My defection from the Republican party began when the horrifying images of the government’s incompetent Katrina response were broadcast for all the world to see. It truly opened my eyes to the terrible poverty that so many Americans have to suffer through. My defection was cemented this past spring and summer when politicians on the Right decided to villify millions of hard-working immigrants to score a few cheap political points. I am not saying that we shouldn’t be allowed to set our own immigration policy, but the vast majority of these immigrants are people who are looking to make a better life, and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, not like criminals.
While I may not agree with one hundred percent with the Democratic Party platform, they will do more to help lift the 37 million Americans out of poverty, and do more to bring health care to the nearly 47 million Americans who do not have any. It is for these reasons, that I proudly declare myself a member of the Democratic Party
Hello Chris. I am so glad to hear about your thoughtful decision. When I was about your age, the country was going through the “Reagan Revolution.” I was similarly dismayed by the suffering that resulted from the federal government turning away from people in need.
<
p>
I know some other great Democrats who come from the Merrimack campus, and I know you will be part of a great tradition of engaged Dems who want to turn their beliefs into action and policy.
I’ve never understood what is supposed to be particularly “Christian” about the likes of GWB, and I’m glad you’ve come to the same conclusion.
<
p>
I’m curious — have you found liberals to be particularly “anti-faith”, as we’re so often alleged to be? There is certainly some of that, and you will encounter significant generalized resentment against the Catholic church based on its institutional positions on gay issues.
<
p>
I’m a Unitarian Universalist, a liberal denomination that is no longer exclusively Christian and has a lot of ex-Catholics in it. Our first principle is “the inherent worth and dignity of every person”, which wasn’t Jesus’ first principle but something I hope he would approve of. We tend to be left of center politically, and generally feel that we are acting out our religious beliefs when we act politically.
Thank you for the very warm welcome! I have not encountered any real “anti-faith” or “Christian-bashing” if you will amongst most of my friends, all of whom are progressives. I do have one friend though who is strongly anti-religion, and bashes the Church often, but I don’t hate him for it. Do I think he is misguided? Yes, but I have found that when you respond to hate with more hate, nothing is really solved. I fully expect people to have some negative views of the Catholic Church with its views on homosexuality and abortion, but I’d rather be in a Party where even if we disagree as to whether those positions are right or not, we can debate them open and honestly. I am sick of Republicans claiming the monopoly on faith, distorting the Democrats as a bunch of atheists, and exploiting Christian voters to stay in power.
I’ll admit stories like yours give me a lot of hope for the future. While I’m atheist myself, I’ve come to learn from friends of the large and growing progressive Christian community. A friend of mine swears by <A href=http://www.sojo.netSojourners magazine, where you’ll find Jim Wallis and many others members of that community.
<
p>
We’re thrilled you’ve come home.
in addition to Sojo, you may enjoy Street Prophets.
<
p>
My path has taken a similar meander, and I head to the Street a few times a week.
I just finished Wallis’s latest book, God’s Politics.
<
p>
In addition to laying out an exhaustive case for why Republicans should not have a monopoly on morality, he argues that a new movement is developing in which more Christians are moving in a progressive direction politically. In other words, a movement that puts concern about poverty and peace higher than legislating against the “sinners.”
<
p>
He also makes a good case that the Democratic party must make room for religious people — that’s where a lot of its activist energy will come from in coming years.
<
p>
A hopeful thought !
I’m curious about your impressions of Wallis. I’ve long found him good at telling everyone what they’re doing wrong, but not so good on saying what would be right.
<
p>
He also is a little too ready to embrace showy religiosity for my sake. Fun fact: more voters would vote an open homosexual for president than an avowed atheist.
I felt his book was preachy, for sure. But that’s what you’re going to get from a preacher!
<
p>
One can get a pretty good sense for what his “program” would be, though; i.e., what he’s for. It’s solid progressivism, and it will not win over conservative Christians because they won’t agree with his desire to de-emphasize the very causes they are most passionate about: abortion and same-sex marriage. Wallis is against abortion but makes a pragmatic argument that the best thing to do is to find more ways to reduce the incidence. On gay marriage, he seems to wish the whole issue would go away for 20 yrs. (he almost implies that society needs more time and then will be able to accept it).
<
p>
But his main argument is that the Bible speaks more about the need to help the poor and the “least among us” than anything else, so that’s where the political action should be.
<
p>
So I don’t think it’s correct to say he doesn’t say “what’s right.” He can go on at great length (and does) about his vision for a better society. I guess he’s showy — but I’d take his show over Pat Robertson’s.
Thanks for the diary, Chris — and I trust you have found the “respect” part of this blog to be compatible with your newfound faith.
I think you will find that many Democrats are motivated by their religious beliefs. That which you do for the least of my brothers comes out again and again in the party platform.
<
p>
Unfortunatly, its mainly abortion and gay marriage that get picked up on as religious issues and the positions the party has taken on those issues opposes the position of most Christian churches, so we get a bad rap. Nevermind the fact that there are organizations like Democrats for Life that are made up of pro-life Democrats. Nevermind the fact that Pope John Paul the Great was one of the most outspoken opponents of the war in Iraq. Nevermind the fact that Bobby Kennedy, a great liberal, was a devout Catholic with a dozen kids.
<
p>
The DFLA actually has a very Christian plan, the 95-10 initiative, to reduce the abortion rate by proving support to needy families and women in crisis pregnancies. They are not blaming women, but rather supporting them. They are not conceding children to poverty, but rather lifting them up. This is exactly where a Christian should want to be spending money. I think 95-10 is very much a “if you have two cloaks…” kind of bill.
While the right certainly thinks it has a manopoly on religion, a big chunk of the progressive movement was spawned through the religious. Other liberal causes that the vast majority of society agrees with – the civil rights movement/southern freedom movement and tons of others – were deeply imbedded by progressive people of faith.
<
p>
In fact, most Catholics are still a part of the Democratic party (correct me if I’m wrong), even if a very, very slight majority of Catholics voted for Bush last election. I highly doubt it would happen again today, now that the truth has been revealed to 60% of this country.
<
p>
I was raised Catholic, but recently left the Church. I have high hopes that over the next few decades it will come around and I’ll be able to rejoin, but until the few, powerful Cardinals and Pope stops trying to get involved in government matters like civil marriage (not religious, I have no problems with the Catholic stance on gay marriage in their own church, just when it comes to government, just like I have no problems with them not recognizing divorce).
<
p>
But I’m glad you’ve become a Democrat. I truly believe we’re the party of inclusiveness. We’re the party who will have room for debate within itself. We’re the party that’s going to be fiscally responsible. We’re the party that, most importantly, is goign to stop the trend of the rich getting richer while everyone else is screwed. We’re the ones who are going to reduce (and hopefully end) poverty and get everyone health insurance, which should be a right in this country.
<
p>
The current crop of Republicans can’t be trusted on those issues – and certainly can’t be trusted with our soldiers.
I teach the Bible, Koran and Mormon texts, among others, in a class at Columbia College and have the greatest possible respect for religious thinking. I’m glad you found this place tolerant. I think that is one of our greast strengths. I thank every member of the BMG community for helping keep it that way. I agree it is hard, under George Bush, to describe anyone as a “compassionate conservative” and keep a straight face. That is one of the many tragedies wrought by his government.
<
p>
A very large bloc of Americans describe their ideology as conservative–are they all uncaring? It may be you passing judgement on conservatives’ compassionate rather than them lacking it.
<
p>
Understand, that when I suggest a program be cut, or a tax lowered, it is NOT because I am uncaring of the people served by that program, or recipient to that tax dole.
and “you” advocate cutting it and replacing it with tax cuts for the rich: if it isn’t “uncaring”, just what is it?
And eliminate the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ loaded language?
Conservatives analyze programs with a recognition of beaurocratic waste; fear of unintended consequences and a strong belief that money in individuals’ hands is more effectively used as investment than by government.
<
p>
That’s how I think about them.
The cut in the income tax rate from 5.3 to 5.0 is worth $60 to someone making $20K, $300 to someone making $100K, and $30,000 to someone making $10M. Even without technical “progressivity” (of which we’ve got only a little because there aren’t many deductions) the income tax does manage to get revenue from high earners. Cutting the income tax leads to either cuts in government services, which disproportionately affect the poor, or increases in the sales tax and in general fees, which also disproportionately affect the poor.
<
p>
Yes, the voters asked for the tax cut, and perhaps they should get it for that reason, but I still find it to be a less than compassionate policy.
My answer? Bullets!
<
p>
Besides what alternative policies does the government have:
<
p>
My problem with that solution is that the same amount of money has been taken out of the economy, plus an amount to cover the collection cost. It’s a zero sum game minus tax compliance costs. Also, a higher tax rate also discourages savings, and incentives to work.
Bob says, “I agree it is hard, under George Bush, to describe anyone as a “compassionate conservative” and keep a straight face. That is one of the many tragedies wrought by his government.” Inevitably, someone misses the point and thinks he’s slamming conservatives. That’s precisely because of the administration’s propagandizing of conservatism. That’s why they had to insist that their brand of “conservatism” really, really is compassionate. It is! Honest!
<
p>
What prompted me to respond was how some turned a beautiful diary of an epiphany into one more tirade about money. Religions have historically taught, among other things, that where your money goes, your heart and mind will follow. Many would argue that, wherever your heart and mind are dedicated, your money will follow. In either case, ChrisWagner’s political coming of age is what many good people are coming to see – that political activism is a personal duty in a democracy. And if it stems from a religious commitment to true human compassion – a core value of every religion – their participation is most welcome at a time when faith in humanity and its potential has the highest value in both the personal and worldwide families.
<
p>
A noteworthy beginning is Crossleft – http://www.crossleft…