December 13, 2007 10:01 PM
Clergy favor Democrats
It came as a surprise to some political observers when we learned earlier in the fall that military donations are going heavily towards Barack Obama and Ron Paul, both of whom are staunch opponents of the president’s policy in Iraq. The conventional wisdom suggested the troops are conservative and would support pro-war candidates, but the contributions show otherwise.
How about the clergy? "Everyone" knows ministers and pastors are conservative and prefer "pro-family" Republicans, right?
And 4 out of 5 dentisits prefer Dentine.
NOW the Thugs will want to tax churches.
I hope they prefer BETTER and new Democrats.
The current crop of enablers needs to be booted out.
Traitors to the Democratic Party: Feinstein, Reid, Pelosi, Schulmer, LIEberman, and Ralph Emmanuel.
Did I miss anyone?
I love the commentary about Obama and Paul. They are "opponents of the president’s policy in Iraq". Do all Americans speak out the sides of their mouths. Why can't we say who opposes the war and who doesn't? Why muddy the waters with talk about opposing "the policy".
Paul opposes the war while Obama opposes "the president's policy", just as John Kerry didn't oppose the war but opposed "the president's policy".
As for clergy and military supporting the candidates of these fake political parties, who cares? I'd be interested in hearing about what the candidates think about the lack of choice as opposed to these endless stories about which fake party (or candidate) they support.
It's all a plot to get Huckabee elected.
The conventional wisdom suggested the troops are conservative and would support pro-war candidates, but the contributions show otherwise. [ ] How about the clergy? “Everyone” knows ministers and pastors are conservative and prefer “pro-family” Republicans, right?
Conventional wisdom emanates from the mouths of pundits who, after having been granted television spots for some interesting observations, keep talking, but stop observing.
I'm guessin the plates are gettin a little light on donations......
A. Nonny Mus @ 5:
ROFLAO
And the most money is going to Obama . That groan you hear is " Rev. " Falwell rotating in his grave .
That groan you hear is " Rev. " Falwell rotating in his grave
I have it on good authority that the Falwell family opted for the economy plan coffin. There is NO room for Jerry to rotate.
It's only conventional wisdom that the clergy is GOP-oriented because the media does such a terrible job in reflecting religious reality in the US. If you follow the news, you'd think that Bill Donahue, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson, and their b-list substitute preachers accurately reflect the views of all American christians. Well surprise, there are actually progressive (and sane) christian leaders, but when do they get airtime?
Then there is the egregious term "values voters", which seems to be bestowed mostly on conservative christians, implying that non-religious voters, or even religious people who are supportive of secular values when it comes to the ballot box, don't hold "values" in as high esteem as the redoubtable "values voters" of the world.
Add to that the number of talking heads who actually take the alleged "war on Christmas" seriously," and there emerges a seriously flawed take on the role that clergy and religion in general plays in politics.
Never mind the money preachers preach to crowds they talk privately to their church members
they can influence Bush's hardcore 30%er Church going base.
than whom
on earth is voting
for these numbskulls
heh...
Pazuzu's Petals @ 11:
Absolutely! Let me be one of the out, loud and proud atheists to recognize that not all religious people are authoritarian theocrats. In fact, most aren't. How dare the Robertsons and Dobsons hijack the word "Christian," and assume that because the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian that they therefore agree with theocratic politics?
Karen @ 14:
*smooch*
thank you sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much for writing that.
The article says that it was different from the 2006 election so this was a complete turnaround. Hopefully this leads to more sane preachers getting air time and candidates such as Mike Huckabee are exposed for what they are really like when they aren't hiding behind the bible. As an atheist it really makes me feel more confident in the future of America when churches become more progessive and when relgious leaders such as Al Sharpton promote gay rights. It seperates the crazies from the people who I just happen disagree with on one small issue that shouldn't be brought up in politics.
This is not surprising. Most people who really do value life have been against the war from the beginning. The people who still support Bush are proof positive that they are a fringe group who use religious fundamentalism for nothing more than a base. This is no different than Middle East Islamic terrorism compliments of the western Christian culture. I would like to stress this point because Christian culture in the Middle East has been around a lot longer than their counterpart in the west. The sooner that people who are truly of religious faith disassociate themselves with the Christian fundamentalist terrorists the better. Otherwise they may find that survival no longer requires nor is an option with a compromise of peace.
"naughty girls need love too"-cousin diddler Rudy to clergy
From what I know of Christianity from my Christian upbringing, it seems you can be a liberal without being a Christian but you cannot really be a Christian without being a liberal.
Or in other words, Jesus was a dirty fucking hippy ;-).
Whoa, this is news!
You're telling me it's possible to be Christian and to be against torture? I had no idea...
And that you don't have to accept George W Bush as your Personal Saviour to be a Christian?
What novel ideas! How come I have never heard of this before?
Karen @ 14:
If Jesus was alive today, they'd crucify him.........
Interesting. Maybe the clergy got tired of the Bush administration using the "word of god" to enact all sorts of crazy policies. Much like the Bushies used "support the troops" to get us into all sorts of fiascoes.
A very nice Christian friend of mine wishes the religious nuts were something besides Christians because they give Christianity a bad name. I asked her why they don't denounce them. She said they do but the nuttier you are the more air time you get. The Christians who denounce them go unheard. I thought about it and realized she's right.
CD @ 15:
I second the smooch :)
Cloudbusting @ 21:
You're not exaggerating much if at all.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/6/68/250px-A...
BushCo has lost the military and now the clergy for the Republicans. Soon, all they'll have left are the bed-wetting (save me from the towel-heads daddy) crowd and the the sado-masochistic torture cheerleaders... or is that already what comprises the 30% dead-enders?
I got quite a shock today when I dropped by the green grocer's and saw his parking lot across the street with a huge Ron Paul sign in front. You see, this fruit and vegetable stand, called, appropriately enough, "Fruit King," is owned and operated by a family of Hispanics who represent a relatively new phenomenon in that ethnic group. At some point in the 70's or 80's they began to abandon the Catholic Church in favor of protestant and especially evangelical faiths. In Fruit King you have to listen to Jeebus rock as you thumb through the avocados and Valley lemons, everything priced up to 50% less than the big supermarket chains in my South Texas city. Not only that, a sign posted near the door proclaims that the owners are "Producing for Christ." Isn't that just precious?
Yeah, I know, a bit hypocritical of an atheist like me to go shopping at such a place, but, hey, as a liberal/humanist, I'm probably supposed to boycott Wal-Mart, too, but I like the lower prices, my hedge against inflation. So I put up with the treacly Jeebus musak to find red-ripe tomatoes for 89 cents a pound and big bell peppers for 50 cents each. I'm not rude enough to just ask the management, "Why the Ron Paul sign?" I am afraid they might say it's none of my blinkin' business. But I'm wondering if they completely grok Paul's brand of libertarian conservatism. I mean, he may be against abortion on demand, but he knows that as president he probably couldn't do anything to outlaw it.
And of course abortion is really big in the evangelical agenda (that is, curtailing a woman's right to choose). So is denial of "special rights" for gays and lesbians -- and Ron Paul just told ABC's John Stossel he has nothing against gay marriage! And do these producers for Christ know that Ron Paul wants to repeal all the drug laws? I should imagine there are many other things Paul represents that don't exactly fit in with the evangelical program.
But, hey, there is another, better reason for not engaging Fruit King's management in a conversation about Paul and their big sign across the street. As small business advisers constantly claim, success in retail depends on "location, location, location." This particular Fruit King (the guy has about four of them locally) is at a major intersection of five streets, including one about a block from a freeway. I am afraid that if I inform the Fruit King ownership what Paul really stands for, they might take their sign down.
CafeenMan @ 23:
A sociologist once looked into why the religious right gets so much air time. She concluded that it's because their philosophy fits easier into a sound bit then that of the religious left.
Sad huh?
Um...everyone knows the clergy are conservative? I'm glad we are making inroads with the fundies, but in most denominations in this country the clergy are generally more politically progressive than the folks in the pews. I know a ton of Methodist, Episcopal, PCUSA, ELCA, DOC, UCC...etc... clergy and they are rarely republican.
Perhaps if you believe that Pat Robertson represents all of christianity and you completely ignore mainline protestantism and almost half of catholicism. I was raised in a Methodist parsonage and my father, his friends, and almost every religion professor I grew up around were bleeding hearts. In fact, 33% of christians at large self identify as politically progressive or liberal, and another 20-30% self identify as moderate.
The issue here is that huge swaths of the Church are ignored by the media, perpetuating the idea in gullible voter minds that the republican part is the party of christ. Unfortunately nonchristian liberals and progressives often help perpetuate this crap through misplaced hostility.
The religious community had better pay attention to where their bread is buttered. Have they so soon forgotten Huckabee’s phone call with God? He wanted W’s autograph (allegedly for Samson, yeah, right).
Maybe, just maybe, these "people of god" are realizing killing a million Iraqis, and ruining the lives of millions more, and denying health coverage to millions of Americans, isn't exactly what "god" had in mind, when he said "love thy brother".
FunMe @ 3:
It looks like they're especially fond of Barrack Obama, which I can't say I blame them for. He's not my first choice, but he's pretty strong overall compared to the Clinton candidacy we've been told is writ in stone.
And you're damn right about those jerks. Reid and Pelosi disappoint me the most though. I already knew the others weren't trustworthy; but I had high hopes for those two, they SEEMED to give a shit... seemed being the operative word.
*sigh*
Benjamin @ 29:
Ya know - I hope you are right.
I say that because I was raised in one of the 'nutjob' churches. I won't go into the long of it; but in the short of it - I was raised on the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell vision of America; and it made me very ill at ease.
So to hear something like this does make me pretty happy if its accurate;especially since I've come to a truer interpretation of my faith in the time since I left that church. Gives me a little hope.
http://theprogressivepost.blogspot.com/2007/12/hey-mitt-does-mormon-bibl...
On the matter of the presumption of conservatism among military personnel.
What people who are eager to paint the military as conservative ignore is this: military personnel tend to be HAWKISH. That does not make them Christian Fundamentalists. Indeed, anyone who has ever been in the military knows the attitude most men take toward vice in their spare time (when they aren't painting rocks white, mowing the general's lawn, or policing up filter tips). This does not fit with the current GOP base to which the majority of their candidates are pandering.
I am clergy. I am also a regular reader at C&L. That is difficult sometimes, because there can be so many angry, hateful expressions written about Christianity here. Actually, it does not surprise me at all that clergy give more to Democrats than Republicans. Most of my colleagues (mainline denominations) are left-leaning. We are often the targets of criticism from factions of our own laity, who claim we do not reflect their values. On a number of occasions I have pointed out to disgruntled parishioners that my preaching is rooted in the Gospel rather than my political views--that my political views are formed by the teachings of Jesus. I am sorry if that offends them, but I see no alternative.
The problem, I fear, is that the MSM (not particularly knowledgeable about the church) depends on verbose, aggressive, belligerent clergy types (such as Falwell, Robertson, and layman James Dobson) to define for us what Christians and the Christian viewpoint are. More moderate clergy do not provide the pithy sound bites that news networks love so much. We see issues as complex. MSM does not have the patience to consider complexities. An exception might be PBS, which is willing to take the time and the risk to look at issues in depth.
Bottom line is, folks, there are many Christians out here who are broken hearted over the war, the cruelties of our economic system, the corruptions of our governing bodies, the violations of our civil rights, the shortsightedness of our elected leaders and the cowardliness and ineptitude of our MSM. We preach grace, forgiveness and renewal. We are not in the business of judgment, condemnation and being moral police. We do not see our selves as "blame America first" types, but as loving God, first, last and always. All that we ask in return is that our critics (some who may have bothered to read this far) allow us the same considerations. We have so much more in common than you might think.
Blessings to you all in this season of peace.
The troops are conservative; they want to to conserve the Constitution, the middle class,and above all, their lives and honor.
Sparticus @ 36:
I agree that there can be a sickeningly amount of hateful things written about Christianity here.
"pithy sound bites" amazing I spoke about the sound bite spewing right wing ministers earlier in this thread.
"there are many Christians out here who are broken hearted over the war"
I suspected it but I wasn't sure till a woman at my Church asked for prayers for her son who's being sent to Iraq.
The Congregation is a fairly good cross section of people and we all made the same gasp/growl sound when we heard what Bush was doing to her son.
Sparticus @ 36:
As an agnostic type of person, I have to agree with Ghandi's quote:
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
miss_kitty @ 39:
It seems the Quakers (for the nost part) pull it off nicely.
But I can't remember the last time a Quaker as a represenative of his or her faith was interveiwed on TV.
CD @ 40:
Yeah, Dick "I am not a crook' Nixon was a Quaker.
But I am of the school of thought that you can claim to be anything you want to, in the end it's your actions that really describe you. So Quakers can't be slammed for Nixon, and real Christians can't be slammed for the activities of the many charlatans who have described themselves as such to gain power and money, at the expense of the philosophy itself.
miss_kitty @ 41:
Nixon is one of the top reasons I said "for the most part".
But thank you for understanding the difference between about those who talk about the path and those who walk the path.
Sparticus @ 36:
I have little doubt that most of the negative posts here at C&L about "religion" are targeted against the Robertson\Falwell\Dobson crowd. Certainly any that I have made are not intended to include the moderate and progressive Christians (including my lovely, Catholic, church-going wife), that tend toward following Jesus's teachings, rather than toward cult worship (of a televangelist). Indeed, my wife is disgusted with the "fundies", who seem to suspend any semblance of morality as they attempt to shove their nonsense down everyone's throats.
The MSM gives the the "religious right" extra attention not only because they are better at delivering soundbites, but because they have established unrepresentative levels of power via the Republican party.
It's encouraging to see you posting here, and we look forward to seeing more from you!
GoodGod @ 43:
Thank you. I have been hanging about for quite sometime, but I rarely comment. One rule of life I try to respect is "never give a microphone to a preacher unless you have lots of time!"
Thanks to all of you who have commented. It's good to know there are people out there who can swim at the deep end of the pool.
GoodGod @ 43:
While I would like to believe your statement that most of the negative posts here at C&L about "religion" are targeted against the Robertson\Falwell\Dobson crowd when people fail to make a distinction between those people and the rest of us they throw out the baby with the bath water so to speak and to make matters worse when those with faith object to such lumpings some openly state that there is no difference between men like Jimmy Carter and men like Pat Robertson.
CD @ 45:
Of course, there are those who claim all liberals hate America, all those who oppose the war hate the troops, all those who are African-American are criminals, all those who are Hispanic are illegal immigrants, all Muslins are terrorists, all...well, you get the point. Anyone inclined to lump a group of people into one category because of the bad actions of a few is by definition a bigot. It is a failure of intellect, a deficit of the soul. It serves no one if we lose patience with those who judge with impunity. As several of you have pointed out, we teach by example. We cannot fight bigotry with bigotry. Fight hatred with hatred and hatred always wins.
Please, someone take this microphone from me!
Time for me to lighten up. Let's celebrate. At least some Christians are voting Democratic.
Sparticus @ 47:
The religious left growing in size daily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_left
People like Francis Collins are comming out of the woodwork.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29
Those are reasons to celebrate.
As for those nay sayers who yip we glee that Church attendence is on the decline I say good.
The less fake Christians the better.
I always find it amusing to watch liberal and conservative Christians duke it out and proclaim they have the "true" religion - while at the same time, getting in their little slights against the "secularists."
There is no distinction between the religious "right" or "left." Both are fanatical when it comes to religion and politics.
Progressives/Liberals/Democrats or whatever they want to be called attacking Ron Paul Supporters, you got to be kidding me.
Let’s See!!
Who got it right, and who got it wrong?
October 11, 2002
H.J. Res 114
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
Senator Biden (D) - Yea
Senator Clinton (D) - Yea
Senator Dodd (D) - Yea
Senator Edwards (D) - Yea
Senator McCain (R) - Yea
Senator Thompson (R) - Yea
Representative Hunter (R) - Yea
Representative Tancredo (R) - Yea
Representative Kucinich (D) - Nay
Representative Paul (R) - Nay
Lets see, who are the only candidates to never vote for this war nor never vote to fund this war?
Who are the only candidates that have been right since the beginning?
Don’t get me wrong, the 8 candidates that got the most important vote of their career wrong are good people, but do they deserve to be President when they definitly made the wrong decision?
Go ask the more than 3,800 families if the 8 candidates that voted incorrectly back in October 2002 should be rewarded the Presidency of the United States.
Don’t give me that “Obama never voted for the war”…..If I’m against the Wal-Mart Corporation, should I be grocery shopping there? You say your against this war, and then vote to fund it!
It’s also tooooo easy to be a Democrat and say your against this war, but try being a Republican and voting against this war from the beginning.
Vote your conscience people!!!
did anyone ask the pope?
IraqWarVeteran @ 50:
you are correct!
Comments are closed on this entry