Democrats and Religion

[Mendalla]

We often hear about the role Christian faith plays in Republican politics, but less about the Dems. However, faith is playing a big role in at least one Democratic Senate campaign and they have been more open "playing the faith card" this year overall, including the Biden-Harris ticket. What do you think? Too much religion in politics or a necessary move to counter the GOP's claims to be the party of faith?

Opinion: Why the GOP is so rattled by Rev. Warnock's faith-based Georgia Senate campaign

Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons writes that Rev. Raphael Warnock's use of faith in his campaign for one of Georgia's US Senate seats is evidence that Democrats have a claim to religious and moral arguments, and they shouldn't be afraid to use them.

amp.cnn.com

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Hard to say. If their faith is inclusive of other faiths, sincere, and not a veiled agenda, if it advocates for good stewardship of the earth, and being compassionate and generous and working together for the good of all people on earth - maybe. But beware anyway.

 

[Luce NDs]

Does institutional faith introduce a hard line into a condition where something has to change?

Change???? Could we have and deal with such weird conceptions ...

 

[GeoFee]

Sad to see religion and politics in bed together. This has produced and will produce profound negative outcomes.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

They're people too. So it would be impossible to keep the faith they have completely seperate from their daily lifes, whatever they're doing. How their faith - which their religion is an expression of - informs their politics, depends on their conscience.

 

[BetteTheRed]

But that's the foundation of Christianity. Without its adoption as the state religion of Rome in the 4th Century, Christianity's trajectory might have been very different.

 

[BetteTheRed]

But that's the foundation of Christianity. Without its adoption as the state religion of Rome in the 4th Century, Christianity's trajectory might have been very different.

That was in response to Geofee's

Sad to see religion and politics in bed together. This has produced and will produce profound negative outcomes.

 

[Mendalla]

Let's face it, people who base their consciences on their faith and who vote their conscience are going to be voting based on faith. In that respect, you can never totally separate church and state. Similarly, those who are elected may also be guided, both consciously and unconsciously, by their faith. Unless you plan to elect only agnostics, faith is going to play a role in public decision making. The trick is to keep it at the individual level and not allow organized faith groups to dominate the process or to create a "state church". A Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or secular humanist should be just as free to follow their faith-informed conscience as a Christian. If there is a problem in the US, it is not that faith plays a role in politics, but that one faith attempts to dominate those politics. We seem to be doing a bit better here, with, for instance, at least two Sikhs holding key roles in the House (Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh).

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

But that's the foundation of Christianity. Without its adoption as the state religion of Rome in the 4th Century, Christianity's trajectory might have been very different.

I don't think there needs to be a "state religion". I think people's faith almost always informs their politics, but the state has to be inclusive. I think that Christianity (the type I value and have faith in) calls us to be so inclusive that we blur the lines between religions, and are just fellow humans, and come together in the golden rule - and when I see that happening, that's my faith in action. If the people who form the state are that inclusive, I'm supportive of that.

There are some kinks to be worked out along the way but I think that's the right direction to be aiming in.

 

[GeoFee]

But that's the foundation of Christianity. Without its adoption as the state religion of Rome in the 4th Century, Christianity's trajectory might have been very different.

Indeed. We veered off course. All along the way some have turned back to the “straight” and “ narrow” way. This being a life lived in harmony with creation.

 

[GeoFee]

And with our fellow human beings.

 

[Luce NDs]

Sad to see religion and politics in bed together. This has produced and will produce profound negative outcomes.

Polity is said in some definitions to mean extrem of far out ... covering that distance between the extremes and the medium as means of supporting balance ... a rare thing in a soulfully distraught domain ... winners need some alternate means ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Let's face it, people who base their consciences on their faith and who vote their conscience are going to be voting based on faith. In that respect, you can never totally separate church and state. Similarly, those who are elected may also be guided, both consciously and unconsciously, by their faith. Unless you plan to elect only agnostics, faith is going to play a role in public decision making. The trick is to keep it at the individual level and not allow organized faith groups to dominate the process or to create a "state church". A Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or secular humanist should be just as free to follow their faith-informed conscience as a Christian. If there is a problem in the US, it is not that faith plays a role in politics, but that one faith attempts to dominate those politics. We seem to be doing a bit better here, with, for instance, at least two Sikhs holding key roles in the House (Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh).

Without question????

Now what did he mean by that expression? It was potentially misunderstood ... being the fear of knowledge and understanding of stuff out-there!

 

[Luce NDs]

Could there be a high state faith and a lo' state enlightening ... whereas the deprived see gross profits as not for the greater good?

It is part of the divine humus as the chit is separated from the great gobblin ... that bad taste may make one think ... like my grandfather told the story about eating rabbit droppings would smarten one up ...

May be something to digest ... Vets say rabbits need it for digestion ... metaphor in action?

 

[revjohn]

We often hear about the role Christian faith plays in Republican politics, but less about the Dems.

"Christian faith" get used a lot. I wonder if "Christendom faith" would be more accurate?

Particularly where it becomes quite openly more about power over others than service to others.

What do you think? Too much religion in politics or a necessary move to counter the GOP's claims to be the party of faith?

Hard to say.

Certainly a "Christian" perspective that limits Christian morality to stance on abortion and ignores public displays of false witness and adultery misses much of the point.

From a Christendom perspective, that disconnect works. Because one doesn't need consistency just the power to force others to conform.

And lest it go without being said the object that Christendom seeks all others to conform to is white maleness. If both cannot be had whiteness will be abandoned before maleness.

If Christianity was truly important political opponents would be attempting to outdo one another with good works.

Because Christendom comes with nostalgia and power opponents are tougher on crime and want to repeal legislation that corrects the errors of the good ole days.

Christianity is inherently political. You cannot preach good news about the "Kingdom of God" without threatening all other kingdoms or empires.

Unless you make the mistake of presuming an earthly nation is the embodiment of the Kingdom of Heaven which is the foundational move in establishing christendom.