouble operating before 9/11, then I would say "Sure, I'd love to help you out" but since that isn't the case, I don't feel so good about bailing them out again, and again, and again.


On the topic that Rick brought up of beating the shit out of homos...this Republican doesn't believe in fighting. I also try my best not to judge people: Matthew 7:1-?

"Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

It would be much easier for me to believe that I am right and everyone who doesn't think the same way I do is wrong, but I'm not delusional, I know that there is a very real chance that I am wrong...about everything.
I just have a hard time with this one little part of homosexuality: Eve was put on this Earth to be Adam's companion, and they were supposed to have families (can't find the exact passage). How is that Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve are supposed to create families?

[rickus]

I acknowledge that incidents of gay bashing are rare among those who claim to be Christian. My delivery earlier was ALMOST entirely tongue-in-cheek.

[amanda]

Hi, Kyle! Welcome aboard (as the longstanding joke around here goes)!

"If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. "

Ah, but Kyle, are we not supposed to treat the Gentile and tax collector in the same regard as everyone else? Yes, I think we are. We are called to continually forgive and to support each other - especially the poor and the oppressed. I don't recall any scripture offhand that attaches any conditions to those we help. As Christians, it is not our concern whether someone is worthy of our help or not... is it? Hey, man, WWJD?

On a more secular note, there are safeguards in place to counter those who attempt to "work the system". And, by the way, it is only a small portion of our clients who do this. Clients who are found to be fraudulently receiving assistance are arrested and prosecuted. A warrant was issued last week for a client who had knowingly provided false information to get food stamps. I'm definitely not Pollyanna enough to deny that it happens at all, but I've worked for DHS long enough to know that it isn't as rampant as some may like you to believe.

As for people being placed on earth to in order to have families... there are plenty of heterosexual couples who either can not have children or choose not to. Adam and Adam and Eve and Eve can still create families -- through surrogates and adopting children who are in need of families of their own.

[kyle]

If we are supposed to treat the gentile and tax collector just like everybody else, why are they suggested as an end to the problem with someone who is doing wrong?

It is good that there are safety measures being taken, I just think that they are not good enough. These suggestions only apply to able bodied people but maybe only giving food stamps to people that are going through job training programs...if they stop going, the food stamps stop coming.

You are correct, as Christians, we are not supposed to set requirements on who gets help and who doesn't. But, there needs to be a stronger correlation between the commitment needing people make to be not-needing anymore and the amount of resources that the govt. spends on them.

In regards to your last comment about Eve and Eve (for some reason I can stomach two girls together easier than I can two guys together, funny thing): I think that a hetero couple that can not have a child is completely different than a homo couple that can not have a child. I think that both couples would be wrong to try and have a child through surrogacy or invetro; unless one of the members of the hetero, married couple is willing to commit adultery to have a child.

By the same means, I am all for a hetero couple adopting a baby.

Tyler: thanks for the adversarial comment. Rick said that you guys were nice about that sort of thing and the same goes for me. Since I really only know one of you, please tell me if you think I have gone too far with something. I don't have any intentions on pissing anybody off.

[rickus]

I really hope Adam come in on this conversation, for so long he's been our only Republican voting board member. Seeing that Kyle is posing with the same point of view I think would do his heart some good.

I'm curious Kyle, Amanda's first post was "How are the teachings of Christ compatible with Republican ideology?" Keeping that question in mind could you please elaborate on this passage a bit more:

kyle said:

In regards to your last comment about Eve and Eve: I think that a hetero couple that can not have a child is completely different than a homo couple that can not have a child. I think that both couples would be wrong to try and have a child through surrogacy or invetro; unless one of the members of the hetero, married couple is willing to commit adultery to have a child.

Please tell us how the teachings of Jesus espouse these ideals.

[kyle]

Before I start my response I have to give an observation that may be nothing or if there is something behind it could someone please fill me in. Both you and Amanda mentioned only that Adam VOTED Republican, not that he was Republican??

The committing adultery part was said in total sarcasm.

I can't think of a place in the bible where Jesus said "My Father was wrong to make man, woman, and His presance the only feasable way of creating another human life."

The surragacy and invetro part has a lot to do with a my view on medical advancement that, in short, supports increasing the quality of life but does not support the aid in creation of life.

[rickus]

Well... I said that he votes republican because he has admitted that that is how he votes. To my knowledge though, I don't believe he has ever said that he is registered as a republican.

And for the record, I respect your views regarding the creation of life.

[Thanin]

kyle said:

Tyler: thanks for the adversarial comment. Rick said that you guys were nice about that sort of thing and the same goes for me. Since I really only know one of you, please tell me if you think I have gone too far with something. I don't have any intentions on pissing anybody off.

Unfortunately I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Rick and say right up front that I'm not nice about this stuff and that I already hate you... but don't take it personally! You see, I make really bad and rash decisions... which is one trait that I unfortunately share with republicans.

By the way, that's about the nicest thing I could post right now, which is pretty good for me... really I'm just glad that I haven't said anything yet that I'll have to be apologizing for later (emphasis on the word 'yet').