October 3, 2007
by Robert Fantina

Every election campaign, including the tediously endless presidential one now in progress, includes commentary on the impact of the so-called 'religious right' or 'Christian right' on it.  Candidates who usually disdain some of the tactics and beliefs of the leaders of these groups actively court their support when a ballot box is being dusted off for imminent use.

Sen. John McCain, for example, who in 2000 called the Rev. Jerry Falwell an 'agent of intolerance,' worked hard to make nice with him prior to Mr. Falwell's death, despite the absence of any significant shift in that gentleman's extreme views.  It must be remembered that Mr. Falwell pointed his righteous finger of blame at 'pagans,' 'feminists,' 'abortionists' and 'homosexuals' as responsible in some way for the disasters of September 11, 2001.  He has suggested members of labor unions read the Bible to become better workers, expressed his hope that all U.S. schools will eventually be run by Christians and, perhaps most perplexing, suggested that a Teletubbies cartoon character, 'Tinky Winky,' was somehow suggestive of a homosexual agenda.

Shortly after President Bush was elected to a second term in 2004, Bob Jones of Bob Jones University wrote to him, congratulating him on his 'mandate' and telling him "you owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ."

That the conservative wing of the Republican Party has successfully co-opted its version of Christianity for its own purposes is no secret. That the Democratic Party has allowed it to do so is inexcusable.

The website of the Christian Coalition keeps the 'faithful' posted with 'Action Alerts,' listing suggestions on how its members can and should act in order to further the organization's goals. Among the action alerts issued in the last year or so is one encouraging members to lobby Congress to support a bill funding the war. In their 'Issues' section, they discuss efforts to make permanent President Bush's tax cuts, and the organization's efforts in support of legislation to 'protect marriage.'

The very term Christianity denotes following the teachings of Jesus Christ, seen by some as a master teacher, by others as the Savior, and by some as both. For the Christian world, the foundation of his teachings is found in the Bible, specifically in the New Testament. Among those teachings are patience (Matthew 18, 21-22), tolerance (Matthew 9: 10-12), compassion for the poor (Luke 18: 18-23) and the need to work for peace (Matthew 5: 9). These appear to be far more in keeping with Democratic Party principles than those of the GOP.

Looking at just a few of the basic teachings of Christianity as found in the King James Version of the Bible seems to put them at odds with much of the so-called Christian right.

That the Christian Coalition would support making permanent Mr. Bush's disastrous tax cuts is extremely puzzling. The Citizens for Tax Justice reports that if the tax cuts are fully implemented, by 2010, 52% of the benefit will accrue to the richest 1% of Americans.  Fully 80% of Americans would receive no additional benefit beyond that earned when the tax cuts first passed, a total of about $350.00 a year.

In Luke, Chapter 18, verses 18 - 23 one reads about a wealthy ruler who asked Jesus Christ what he should do to inherit eternal life. After Jesus Christ lists several of the commandments, he tells the ruler that he lacks one thing: ".sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (verse 22). It does not seem that Jesus Christ placed a lot of emphasis on worldly wealth.

It seems completely at odds with the Gospel of Jesus Christ to promote war. In John, chapter 13, verse 34 is a line of scripture among the most well-known throughout all Christendom: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Jesus Christ did not qualify this statement in any way. He gave it as a commandment to those who profess to follow him.

(Article Continues Below)

But what, one might ask, about those who are the 'enemies' of the United States? This includes, apparently, anyone remotely associated with anyone vaguely connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001 and, in the case of Iraq, those completely unconnected to the tragic events of that day.

Jesus Christ spoke further: "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"   (Matthew 5, verse 44). It seems an odd interpretation to understand this as 'bomb Iraq.'

If the Christian Right chooses, in apparent violation of Christian principles, to judge the actions of those who disagree with them ("Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7, verse 1), at least some compassion could be directed towards those they consider unworthy. In Mark 2 we read about the scribes and Pharisees seeing Jesus Christ dining with publicans and known 'sinners;' they questioned his disciples about it. Jesus Christ either heard their questions or was asked about it by the disciples; his response is in verse 17: "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." As the Democratic Party somewhat ineffectually embraces those condemned by the Republicans and strives for inclusiveness, it appears that their efforts are far more in keeping with the Gospel of Jesus Christ than those of groups that would ostracize people who are somehow 'different' from them.

Most importantly, it appears that people who believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world can most benefit from his teachings and the example of his life, by taking those principles into their own lives, rather than trying to force others to follow them. Since many passages can be understood in different ways, it is presumptuous for one person or group to attempt to mandate their individual beliefs into laws that all must abide by; they may have deeply held beliefs, but Gospel principles call for tolerance and understanding.

Religious discourse can be very positive if done without rancor and in a manner that Jesus Christ would have practiced. It must be remembered that the only times the scriptures document an angry response by Jesus Christ concerned desecration of the temple. As he taught those who opposed and eventually killed him - the learned scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees - he referred to the scriptures, pointed out comparisons and allowed his listeners to draw their own conclusions. That he spoke forcefully at times is unquestioned; but he never turned away from those who did not live up to his standards.

The Democratic Party can learn much from the successes of the Christian right (which, as the popular bumper sticker says, is neither).  There is a voting block of Christians who can easily be co-opted by catchy slogans and patriotic-sounding phrases. The Democrats can offer them something real, something far beyond the pabulum they are spoon-fed by the Republican Party. By offering that reality, the Democrats could draw more Christians into the Party fold.

It appears now that several Democratic candidates are starting to mention religion; it seems awkward and unnatural for many of them, but one must suppose that at least it is a start. There is, however, no need for apology: if a candidate genuinely believes in the teachings and doctrines of Jesus Christ, or anyone else considered a great religious leader for that matter, and those doctrines impact that candidate's opinion in some way, he/she should not hesitate to verbalize that fact. For many people, religious beliefs are deeply held and would, as a matter of course, impact their opinions on a variety of matters. Tiptoeing around the issue does not help.

Eventually the lists of Democrats and Republicans who see themselves as America's savior will be winnowed down to a manageable two. Then the scrambling for the support of this and that special interest group will begin in earnest, as each candidate slobbers all over representatives of such groups while proclaiming that he or she is not beholden to any organization. The so-called 'Christian' vote will be much sought after. The Democrats need not concede that vote to the Republican Party; rather, by sincerely stating that they have Christian religious beliefs (if they do), they can do much to neutralize the cacophony that generally, and embarrassingly to many Christians, emanates from what is generally referred to as the Christian Right. By doing anything less they do a great disservice to themselves, their party, the United States and ultimately, the world.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider the following:

1. Make a donation of $1 or more to help keep this website active.

2. Click Here to Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter

Robert Fantina [send him email] is a long-time activist for peace and social justice. He has worked with the Coalition for Peace Action in New Jersey. Following the 2004 presidential election, he moved to Canada, where he now resides. Robert is the author of Desertion and the American Solder: 1776-2006.