Comments on: What Would Jesus Say?

By: louie

louie — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:08:49 +0000

so what would jesus do. i believe our political views have left jesus out. and has also left the society we have created. for example. i was attacked by a springfield police officer. all with my hands behind my back. broken hand and tazered. then halled away . and was told i was being charged. if not for the honesty of two witnesses i would be serving 20 years. this officer lyied and also to his peers. but one thing i found out is that the law has so much power that i could not get no justice. the officer continues to act aggressive towards township residents. i type with a broken hand and scared to be seen in my township.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:47:16 +0000

Thanks Tom. And you have a good explanation of non -evangelical Americans. Non-charismatic, non-evangelicals consider their religion as personal and private, not to be worn on the sleeve but instead, practiced in the daily life.

angry….you have some good stuff in your comment. The militarism I was referring to that evangelical Christianity, primarily focused in southern states….embraces, is the relatively new-fangled defend-Israel-at-all-costs-to-bring-on-the-Rapture..militarism. I'm sure you're familiar with that stuff.

No question that both sides presidents have done bad things with the U.S. military. No question at all.

By: Tom B

Tom B — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:06:14 +0000

Rev, this is a very thoughtful post. What I believe the map reflects is the fact that evangelicals, the overwhelmingly majority in the southern states, do in fact consider religion a stronger component of their life. As you look at New England and the West Coast, the people are more mainline Christian and Catholic. It's no secret that these folks are shyer about their faith and discussing it. I don't know that the map says much more. However there seems to be a 1:1 relationship between conservative and evangelical beliefs which in tern have a 1:1 relationship with the GOP ideals and principles.

By: angry conserv

angry conserv — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:08:56 +0000

Rev,
I take great umbrage at your depiction of the religious right(which I am not part of) as supporters of militarism thus they support the party that embodies that concept.
Let us take a little stroll through recent history. JFK rose to prominence primarily through his fathers wealth and power and his insistence on the "missile gap" which was bullshit. He championed more military sending and we wont even waste our time diiscussing The Bay of Pigs. Clinton unilaterally decided to indiscriminately drop bombs on innocent people throughout Serbia. And let us not forget the ultimate hypocritie the self an-
oited Mr. Peace and Brotherhood–Jimmy Carter. When the Khemer Rouge were on the verge of collapse he paid the Thai government to provide sanctuary for Pol Pot and his henchman and funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars and weapons to that killing machine so they could continue to kill hundreds of thousands of Cambodians. Apparently Jimmy didnt think the millions they had already killed was enough.
Do these facts prove that all secular liberals such as yourself are blood thirsty militarists? I personally dont believe it but using your simplistic black and white style of deduction it must be so.
Rev, for decades I opposed what I felt was the intolerance, lack of compassion and simplistic ignorant black and white mindset of the right. Sadly I have slowly come to realize you and your ilk are no better.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:05:05 +0000

No, larry, your logic about my logic is not…logical.

The Republican Party finds it's most ardent supporters in the most religious states.

Republican Party policies run contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

Republican policies do not "suffer for the fact that they are Christian"….it's just the opposite. Christians, at least in those southern states, are voting, as I posted, AGAINST the religious teachings of Jesus, whenthey vote for the GOP.

Democrats, who do NOT find their most ardent supporters in the most religious states, take a secular humanist stance in their policies…..which wind up being closer to the teachings of Jesus.

Where, then, is that "glaring hole" in logic?

By: larry d.

larry d. — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:19:54 +0000

Actually Reverend, in your initial post you are arguing that republican stances suffer for the fact that they are Christian, and state that the post will be in fact a critique of religion. Then you turn around and argue that dem stances are better because they are even more Christian.

I know mary would rather I 'research' the topic before I post, but the glaring hole in your logic is as self-evident as usual.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:06:39 +0000

Thank you mary. I appreciate every one of my readers and try hard to keep the blog worthy of reading.

To larry and average….the concept of the GOP being diminished into a regional party, primarily centered in southern states,…..is not a new idea, nor is it my idea.

The allegiance that the Bible Belt states has had for the GOP the last 30 years is not a novel idea or concept, either.

What many folks shy away from is putting those two thoughts together and then stating the obvious. The most religious states support the GOP.

Since I know what Christianity is about and I know what the GOP is about, putting those two side by side for comparative purposes seems the only natural thing to do.

Does that make southern GOP voters evil or less American? Absolutely not. It should present pause for self-reflection, however.

By: mary

mary — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:09:32 +0000

larrt d.

There is data in Rev's post and he has stated his position based upon what he sees in the data. Anyone on this blog is welcome to state a different position based upon what they see in his data. Perhaps you could research, collect data, and present a similar post on where African Americans live, how they voted and then state your position just as the Rev did. Then anyone who wanted to present a different conclusion based upon data could do so and we could have a real discussion on the issues in an adult manner.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:06:53 +0000

That's a nice positive look at the blogs, mary. But seriously, how exactly is Reverends post "positive"? By bashing the opposition on the grounds of religious beliefs?

Would it also be positive if he made a map of where African Americans live, noted how they voted, then bashed them too?

By: mary

mary — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:23:07 +0000

Good post Rev. You know a little before the election I said "goodby" to " All the King's Men" not because of what King says but because of what his bloggers say all they time. I never managed to find very much that was positive for me in the posts. I love to hear and discuss opposing opinions I do not love to hear negativity. I continued to read your blog because I often find positive and informative posts and sometimes I even get fired up and join in. Most people post both places but your insights make it worth my while to read this blog. Why must so many people be so negative? Authentic discussion is what it will take to turn this country around — new ideas — a different approach to old ideas. It is easy to be negative It is difficult to be constructive. Thank you for thoughtful postings.