WWJVF?

There's an interesting article at The Chronicle of Higher education, written by Randall Ballmer, entitled "Jesus Isn't a Republican":
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm

First of all I would heartily agree with him on the title. Jesus isn't a Republican. The Republican party is still at heart, a secular political party, and more often than not it's just as (at times, more) corrupt as their friends on the other side of the political aisle. You can be a Christian and disagree with our current war in Iraq, the NSA wiretapping deal, and so on, even though it seems that some theologians include George Bush's foreign policy among the major tenets of the faith. Unfortunately, Mr. Ballmer goes a little further than merely stating that Christians shouldn't be affiliated with any particular party in his article, revealing that he basically believes that Jesus is a democrat.

From the article, on abortion:

" On judicial matters, the religious right demands appointees who would diminish individual rights to privacy with regard to abortion."

This sentence could've easily been copied from the planned parenthood website. What do you think Jesus is more concerned about, the life of an unborn child, or some nebulous concept like the "individual right to privacy"? Does he also think that anyone should be able to set up a meth lab and deal drugs from their own home? After all, don't people have a right to privacy? Not that there's anything wrong with that... I mean, we can all agree that the teachings of bible can be summarized as "respect the individuals right to privacy", can't we? All of those danged right-wingers invading the "Individual right to privacy"! I'm sure that God has some terrible judgement planned for them...

"Especially at a time when the government's surveillance activities are already intruding on the privacy and the civil liberties of Americans, we should consider carefully the wisdom of allowing the government to determine a matter properly left to a woman and her conscience."

Refer to the previous comments.

"I have no interest in making abortion illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable. The most effective way to limit the incidence of abortion is to change the moral climate surrounding the issue — through education or even through public-service campaigns similar to those that discourage smoking or drugs or alcohol or spousal abuse."

Why does he want it to be unthinkable? Does he believe that abortion destroys life? If so, than he should agree that because abortion harms a life seperate from the woman, it is no longer a matter of invading individual rights, it's an issue of defending an individuals right to life. People who try to please both sides, believing that abortion is morally despicable, but that people should have a right to do it end up making no sense at all. Also, Republican pro-lifers are already trying to change the moral climate surrounding abortion AS WELL AS limiting it legally, thus defeating his point.

Randall on welfare:

"Jesus spells out the kind of behavior that might be grounds for exclusion from the kingdom of heaven: "I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

We could have a lively discussion and even vigorous disagreement over whether it is incumbent upon the government to provide services to the poor, but those who argue against such measures should be prepared with some alternative program or apparatus."

Christians have been prepared with an alternate program or apparatus for some time. There are countless international and national Christian charities, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc, that have been running for quite some time on private donations. To take Jesus's command to believers to take care of the poor and to translate it to mean that we should have the government take care of the poor so that we don't have to is a little ridiculous. And since the government is secular, it can't provide the spiritual help that so many of the poor need much more than temporary relief from poverty.

Randall on the consistant ethic of life.

"As early as 1984, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, the late archbishop of Chicago, talked about opposition to abortion as part of a "seamless garment" that included other "life issues": care for the poor and feeding the hungry, advocacy for human rights, and unequivocal opposition to capital punishment. Surely the adoption of what Bernardin called a "consistent ethic of life" carries with it greater moral authority than opposition to abortion alone. "

Last time I checked Right-wing christians have been caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, and advocating human rights. But unequivocal opposition to capital punishment? Can you really read a verse as basic as "Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in his own image." (Genesis 9:6), and come to the conclusion that God is opposed to any capital punishment? Come on.

--------------------------------------

Sure Christians should be careful not to get too caught up in political parties, and yes, a few conservative christians are corrupt, and abortion may be in many cases used by the Republicans as a mere political weapon, but taking the left-wing stance on every issue is no better. Proffessor Ballmer implies in his article that all right-wing christians are cold-hearted hard-line capitalists that ignore the needs of minorites and the poor, advocate cruelty and aren't trying to reduce abortions through non-governmental means. And I think he gets it wrong.

Hopefully though, contrarian views on God and politics like this will create more dialogue on this subject. I think that evangelicals have considered the Republican party to be the mouthpiece of God for far too long. When Christians place all of their trust in an earthly institution they become blind to it's shortcomings and refuse to recognize when it goes astray. How many Republican scandals have evangelicals stayed silent about until news had already leaked out from every other source? Answer: a lot.

And please, read the entire article instead of just reading the stuff that I copied and pasted out of it. Maholo for your cooperation.


...
(Yes, the second part of my third paragraph IS sarcasm.)