I'm a Democrat and an Evangelical Christian. Am I a freak of nature?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

Poll question: I'm a Democrat and an Evangelical Christian. Am I a freak of nature?

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Not a freak of nature, but a rare phenomenon.

[St. Jarvitude]

2. As long as you're not an asshole about it, no (nt)

[strategery blunder]

3. Hey, that makes two of us

:hi:

*braces for uberwave of OMG c0pyc3t thre3ds*

[DeepGreen]

4. You know, I believe Christ was a liberal !

:)

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. So was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King

And those two are pretty damn good company in my opinion.

Not sure how "evangelical" I am these days. I've probably converted more people to Howard Dean than to Jesus Christ in recent times, but in spite of all the fucked up things taking place in this world right now, I still believe.

Though I'm completely sympathetic to the bumper-stickers that say "Jesus save me from Your followers". Those who truly live by His teachings are not the ones it's directed at. Though the Lord warned us that such hypocrites would be everywhere, especially in the years before His return. (Matthew 25)

[DeepGreen]

17. !!!!!

:toast:

[thecai]

82. False Christs, False Prophets

To deceive the very elect, if possible.

I'm right behind you, AntiCoup...

[HereSince1628]

39. But christian churches tend to be authoritarian...

notwithstanding various reformation attempts to eliminate clerical middlemen (as typified by the Society of Friends.)

I see all the following as evidence of institutionalized conservative solutions to life...
most christian churches' appeal to authority and have a formal vertical governance structure;

focus on solutions for both fear of death and comfort of fears of or actual loss;

reliance on ordained moral/belief codes to clear up ambiguities associated with freedom of choices presented in daily life;

and reliance on belief systems and ritual practices to identify adherents as especially priviledged compared to nonadherents...which not only gives one a sense of belonging but also creates an environment that simultaneously identifies non nonbelievers/infidels who need "salvation" or whose individual or collective way of life needs modification if not destruction.

[leanin_green]

5. No, just not someone who is easily led.

[Divine Discontent]

6. of course not.

true compassion in Christ's teachings prohibits the mannerisms that are typical with a good amount of our Christian brethren, you know, being hateful and intolerant of others, that kind of stuff. As long as you are good with Jesus Christ, and in touch with Him in prayer & walk, what else could you be but a DEMOCRAT!

They are the party of the people, the worker, the poor, the 'different', the man of any color, the woman, the confused & hurt, and the ignored.

[drumwolf]

7. I'm not religious, but I believe one could make the case

that people who truly follow what Jesus preached (as opposed to people who use Jesus's name to justify their own agenda) would be perfectly fine Democrats, liberals and progressives.

EDITED TO ADD: What's more, the people who are known as the "Christian Right" are today's equivalent of the Pharisees.

[lady lib]

13. Yes drumwolf, that's exactly what I think, too.

n/t

[Bok_Tukalo]

8. My sister is Evangelical and very Democratic

But I tend to think her more of a Christian than Paulian.

[Sgent]

9. The difference of course

Is whether you follow the OT, as interpreted by Jesus, or whether you follow Paul.

Jews are one of the more liberal religions, most U.S. Jews support gay marrige, adoption, separation of churh and state, social programs, agree with evolution, etc.

Its not christianity (esp as espoused by Christ), but rather the fundy's interpretation of the same.

[Not_Giving_Up]

10. No, I wouldn't say so

My parents are Democrats and Fundies at the same time. Strange yes, but not a freak of nature. They call themselves conservative dems.

[Taverner]

11. My brother is an Evangelical Reverend and a Democrat

He is pro-life down the board: Anti-abortion, Anti-war and Anti-death penalty.

IN many ways hes more liberal than I...

[madison2000]

14. I love consistency and its so hard to find

I think true pacifism is very much the way of the gospels but its a hard way. I respect those Christian traditions that are truly pro-life across the board, and not just regarding the unborn.

[arwalden]

15. Why Do Evangelical Dems Often Have Difficulty Reconciling Homosexuality...

with their Christian beliefs?

[Coastie for Truth]

19. My Grand dad was an Orthodox Rabbi - and an Ultra Liberal Dem

and maintained that a rich man could never get into Heaven (I was 3 when FDR died - but we "covered the mirrors" and "sat shiva" - Jewish wake - for FDR).

One of his nephews and one of his sons were (closet) gays -- and he never cut them off. (The gay nephew was his favorite nephew - they used to sit and talk politics and literature at least once a week)

I really thought Solidarity Forever was the Second Verse of the National Anthem.

Seriously - I even lived in a Chabad Lubavitch Commune for a while -- and still did all of the Leftie things (Freedom Ride + night in a Louisiana Jail; tutored in a minority high school, etc.)

And, Maimonides' writings approve of Stem Cell Research -- and therapeutic abortions

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

22. For me, my views on homosexuality don't affect public policy

in the way that it does for social conservatives. Simply put, regardless of my views on homosexuality, I still walk in love, and I don't believe the government should legislate in a way that ends up becoming state-sanctioned discrimination. I think most mainstream Christians see it this way too.

[arwalden]

29. Wow. I'm Impressed!

I can't recall the last time I read such a carefully worded and cleverly constructed sentence that skillfully, but politely, tip-toed around and avoided providing a direct answer to a direct question.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

37. What more do you want? I'm just calling it as I see it.

[Wat_Tyler]

38. Good. So I'll ask a straight question.

What are your views on homosexuality?

[arwalden]

40. Although I Can't Speak For Lone_Wolf_Moderate... I *Can* State

with a great degree of confidence that when someone who is "evangelical" and identifies themselves as "moderate" and a Democrat... AND when they dance around trying to avoid answering a very simple and direct question, their ACTUAL feelings can usually be summed up like this:

"I hate fags, but marvel, filthy sodomites, at my magnanimity in not advocating for your execution. I am Christlike."

And you know... I suspect that it's these very people who are the reason that the vote-count IN FAVOR of anti-gay initiatives was GREATER than the actual number of people who identify themselves as being "conservative-Christians".

Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem that there's just enough cross-over hatred, bigotry, and silence within our OWN party that enables such faith-based bigotry to become law.

-- Allen

[LoZoccolo]

51. I can state with a great degree of confidence...

...that the Republicans would like a contingent of us to chase part of the 1/3rd of evangelical Christians that voted for John Kerry this election into the Republican column. And I know this because of the in-your-face treatment we got about the 22% segment of the voting public that voted on "moral values" despite the fact that it was the lowest number in three years, and when you combined two of the categories into a "national security" category you'd find that was the biggest - I'm almost sure it was waved around to cause a backlash and subsequent chasing out of one of our contingents.

[arwalden]

52. Hmmm. -- ???

I can state with a great degree of confidence...that the Republicans would like a contingent of us to chase part of the 1/3rd of evangelical Christians that voted for John Kerry this election into the Republican column.

Okay. I have no way of telling if your numbers are correct, but the rest of that statement sounds logical.

And I know this because of the in-your-face treatment we got about the 22% segment of the voting public that voted on "moral values" despite the fact that it was the lowest number in three years, and when you combined two of the categories into a "national security" category you'd find that was the biggest - I'm almost sure it was waved around to cause a backlash and subsequent chasing out of one of our contingents.

I'm not at all sure what that's about. What are you getting at? What "in-your-face" treatment are you referring to?

Does it have anything to do with why *more* people voted FOR anti-gay initiatives than there are registered Republicans and "conservative" Christians?

Are you suggesting that we should embrace bigots for the sake of "unity" and numbers?

-- Allen

[LoZoccolo]

53. Hmmmm.

I'm not at all sure what that's about. What are you getting at? What "in-your-face" treatment are you referring to?

For days after the election, the media emphasized that the "moral values" category was the biggest, and right-wing commentators boasted on this.

Are you suggesting that we should embrace bigots for the sake of "unity" and numbers?

Depends on what you think of as "embracing bigots" - I imagine your definition would be broader than most. Howard Dean was one person accused of embracing bigots, though what that meant became a function of who you were asking.

One thing we'd agree on: we should not allow people to fight a culture war on political turf.

On the other hand, we should not allow people to fight a culture war on political turf.

[arwalden]

57. Well...

Depends on what you think of as "embracing bigots" - I imagine your definition would be broader than most.
You mean it's not clear? Are you serious? By "embracing bigots" I'm talking about all of the talk from certain aspects in our party that suggested the queers should just sit down and shut up so as not to offend the "fundamentalist Democrats". You know... the ones who think it's okay to NOT to fight an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution as long as it gets more votes and we appear "unified".

And then there are the folks who claim not to be against homosexuals, just homosexUALITY. You know... the same old same old "love the sinner" horseshit.

When confronted, they'll *say* they have nothing against homos... but in the privacy of the voting booth, they'll vote FOR the anti-gay measures. These are also the ones that remain SILENT (and therefore give their consent) when the conservative Christians attack gay and lesbian Americans.

One thing we'd agree on: we should not allow people to fight a culture war on political turf.

On the other hand, we should not allow people to fight a culture war on political turf.

Uh... hellooo? It's already there. Shall we just back off and not fight? Do we concede for the sake of being able to say "we don't believe in fighting a culture war on political turf"?

Besides, I'm not certain that I agree with that statement in the first place. Although I understand the sentiment, it doesn't seem to be too sensible to NOT fight Christian bigotry and faith-based hatred in the political arena. These folks certainly aren't going to do the right thing WILLINGLY because it's FAIR and EQUITABLE. Some things MUST be handled politically.

Howard Dean was one person accused of embracing bigots, though what that meant became a function of who you were asking.

I'm sure there must be a story in there somewhere. I'm not a big Howard Dean fan myself.

[LoZoccolo]

61. On the culture war, etc...

Uh... hellooo? It's already there. Shall we just back off and not fight? Do we concede for the sake of being able to say "we don't believe in fighting a culture war on political turf"?

Who picked it?

Who saw it as a winning strategy for them and declared it?

You seem to be saying that your political affiliation should be tied to your religious beliefs. The Republicans strategists like to spread the notion that your political affiliation should be tied to your religious beliefs. And it's a winning strategy for them that they chose.

If we pursue your strategy of cornering people on our side politically and throwing a fit at them (has it ever done anything besides make you feel better?), we might find them with a 55-56% mandate in the Presidential elections and over 65% of the legislature.

[arwalden]

67. Is It Me? I Don't Understand They Way You Say Things.

Who picked it?
Who saw it as a winning strategy for them and declared it?

That didn't really answer the question of why we should retreat and not fight.

You seem to be saying that your political affiliation should be tied to your religious beliefs.

I do? Really? What gives you that idea?

The Republicans strategists like to spread the notion that your political affiliation should be tied to your religious beliefs. And it's a winning strategy for them that they chose.

Okay.

If we pursue your strategy of cornering people on our side politically and throwing a fit at them (has it ever done anything besides make you feel better?),

Why would you consider it to be "throwing a fit" whenever someone dares to point out hypocrisy and bigotry and hate-mongering? Does bigotry get a free-pass when the bigot is a Democrat?

I don't think this is "about me feeling better"... why do you think that? It's not about me.

we might find them with a 55-56% mandate in the Presidential elections and over 65% of the legislature.

Ah yes... your message is clear indeed. We should tolerate, respect, embrace and encourage BIGOTRY for the sake of numbers, eh?

Wow.

[LoZoccolo]

71. ...

That didn't really answer the question of why we should retreat and not fight.

As a political party, we should not allow the Republicans to fight using a strategy that they determined to be the most effective way for them to win out of all possible strategies. Their plan is to establish themselves as the party that evangelical Christians must vote for because they're not welcome in the Democratic Party despite their personal views about the separation of church and state. In short, you will not get what you want politically by letting your political enemies win. I could make the argument that knowingly pursuing a strategy that most likely will get you less of what you want is not even fighting.

I do? Really? What gives you that idea?

The way you went after a political ally (even on issues of gay rights) on a political message board, seeing fit to determine what thoughts are in his head.

Does bigotry get a free-pass when the bigot is a Democrat?

Depends. I would submit that you cooperate with people all day who disagree with you, or even flat out don't like you. It's part of getting what you want on certain fronts. Do you interrogate the cashiers about their feelings on gay rights before you let them ring up your groceries? Your co-workers before you get work done together? You practice this kind of tolerance all day, and so do I. In Chicago, there's still some racial tensions between groups of working and lower middle class white people: Sicilian (of which I am one, and to some people we were once considered one of the lowest races of people on the face of the earth), Polish, German, Irish, etcetera. But I'm glad they mostly vote Democratic, and that we sent a new liberal Senator to the legislature this year, and none of whatever bigotry they might hold translated into public policy.

I don't think this is "about me feeling better"... why do you think that? It's not about me.

Because I don't think you're being politically practical.

[arwalden]

72. I Must Have Fallen Into A Rabbit Hole.

I see. So by fighting... we lose, but by giving up... WE WIN! Yay! It makes perfect sense now. How could I be so stupid?

The way you went after a political ally (even on issues of gay rights) on a political message board, seeing fit to determine what thoughts are in his head.

Which ally was that? I didn't see an ally. Are you confusing me with someone else?

ME: Does bigotry get a free-pass when the bigot is a Democrat?
YOU: Depends.

Wow. Sometimes, bigotry is okay, huh? I'm floored. Astonished.

Thanks for clearing it all up for me.

I would submit that you cooperate with people all day who disagree with you, or even flat out don't like you.

Ya think? ("You would submit", eh? Funny.)

It's part of getting what you want on certain fronts. Do you interrogate the cashiers about their feelings on gay rights before you let them ring up your groceries?

Oh brother! 'I-would-submit' that real life isn't anything at all like discussions and disagreements on an online political forum.

Your co-workers before you get work done together? You practice this kind of tolerance all day, and so do I.

See above.

In Chicago, there's still some racial tensions between groups of working and lower middle class white people: Sicilian (of which I am one, and to some people we were once considered one of the lowest races of people on the face of the earth), Polish, German, Irish, etcetera. But I'm glad they mostly vote Democratic, and that we sent a new liberal Senator to the legislature this year, and none of whatever bigotry they might hold translated into public policy.

That's nice. And how does all this justify tolerating bigotry?

Because I don't think you're being politically practical.

So it's politically expedient to sacrifice the rights of the queers for the sake of getting the vote of the faith-based haters. --- Say no more. I understand completely.

[LoZoccolo]

76. I suspect we're either having two separate arguments...

The alternative theory is that you're intentionally pretending to misunderstand me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you are in fact playing that game with me, I really don't want to continue this. We both have better things to do.

I see. So by fighting... we lose, but by giving up... WE WIN! Yay! It makes perfect sense now. How could I be so stupid?

I'm talking about something much more complicated here, that of tolerating disagreement on a personal level to achieve a common goal on a political level. I think your first wrong turn is thinking that Lone_Wolf_Moderate's religious views affect his public policy views in any way you'd disagree with (he's already explicitly said they don't), and from there, it becomes that I'm supporting that, etcetera, getting more off-track. I don't really know how to expand on what I've said besides suggesting you go back and read it again, this time knowing where this first wrong turn is. It might become a completely different thing to you.

That's nice. And how does all this justify tolerating bigotry?

I've already said: it's part of getting what you want politically.

[arwalden]

79. Sigh....

"I suspect we're either having two separate arguments..."

Perhaps... it's difficult to tell. But I doubt it.

The alternative theory is that you're intentionally pretending to misunderstand me,

Of course, that's it. It couldn't *possibly* be that I disagree with you... it can only be that I'm "intentionally pretending to misunderstand" you. Oh brother! :eyes:

but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Golly... you'll do that for me? Wow. What a guy. I'm touched.

But if you are in fact playing that game with me, I really don't want to continue this. We both have better things to do.

Yes I think I can imagine how you feel. I suppose it can be a bit uncomfortable trying to justify and defend bigotry.

I'm talking about something much more complicated here, that of tolerating disagreement on a personal level to achieve a common goal on a political level.

Oh I see... it's "complicated". Too politically nuanced for me to be able to comprehend. Aren't I lucky to have you here to explain it to me?

That may be something that you're willing to do. But you'll never convince me that it's right to ignore bigotry, hatred and hypocrisy.

I think your first wrong turn is thinking that Lone_Wolf_Moderate's religious views affect his public policy views in any way you'd disagree with (he's already explicitly said they don't), and from there, it becomes that I'm supporting that, etcetera, getting more off-track.

I can't speak for him... but fundamentalist folks *like* him silently approve of the faith-based hatred and bigotry. The poll numbers show it. Fundamentalist folks *like* him smile at your face and say the right words in public... but when among "their-own-kind" or in the privacy of the voting booth... it's a different story.

I don't really know how to expand on what I've said besides suggesting you go back and read it again, this time knowing where this first wrong turn is. It might become a completely different thing to you.

You've made yourself pretty clear. I had to read it several times already to make certain I understood what you were suggesting. I couldn't believe it the first time... but multiple readings and your subsequent elaboration only confirm the worst.

ME: That's nice. And how does all this justify tolerating bigotry?
YOU: I've already said: it's part of getting what you want politically.

That's a price that you're willing to pay. Of course you are! It costs you nothing! How easy for you to be so smug and sanctimoniously tell me to shut up.

You can afford to. I can't. -- It's not something that I'm willing to. I won't sit down, I won't shut up. I'll continue to call out the bigotry. I'll continue to point out the hypocrisy and faith-based hatred.

Your admonitions and encouragement for us to continue to be passive fall on deaf ears. Ain't gonna happen. Not in this lifetime.

[Wat_Tyler]

59. and what precisely does this have to do with Oasis? Hmm?

[ghostsofgiants]

69. It's his sig, I would assume.

[mondo joe]

63. I actually don't care about the hate, though I do care about the votes

Though I don't doubt there are people who feel as you've described, I pretty much don't care how they feel about me though I care very much about the votes that may reflect those feelings.

There isn't an evangelical alive who can gave a lower opinion of my homosexuality than I have of their religion - but I wouldn't vote to discriminate against them. So as long as they don't vote to discriminate against me we've got no problem.

[arwalden]

68. But That's How They Are Voting...

... they call themselves Democrats. They smile in your face but they hate you privately. In the privacy of the voting booth, they will stab you in your back. The numbers prove it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Not all the people who vote against gay rights are religious

Look at Oregon--the most secular state in the nation (only 12% attend religious services of any kind, conservative or liberal), and they passed an anti-gray initiative.

As a former resident of Oregon, I believe that the motivating factor there is the lumberjack-rancher-fisherman macho that prevails outside the cities.

[realisticphish]

73. im totally fine with homosexuality

and im a christian. jesus said nothing about it, so why does it even matter? i know a lot of gay people, and they're all great human beings. its all good to me

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

41. OK.

I persoanlly have no problem with homosexuals, and I don't judge anyone (that's between them and God), but the Bible calls it sin, and I agree with that view. That's it. Like I said in the other post, regardless of my views, I don't think the government should discriminate, nor should people. I hope that answers your question.

[Dookus]

44. Do you agree

that all the other proscriptions in Leviticus are sins, equally worthy of approbation? Friggin' shrimp-eatin' beard-trimmin' heathens.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

47. No. If you mean do I think we should stone people for touching

pigskins, or things like that, no. A lot of those Levitical laws were done away with in the New Testament.

[Dookus]

49. so why is the

levitical proscription against homosexuality always touted by the right (and some on the left, I see). Why are the other rules outdated, but the anti-homo one still going full bore?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

54. Not ani-homosexual, but anti-homosexuality, at least I'm not

anti-homosexual. Homosexuality is rebuked in the New Testament (Romans 1:27). Homosexuality, acording to Scripture, is just not God's way. The right uses this to bash gays, but as I've said, I don't judge.

[cags]

70. So, you follow every word in the New Testament? Correct?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

78. Yeah. That's correct.

[jswordy]

77. TOLERANCE is what you have, and I would say...

TOLERANCE is in very short supply across the political spectrum these days.

I agree with what you are saying. And I am not an evangelical Christian. Not Christian at all.

I voice my agreement in order to highlight that TOLERANCE is the bridge we must build to understanding, if we ever hope to move beyond our current divisive state.

[realisticphish]

27. i don't

jesus never said squat about homosexuality. i figure, jesus would have loved homosexuals just as much as heterosexuals, so why can't we?


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Wapsie B]

16. Not at all.

I'm an ELCA Lutheran, which is Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
What most people think of when there's talk of Evangelical Christians is the conservative fundamentalists. conservative fundies make up a small subset of Evangelical Christianity. But you won't hear anyone in the mainstream press differentiate us. It's another smoke and mirrors tactic from the repugs. They tout the claim of 70+ million Evangelical Christians in this country. That may be so. But there aren't 70+ million conservative fundies.

[realisticphish]

26. ELCA here, too

i like to think of us as "calm" christians :)


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[yellowdogintexas]

31. well put. I am a United Methodist, which used to be known as

an Evangelical denomination and you can still find congregations, even whole conferences (a politically defined geographic region within Methodism) which still are highly evangelical but for the most part Methodists are moderate to liberal both as individuals and as a denomination. My Sunday School class is so left leaning we have to shim the room every Sunday to keep it from toppling over!!!!!!!LOL

the fundamental/right winger groups kind of like to look down their noses at us saying we are not "Really Christian" for all kinds of really dumb reasons... and his chimpiness claims to be a United Methodist. I can't see him fitting in at my church at all belief wise. He is not really a Methodist in my opinion, it is just where he hangs his coat when he goes to church, which isn't often.

The Clintons were at Foundry UMC every Sunday when they were in DC, weren't they?

The Kennedys went to Mass every week, didn't they?

The Johnsons went to various churches, but were regular.

and ...WHAT ABOUT JIMMIE CARTER!!!!!!!!!!! No way being Evangelical and Democrat is mutually exclusive!!!!!

[gizmo1979]

18. Ask your fellow parishioners.

[Thurston Howell IV]

20. You must have thick skin

hanging around here. Lots of indescriminate religion-bashing on DU. As an atheist, I'm naturally somewhat sympathetic to it, but many time people go to far.

I wish there was a more welcoming approach for the liberal religious on the left. I believe we can agree on a healthy separation of church and state, and then work together for our common goals.

Anyway, if you look more closely, we're probably all freaks of nature.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

23. I take it all in stride.

It does get a bit troublesome at times, trying to defend liberalism from the Religious Right, while defending Christianity from the Secular Left. I'm used to it.

[kodi]

21. not a freak, but a close listener of the message of jesus

.

[yvr girl]

24. If you are, then I am too

Well I would be a democrat if I was an American.

[Az]

25. I have read the bible, and I cannot see how a Christian could not be a Dem

How exactly did the followers of Jesus get tied to the money lenders invading the temple again?

I am often reminded of a statement made about atheists. It is said there are no atheists in foxholes (a lie). But what I always wanted to know is what the heck the Christians were doing in there in the first place.

[njdemocrat106]

28. Absolutely not

Liberalism welcomes people of all beliefs, whereas conservatism requires THEIR belief.

[MrSandman]

30. The rule here...nt

[Wat_Tyler]

32. What do you mean by 'evangelical', though?

In what way are you evangelizing?

[gmoney]

36. self-delete

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

42. I just use the term that is commonly used to describe Bible-believing

Christians, who share their faith. I'm not a conservative, so I don't fit into that "Christian conservative" category.

[democracyindanger]

33. No, but you may be Jimmy Carter nt

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

43. Exactly right.

[Padraig18]

34. I'm gay and Catholic, so if you are, then so am I.

:silly:

[Vektor]

35. No, it makes perfect sense....

Democrats and Liberals believe in helping their fellow man, and lifting people up - and so do good Christians.

Glad to have you in the party! :-)

[Lady Freedom]

45. I am a Southern Baptist Democrat

and in love with a Cathloic, and my best friend is a Gay, jewish athist. So no your no freak!!!!

[NNadir]

46. Do you get along with your peers?

BTW, why are you a Democrat?

Are you putting us on?

[LoZoccolo]

48. 39% of evangelican Christians are Democrats.

The fact that there are maybe two or three very outspoken and well-funded religious right leaders should not guide our thinking about who is and who is not a Democrat.

[shesemsmom]

50. Nope

Democrat , southern Baptist here. I know a guy that says if you aren't a Democrat and a member of the Nazarene church you will be going to hell lol

[tjdee]

56. Why, just curious?

He's joking, but why Nazarene?

[mzmolly]

55. NO! We need you!

:hi:

[baldguy]

58. Real Christians are Democrats.

[Bridget Burke]

60. What do you think about Jim Wallis?

A self-described Evangelical, he was on the Daily Show recently promoting his new book: "God's Politics." He was delightful & Jon liked him a lot.

He's associated with the Sojourners. Here's the website--registration is required to access many features but it appears to be free. www.sojo.net/

Here's a link to The Daily Show appearance:

www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/celeb/celeb_10009.html

[Walt Starr]

62. I'd say you're probably a REAL Christian

not a phony like Fartwell and Robem$ome.

[IronLionZion]

64. Fuck no, but if anyone says you are,

do the "Christian" thing and bomb them.

j/k

you sound like a real Christian. I think Christian Republican is an oxymoron.

[GOPBasher]

65. So is my wife. It SHOULD be the norm.

Jesus was as liberal as they come. I don't know how the Right stole Jesus.

[blondeatlast]

80. They didn't. They "reinvented" him.

According to them, he never met Matthew.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. No, you're in good company:

Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King, to name two.

[barb162]

74. no, I know a few evangelicals who HATE Bush because they think

the Iraq invasion was a hoax for getting the Iraq oil, they hate his environmental policies, etc.

[jswordy]

75. At the time I voted, the poll was 62% yes, 29% no...

...which I figure is about the ratio of evangelical Democrats or independents vs. Republican/conservatives.

We Democrats just have to run someone who can talk reasonably to the 62%.