| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- GideonHart - 2 Apr 2008 | | | In recent elections Evangelical Christians have voted in large numbers for Republican candidates whose records are very conservative. It is undoubted that Evangelical voters propelled Bush into office in 2000 and 2004. Bush, and many of his advisors, are among the most explicitly Christian politicians in American history. Bush has very closely aligned himself with the Christian right, and like many Republican politicians, is dependent on its support. | |
<
< | The lack of concern for the plight of the poor and the desire to solidify the hold of large companies and elites on America among the Republican Party is hard to square with the statements of Jesus in the Gospels. The policies advocated by Bush and the Republican party have largely been politically conservative. Bush's tax cut plan primarily benefits the wealthy (by 2010 fully 53% of the Bush tax cuts will have benefited only the top 1% of the population, while the lowest 20% will have only received 1.2% of the cuts). Further, under Bush's guidance the number of Americans without health insurance has steadily climbed. Bush has also advocated the slashing of Medicare and educational programs aimed at disadvantaged students. Although projected as a Christian administration, Bush's presidency has been marked by a shocking and callous disregard for the needs of America's disadvantaged. | >
> | The Republican Party's lack of concern for the plight of the poor and their desire to solidify the hold of large companies and elites on America is hard to square with the statements of Jesus in the Gospels. The policies advocated by Bush and the Republican party have largely been politically conservative. Bush's tax cut plan primarily benefits the wealthy (by 2010 fully 53% of the Bush tax cuts will have benefited only the top 1% of the population, while the lowest 20% will have only received 1.2% of the cuts). Further, under Bush's guidance the number of Americans without health insurance has steadily climbed. Bush has also advocated the slashing of Medicare and educational programs aimed at disadvantaged students. Although projected as a Christian administration, Bush's presidency has been marked by a shocking and callous disregard for the needs of America's disadvantaged. | | | | |
<
< |
- I don't understand the first sentance of this paragraph. -- AdamCarlis 4 April 2008
| | | This raises a question: how are many Republican politicians persuading Evangelicals that they consider the teachings of Jesus in their policy decisions, even though they often support positions that seem directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus? | | | Republicans have succeeded in capturing the Evangelical vote by placing several morally conservative positions at the center of their platform. This strategy deflects attention away from their disregard for other, arguably more important, Christian positions. The Republican Party's outspoken and vehement opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia have turned those issues into effective rallying points for the Evangelical vote. Without delving into a theological analysis (dozens of which can be found easily), it will be granted that it is not a stretch of Christian rules to oppose abortion and euthanasia, and possibly gay marriage, on biblical grounds. This is especially true for Evangelical Christians who tend to interpret the Bible literally. Although these positions may arguably be correct in terms of Christian theology, the Republican Party's advocacy for them seems to be little more than Christian adornment in light of their other policies favoring war, torture, the death penalty, and abandonment of the poor. By fervently and very publicly supporting Evangelical/morally conservative positions, Republicans have succeeded in giving many Christians the impression that the Republican Party is a Christian party, and that a handful of highly publicized moral positions should trump all others at the polls. The support of the Christian Coalition and other prominent ministers has lent this position even more credibility in the eyes of Evangelicals. The Evangelical support for these morally conservative positions has been so strong that they have been willing to ignore the other, often extremely un-Christian, policies advocated by many of the Republicans they vote into office. | |
<
< |
- I am worried at this point in the paper that you are portraying Christian conservatives as ignorant to the facts you are presenting. I think that they likely would say something like "Yes, it is true Bush could do a better job helping the poor (not that Clinton did a whole heck of a lot, mind you), but the fact is on the real issues - the murder of millions of innocent children, the protection of marriang, the uniting of Church and State - he is the best president we have had in a while." Is it possible (is there biblical backing?) for this choice? Is it justified by other things Jesus said or did (I have no idea)? What about the fact that many poor Christians support Bush's anti-poor policies? Are they ignorant? Stupid? Making a discerning choice based on a cost benefit analysis? Doing what their minister says? -- AdamCarlis 3 April 2008
| | | The Future of the Religious Right
If the Evangelical Christian community is to truly vote in-line with the teachings of Jesus it must abandon its support for candidates that are supporting policies in conflict with the issues that were most important to Jesus - particularly those dealing with poverty. Evangelicals, justifiably, could continue to support morally conservative policies, and lend support to candidates advocating those positions. Evangelicals, must also however, consider the other policies advocated by those same candidates when voting. Recently some cracks have appeared, as some Evangelical ministers have spoken out against the Bush administration's fiscal and environmental policies, among others. This movement may possibly be the beginning of a decrease in the power of the religious right. These leaders are beginning to instruct Evangelical voters to support candidates that reflect the values of Jesus overall, rather than allow their voting to be swayed by a single issue. Although this trend may in the long-run damage the heavy political clout of the Evangelical movement, it will also allow it to more fully reflect the teachings of Jesus - a goal that seems as though it should be foremost for a religion. | |
<
< | * I am worried about the conclusion. You didn't spend time arguing that one's religious beliefs align to their politicsor that religions should come together around a particular ideology. Since youe essay speaks more to the inconsistencies, rather than the remedy, to end where you did leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I either need another 1000 words on why ideology and politics should align or a different conclusion more aligned to the thesis you started with. -- AdamCarlis 3 April 2008 (I hope these were helpful. I appreciate your comments on mine). | | |
Note: The choice of this topic, and the essay itself, is not in any way an espousal of or an attack on Christianity, conservatism, liberalism, or a claim to factual accuracy of any information in the Bible. However, it is undoubted that the teachings ascribed to Jesus and the rest of the Bible have greatly impacted American politics. Individuals who are Christian profess belief in the words and actions of Jesus, regardless of their factual accuracy. This is especially true among Evangelical Christians who tend to interpret the Bible literally. Accordingly, a study of how an Evangelical Christians should vote must accept as true the teachings of Jesus, because those voters regard the teachings to be true. This paper is an attempt to focus attention on the way that Christianity has been used recently to increase the power of the Republican Party, even though many of the initiatives advanced by that Party seem to conflict with the most basic teachings of Jesus. |
|