John McG,

Sullivan wasn’t talking about conservatives. He was talking about the Republican Party, which of course neverhad anything to do with exploiting racism.

GOP: ‘We were wrong’ to play racial politics

By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY [7/14/2005]

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation’s largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.

“Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”

Mehlman’s apology to the NAACP at the group’s convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.

I think of these posts more along the lines of “Woe to you pharisees….” And David is right. They are necessary.

“Perhaps VN and MM have a particular charism to point out how awful conservatives are. But I am dubious that this is the witness the world needs from us right now.”

It is exactly what the world needs to hear–among many other things. In particular there are way too many Americans who believe that being a good Christian is about the same thing as being a good Republican.

MM, among others in many other forums, including some Protestants like the “Red Letter Christians,” are performing a great service: Reminding us what the Gospel has to say in relation to society and politics.

I still wonder what it is you wish to accomplish by these posts — do you really think a conservative reader will consider Sullivan’s smear, smack his forehead and say, “My Gosh! Sullivan’s got me pegged! All my political beliefs are in stark contrast with Christ’s teachings. Let me find my checkbook so I can donate to the DNC today!”

To me, posts like this echo the Pharisee’s prayer — “Thank God I am not like those conservatives over there, who claim to be Christian, but advocate all these terrible things…”

This post doesn’t even advocate a particular policy, just gestures the reader toward a negative opinion about a political group.

And yes, right-wing commenters are the same thing.

Perhaps VN and MM have a particular charism to point out how awful conservatives are. But I am dubious that this is the witness the world needs from us right now.

When I brought up black ministers, I was referring to the common practice (and this might be true for some non-black Protestant churches too, but I hear about it more for “black” churches) of preachers using the resources to promote and get out the vote for a candidate or even allowing political candidates to preach at Sunday services. This is a common technique that has been used quite often by Democrats to increase their chances of election. You can’t tell me they’re not wrapping themselves in the mantle of Christianity when they do that.

All of them wrap themselves in a mantle they do not deserve. Maybe Republicans do it more often and are less discrete about it, but they all do it such that the differences between them are more about technique then substance.

And by the way, Sullivan said:

At some point these charlatans need to be chased out of the temple. Which these days means the Republican party.

Perhaps Sullivan hasn’t noticed, but the republican party has been chased out of the “temple.” Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this is the best it gets for democrats.

You could be stronger: the republicans are simply committed to heteronormativity and a facade of “sexual fidelity” (all the while breaking their own moral codes) and have absolutely NO commitment whatsoever to the welfare of families. I read yesterday that republican dominated states have the highest divorce rates. And the same piece referenced a study that conservative Christianity is an indicator of higher rates of domestic violence. “Family values” indeed.

You haven’t addressed the difference, though, that was pointed out: “Here’s the difference – it is the Republicans who (blasphemously) wrap themselves in the mantle of Christianity. Democrats may pander, but they do not claim to be a Christian party.”

Obama does seem to try to get “mileage” out of his Christianity. He also seems to try to get “mileage” out of appealing to the faiths of non-Christians. Yes, black ministers and churches are “important” for Democrats, but they are also important for Republicans. It’s important to consider in what ways each finds black churches “important,” and to get specific. You have not demonstrated that Democrats use Christianity in “ways that defile.” Again, it is obvious that both Democrats and Republicans (and independents, anarchists, etc.) draw on the Christian faith in various ways. This is to be expected and indeed it is normal. But you have not attended to the differences among them. And the differences are what matters.

The last two, religious war and torture, aren’t part of a natural, well-ordered society, and are generally opposed by Christian-”ists”. When’s the last time you heard a Republican call for a religious war? Some support the use of torture. So on one of the points, Sullivan isn’t completely wrong.

Just to limit my comment to the family values issue, it is hardly tenable to make Jesus into an advocate for “family values” as these values are touted today by the religious right or “Christianism” in this country.

In asking, Who is my mother? My brother?–and, Who is my neighbor? for that matter–Jesus asks us to go far beyond our natural loyalty to self and family and tribe or nation and dedicate ourselves to the human family, if you will.

You could say that Jesus assumes we will naturally love ourselves and our families and friends–and insofar as we don’t do these things, that is a huge problem, but to pretty much limit Jesus to affirming family love is to make him little different than a good solid moralist of any place and time. And to make Jesus our chief patriot is indeed blasphemous. Jesus is more than a moralist and more than a tribal god, and his Church should strive to be a whole lot more (and something decidedly different than) the Lord’s Resistance Army.