I imagine some dude with a goatee, thick plastic rimmed glasses, a buzzcut, wearing a red-tie with his blue pin-striped robe. Sort of like a cross between Barry Goldwater and "the Flintstones".
The Democratic Jesus would naturally be on the rotundish side sporting a glorious Kenny-doo.
Maybe Jesus would go with the Green party instead. Or most likely, start His own
Well I dont think that democrats have any doctrinal treatise about living immorally or the republicans about living morally...excepting some sort of skewed morality which punishes you for getting a BJ, but rewards you for killing 10,000...
That being said I doubt that a poor itinerant humble desert preacher who spoke of loving your neighbor-- would have much if anything to do with American politics and systems as it is set up now...Its all about Power and the acquisition of power and wealth, which seems at cross purposes with a lot of his message-- if he had to choose-- probably leaning more toward democratic with an eye to helping the poor and working toward a greater sense of social justice, but more likely I picture a political anarchist who wasnt fooled by either party and didnt take his cues or rules from the structures of this world...maybe Dan is right-the Greens ..or the Christ Party.
He would take an awful lot of heat from both parties for saying that "We should love our enemies".
Yea he'd have to make up his own party- its way way too far distant from any American party-maybe he could make it in Switzerland or in a tribal culture somewhere
One way I have heard it stated is that Republicans and conservatives tend to view individual choice, personal responsibility, and the actions of individuals as the key detriment to success, prosperity etc. “Any one can succeed if they try hard enough”- “The poor are poor because of the choices they have made” Thus they seem hard hearted and stern- there are no excuses. Republicans tend to focus on the individual.
On the other hand Democrats and liberals tend to see individual success as a function of family and society systems that either help or hinder the individual’s success. They think success is dependant upon advantages; failure is a result of obstacles or disadvantages. Thus they seek to give everyone a “level playing field” even if it means removing the advantages to some so all may face the same disadvantages. There are reasons for failure and poverty. Democrats tend to focus on groups.
As with most people and groups both democrats and republicans believe that theirs is the only true and correct set of beliefs, all others are wrong- and thus evil- those who hold wrong beliefs are worthy of only hate and fear.
Individual success is influenced by both. Individual choices affect society and society affects individual choices. Both are partly right, by ignoring the other groups core belief- because it is THEIRS not OURS both are wrong.
What used to happen in the earlier days of our nation was one person or school of thought would present an idea, then the other side would present an idea. These ideas were many times at alternate ends of the spectrum. With the help of the moderates among them and with the view toward actually getting things done, everyone would comprimise on something. This proccess brought about many of the foundational principles the good ol' USA is anchored to still today.
Fast forward to present day were the moderates are the minority. Parties fight to win, and if they don't get their way nothing happens.
I would say that today if someone has a good thing going they want the government to stay out of thier business. If they don't they want the government to help.
Since I have a college education, early in life I bought the Republican arguement that we are what we are because of choices. Yet after my daughter had leukimia, my view changed dramatically. Certainly choices bear a large portion of what we become, but bumps in the road can alter our plans. Naturally, this has made me more sympathetic towards the poor. Yet, as I study the poor, with many (but certainly not all), I see at times a pattern or lifestyle which is unwilling to act responsibly, making me not so sympathetic at all. True you can sympathize with a lifestyle (such as alcholism, crazy habitual spending or contant marital chaos), but for a lifetime? I think not.
lindy: The agenda shift in the last 30 years has been phenomenal. A liberal in the 1950's was someone who believed in rural electricity and interstate highways.
danny: agreed, I think there's a boat load of hypocrasy in both parties. Even more alarming is that if you vote for one candidate based on an issue, you feel you have been swindelled because they seem to only have that pos. to get your vote. ie(They do nothing about it)
mstar: Go Sox. I think its interesting, that our sense of moral values fits into our political view. This, however, was a arguement that our founding fathers wisely avoided. It's a good thing too, or the state church might have been "The Pilgrim state church" Worse yet, they might have forced us all to be yankee fans.
Recommended Posts
TheInvisibleDan
"In Search of the Republican Jesus..."
I imagine some dude with a goatee, thick plastic rimmed glasses, a buzzcut, wearing a red-tie with his blue pin-striped robe. Sort of like a cross between Barry Goldwater and "the Flintstones".
The Democratic Jesus would naturally be on the rotundish side sporting a glorious Kenny-doo.
Maybe Jesus would go with the Green party instead. Or most likely, start His own
"Christ Party".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Well I dont think that democrats have any doctrinal treatise about living immorally or the republicans about living morally...excepting some sort of skewed morality which punishes you for getting a BJ, but rewards you for killing 10,000...
That being said I doubt that a poor itinerant humble desert preacher who spoke of loving your neighbor-- would have much if anything to do with American politics and systems as it is set up now...Its all about Power and the acquisition of power and wealth, which seems at cross purposes with a lot of his message-- if he had to choose-- probably leaning more toward democratic with an eye to helping the poor and working toward a greater sense of social justice, but more likely I picture a political anarchist who wasnt fooled by either party and didnt take his cues or rules from the structures of this world...maybe Dan is right-the Greens ..or the Christ Party.
He would take an awful lot of heat from both parties for saying that "We should love our enemies".
Yea he'd have to make up his own party- its way way too far distant from any American party-maybe he could make it in Switzerland or in a tribal culture somewhere
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
One way I have heard it stated is that Republicans and conservatives tend to view individual choice, personal responsibility, and the actions of individuals as the key detriment to success, prosperity etc. “Any one can succeed if they try hard enough”- “The poor are poor because of the choices they have made” Thus they seem hard hearted and stern- there are no excuses. Republicans tend to focus on the individual.
On the other hand Democrats and liberals tend to see individual success as a function of family and society systems that either help or hinder the individual’s success. They think success is dependant upon advantages; failure is a result of obstacles or disadvantages. Thus they seek to give everyone a “level playing field” even if it means removing the advantages to some so all may face the same disadvantages. There are reasons for failure and poverty. Democrats tend to focus on groups.
As with most people and groups both democrats and republicans believe that theirs is the only true and correct set of beliefs, all others are wrong- and thus evil- those who hold wrong beliefs are worthy of only hate and fear.
Individual success is influenced by both. Individual choices affect society and society affects individual choices. Both are partly right, by ignoring the other groups core belief- because it is THEIRS not OURS both are wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
That's interesting.
What used to happen in the earlier days of our nation was one person or school of thought would present an idea, then the other side would present an idea. These ideas were many times at alternate ends of the spectrum. With the help of the moderates among them and with the view toward actually getting things done, everyone would comprimise on something. This proccess brought about many of the foundational principles the good ol' USA is anchored to still today.
Fast forward to present day were the moderates are the minority. Parties fight to win, and if they don't get their way nothing happens.
I would say that today if someone has a good thing going they want the government to stay out of thier business. If they don't they want the government to help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
ckeer:
Since I have a college education, early in life I bought the Republican arguement that we are what we are because of choices. Yet after my daughter had leukimia, my view changed dramatically. Certainly choices bear a large portion of what we become, but bumps in the road can alter our plans. Naturally, this has made me more sympathetic towards the poor. Yet, as I study the poor, with many (but certainly not all), I see at times a pattern or lifestyle which is unwilling to act responsibly, making me not so sympathetic at all. True you can sympathize with a lifestyle (such as alcholism, crazy habitual spending or contant marital chaos), but for a lifetime? I think not.
lindy: The agenda shift in the last 30 years has been phenomenal. A liberal in the 1950's was someone who believed in rural electricity and interstate highways.
danny: agreed, I think there's a boat load of hypocrasy in both parties. Even more alarming is that if you vote for one candidate based on an issue, you feel you have been swindelled because they seem to only have that pos. to get your vote. ie(They do nothing about it)
mstar: Go Sox. I think its interesting, that our sense of moral values fits into our political view. This, however, was a arguement that our founding fathers wisely avoided. It's a good thing too, or the state church might have been "The Pilgrim state church" Worse yet, they might have forced us all to be yankee fans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.