Democrats Have a Religion Problem

[zz912]

Some fascinating quotes in the link!

Emma Green: Many people have noted that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in this election. Why do you think that was?

Michael Wear: It shows not just ineptitude, but the ignorance of Democrats in not even pretending to give these voters a reason to vote for them. We also need to have a robust conversation about the support or allowance for racism, misogyny, and Islamophobia in the evangelical tradition.

Well Mr. Wear, if you want to give these voters a reason to vote for your party, I’d suggest your first move would be to stop calling them racists, misogynists and Islamaphobes…

There’s a lot of conversation in Christian circles about Jeremiah 29, which is Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles in Babylon. The message Jeremiah had, and that the Lord had, for the exiles is that they should seek the peace and prosperity of the city where they’ve been planted, and multiply—they should maintain their convictions for the flourishing of others. The concern I have, and that many others have, is that in this time of cultural transformation in America, you’re going to have many evangelicals who just become Babylonians.

It’s fascinating that he says this, and doesn’t realize he’s actually working for the Babylonians, trying to convince the exiles to support them.

There aren’t many people like Michael Wear in today’s Democratic Party. The former director of Barack Obama’s 2012 faith-outreach efforts is a theologically conservative evangelical Christian. He is opposed to both abortion and same-sex marriage, although he would argue that those are primarily theological positions, and other issues, including poverty and immigration, are also important to his faith.

No. No, he’s not. You don’t work for Obama and get to claim you oppose SS"M" and abortion.

Another reason why they haven’t reached out to evangelicals in 2016 is that, no matter Clinton’s slogan of “Stronger Together,” we have a politics right now that is based on making enemies, and making people afraid. I think we’re seeing this with the Betsy DeVos nomination: It’s much easier to make people scared of evangelicals, and to make evangelicals the enemy, than trying to make an appeal to them.

So he says the DNC is making evangelicals their enemies, but instead of giving an example of that, he points to something Trump did.

The Democratic Party used to welcome people who didn’t support abortion into the party. We are now so far from that, it’s insane. This debate, for both sides, is not just about the abortion rate; it’s not just about the legality of it. It’s a symbolic debate. It’s symbolic on the pro-choice side about the autonomy of women and their freedom to do what they want with their bodies. On the pro-life side, they care not just about the regulations around abortion, but whether there’s a cultural affirmation of life.

Even the symbolic olive branches have become less acceptable.

Some would say this is a good thing. That people now being honest about their true positions instead of lying and handing out fake olive branches. What we see now is the real face of the DNC.

Barack Obama was the perfect transitional president from the old party to the new. He could speak in religious terms in a way that most white, secular liberals were not willing to confront him on. He “got away with” religious language and outreach that would get other Democratic politicians more robust critiques from the left. He was able to paper over a lot of the religious tensions in the party that other, less skilled politicians will not be able to paper over.

Here he basically admits that Obama could make religious comments and the irreligious in the DNC were okay with it because they knew he was lying.

 

[dvdjs]

Invincible ignorance is ignorance that is not the person’s fault and which he has no way of overcoming, like a remote tribe on an island which has never been visited by anyone, certainly not someone with access to the internet!

Well I am note sure about that the internet helps the spread of information more than it hurts by spreading misinformation. But I use the II term more in the logical sense than the theological one.

Secondly, an eye for an eye in the OT was to *limit *“retribution,” or to keep it from becoming revenge. Maybe this is helpful to Trump

I hope that he considers what his favorite passage means, Better still, I hope that he comes to realize that Jesus has called us to something else.

 

[robertmidwest]

Another reason why they haven’t reached out to evangelicals in 2016 is that, no matter Clinton’s slogan of “Stronger Together,” we have a politics right now that is based on making enemies, and making people afraid. I think we’re seeing this with the Betsy DeVos nomination: It’s much easier to make people scared of evangelicals, and to make evangelicals the enemy, than trying to make an appeal to them.

So he says the DNC is making evangelicals their enemies, but instead of giving an example of that, he points to something Trump did.

DeVos is Trump’s nominee and a devout Christian. I think he is pointing out the dems demonizing her, ultimately just because of her faith.

Some of his statements are a little confusing. I am sure he is being careful how he phrases things because he want wants to work for another politician someday. If I a wrong please explain it to me, but it looks like a jab at his own party.

 

[lynnvinc]

Less concerned with illiteracy than invincible ignorance:

RE your quote –

"Unfortunately, an “eye for an eye” is one of the few Mosaic Law verses that Jesus singled out in the Sermon on the Mount as overcome, by the New Covenant that His death and resurrection would seal.

“You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other,” Jesus says in the famous sermon Matthew 5."

– Just from a practical standpoint I think the “eye for an eye” does not work, but just continues and escalate the hostility, revenge, and violence, whether on a small-scale interpersonal basis or on the world stage of nations.

The Jesus method, OTOH, tho counter-intuitive I believe actually works really well, along with – do good to those who do bad to you. From experience I can say the Trump method doesn’t work, but the Jesus method does. Not that anyone would know that unless they had tried both.

 

[starshiptrooper]

RE your quote –

"Unfortunately, an “eye for an eye” is one of the few Mosaic Law verses that Jesus singled out in the Sermon on the Mount as overcome, by the New Covenant that His death and resurrection would seal.

“You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other,” Jesus says in the famous sermon Matthew 5."

Jesus specifically mentions the right cheek. Now most people are righthanded and the Jews did not have much of a reputation for a boxing culture. Thus, the most practical way to strike someone facing you on his right cheek with your right hand is a backhanded slap, which is a gesture of disgust reserved for social inferiors. By presenting the left cheek, the aggressor had 2 options. He could either stop striking your face or hit you with a palm strike or a fist, both of which acknowledged that you were a social equal with the right to defend yourself. This was a canny piece of advice for an oppressed people, not an injunction to be a doormat.

As the Psalms remind us, God smites the foes of His people on the cheek, and He breaks the teeth of the wicked.

 

[Ridgerunner]

RE your quote –

"Unfortunately, an “eye for an eye” is one of the few Mosaic Law verses that Jesus singled out in the Sermon on the Mount as overcome, by the New Covenant that His death and resurrection would seal.

“You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other,” Jesus says in the famous sermon Matthew 5."

– Just from a practical standpoint I think the “eye for an eye” does not work, but just continues and escalate the hostility, revenge, and violence, whether on a small-scale interpersonal basis or on the world stage of nations.

The Jesus method, OTOH, tho counter-intuitive I believe actually works really well, along with – do good to those who do bad to you. From experience I can say the Trump method doesn’t work, but the Jesus method does. Not that anyone would know that unless they had tried both.

I’m no biblical scholar by any stretch, but my understanding of “an eye for an eye” in Mosaic law or usage was actually a societal injunction to proportionality. In the ancient Middle East (as now) it would be a “head for an eye” and and “both arms for a tooth”. But again, that’s for the punitive laws of a society.

Jesus was saying, I believe, that while the state may exact proportionate punishment, and only proportionate punishment, it’s not for individuals to do it.

 

[Inisfallen]

Jesus specifically mentions the right cheek. Now most people are righthanded and the Jews did not have much of a reputation for a boxing culture. Thus, the most practical way to strike someone facing you on his right cheek with your right hand is a backhanded slap, which is a gesture of disgust reserved for social inferiors. By presenting the left cheek, the aggressor had 2 options. He could either stop striking your face or hit you with a palm strike or a fist, both of which acknowledged that you were a social equal with the right to defend yourself. This was a canny piece of advice for an oppressed people, not an injunction to be a doormat.

As the Psalms remind us, God smites the foes of His people on the cheek, and He breaks the teeth of the wicked.

That is (at least to me) a novel interpretation of Jesus’s words. Can’t say I’m convinced.

 

[TCEL]

That is (at least to me) a novel interpretation of Jesus’s words. Can’t say I’m convinced.

It isn’t novel, though I hadn’t heard it put quite that way. Bishop (Archbishop?) Baron makes a point that turning the other cheek isn’t a gesture of pacifism, per se. It’s a challenge to the interlocutor. I’ve heard it elsewhere too. Frankly, it makes much more sense than the doormat explanation.

 

[lynnvinc]

It isn’t novel, though I hadn’t heard it put quite that way. Bishop (Archbishop?) Baron makes a point that turning the other cheek isn’t a gesture of pacifism, per se. It’s a challenge to the interlocutor. I’ve heard it elsewhere too. Frankly, it makes much more sense than the doormat explanation.

I saw that program - it was excellent. I think he used Mother Teresa & Gandhi as examples. They stood up for the poor & against oppression, but in a pacifist, Jesus-like way.

I also remember a West Wing episode in which they were talking about how much money they are spending & more they needed to spend on the military against N. Korea, and one of the staffers mused that since the N. Korean people are starving, maybe we could just spend that money on sending food to them…

 

[TCEL]

I saw that program - it was excellent. I think he used Mother Teresa & Gandhi as examples. They stood up for the poor & against oppression, but in a pacifist, Jesus-like way.

I also remember a West Wing episode in which they were talking about how much money they are spending & more they needed to spend on the military against N. Korea, and one of the staffers mused that since the N. Korean people are starving, maybe we could just spend that money on sending food to them…

Sometimes, standing up for the weak does demand force. I’ve never gotten the vibe that Jesus would expect a parent to stand idly by while a daughter is being raped. So, I’m not meaning to nitpick, just further clarify the whole “doormat” thing.

 

[zz912]

I saw that program - it was excellent. I think he used Mother Teresa & Gandhi as examples. They stood up for the poor & against oppression, but in a pacifist, Jesus-like way.

Jesus wasn’t a pacifist. He physically whipped people who were profaning the Temple.

I also remember a West Wing episode in which they were talking about how much money they are spending & more they needed to spend on the military against N. Korea, and one of the staffers mused that since the N. Korean people are starving, maybe we could just spend that money on sending food to them…

Then that staffer was a dim bulb, because the food wouldn’t get to the starving people. It would be confiscated by the military and the socialist leaders would keep it for themselves.

Sometimes, standing up for the weak does demand force. I’ve never gotten the vibe that Jesus would expect a parent to stand idly by while a daughter is being raped. So, I’m not meaning to nitpick, just further clarify the whole “doormat” thing.

Bingo.