You Can't be a Christian and a Democrat at the Same Time

Anyone care to try and defend this statement?

The “anti-God” party

You can't be a Christian and a Democrat at the same time, Virginia's GOP candidate for Lieutenant Governor says


In a local radio interview this morning, Virginia Republican lieutenant governor nominee E.W. Jackson said the Democratic Party is “anti-God” and that Christians should leave it.
Jackson has said in the past that he thinks believing in God and voting Democratic are fundamentally incompatible, so WLEE host Jack Gravely asked if he still believes. Gravely explaining that he’s a Christian and tends to vote Democratic, just like his parents and family. Jackson didn’t back down.
“You are saying for us, we’re all wrong, leave that party. And all I’m saying to you is, if you said it before, you still have to believe it, why did you say it?” Gravely asked. “Oh, Oh, oh I do believe it,” Jackson responded.
He continued: “I said it because I believe that the Democrat party has become an anti-God party, I think it’s an anti-life party, I think it’s an anti-family party. And these are all things I think Christians hold to very dearly.”
Listen to the interview here.
Jackson, a bishop and outspoken social conservative, has run intro trouble for his stridently anti-gay and antiquated social views in the past. Even his running mate, the state’s GOP gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli, who is no San Francisco liberal himself, has distanced his campaign from Jackson’s.
While Republicans do tend to be slightly more religious than Democrats, 77 percent of Dems surveyed by Pew last year said they “never doubt the existence of God.” Sixty-two percent of Democrats also agreed that prayer is an important part of their daily life, and that “we will all be called before God at the Judgment Day to answer for our sins.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/01/virginia_lg_candidate_dems_are_anti_god/

 

I'm pretty sure that even Jesus would slap this bitch-face silly.

View attachment 1882

 

77% of democraps believe in God? 62% believe prayer is important? Sounds like you're a member of the wrong party.

 

For me personally this is true, but I would never broaden it to all democrats. It's an irrefutable fact that most people of science are liberal politically, and most people of science are not religious. But hey, if the right can believe in the fairy tale they live in, they can believe in others as well. None of my business either way.

 

I'm too liberal myself to believe in magic and ghosts but the real issue here is that apparently if you don't believe the same things this guy believes (and let's be clear, there are a lot of different beliefs within the Repuke party as well i.e. Mormons) he believes that you can't be a "Christian" whatever that means.
It must be nice to have such a monopoly with regard to your own belief system. Somehow, I just can't see myself ever hating gays, women, other religions, immigrants, minorities, science, intellectuals, and all the other groups these "Christians" hate on a regular basis. My loss.

 

...but you can see fit to hating babies?

 

David, you know we liberals sign an oath with fetal blood and stem cells pledging to forever hate everything that conservatives hold near and dear, such as fairy tale directed politics, eroding human rights, warmongering, racial division, government enemas, science, and oh so much more. It keeps us busy in our liberal hippy strongholds where we sing camp songs while saving the environment you breathe and inventing the technology you love. We're plotting things you will never understand.

 

Just the ones the turn out like you....

 

I wonder if idiots like this that make such moronic statements ever think that God is watching them?

 

The sad part of what you guys are posting is your need to mischaracterize the truth & resort to hyperbole to try to make your point.

 

Yes, something "you guys" never do....

 

Question: Which god is the republican referrirg to? The christian one?

What if it was the jewish one, would that count?

How about the orisha one? Is that one included in the republicans assertion? Do followers of Nana Buluka have a place among the republican party? There are quite a few in America, you know.

Maybe republicans should be a bit more inclusive, if they want to gain votes and win elections. But no, they'd rather rig the elections themselves, buy votes and gerrymander their way to "victory".

 

I believe you're getting a bit "off-point". In the OP's radio interview link, E.W. Jackson clearly states that he's referring to Christianity.

In addition to being a candidate for Virginia Lt. Governor, E.W. Jackson is also a Christian minister and lawyer. Reverend Jackson was raised in the Democratic party, but changed affiliations due to his personal belief (as a Christian minister) that some positions taken by the Democratic party are diametrically opposed to his God's teachings.

There are many members of the Democratic party that consider themselves Christians. They may even believe as Rev. Jackson does, but simply have a different set of priorities. If Rev. Jackson's priorities don't align with theirs, they should certainly seek out other candidates that better represents their views.

 

The point is subtle, Tom, and is very relevant: The republican nominee's comments indicate a predisposition in believing this country is a "christian nation", when it isn't.

This country is intended to be safe-haven away from any and all religious-minded leaders bent on making others bow to their chosen religion.

Many members of the republican party intend to enforce their religion (christianity) onto others, and that is in direct conflict with why this nation was formed: To be free to practice your own personal religion, free from religious persecution and other forms of religious harassment.

By bellowing that Democrats aren't christian, the nominee is catering to the beliefs of the few at the expense of the many, in direct opposition to a core principle of this country: Freedom of religion.

 

In general, I agree with your views, but not necessarily your characterization of this particular candidate or what he said.

Please allow me to explain...

Background...

The Constitution was submitted for ratification in 1789, but lacked enough support for passage. The greatest opposition was from anti-Federalists factions that wanted Bills of Rights similar to those in most States' Constitutions. States offered proposed verbiage which was boiled down to the "Establishment" and "Free Exercise" clauses of the 1st Amendment.

Although Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence, he was not involved in the drafting of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. However, he was involved in the Virginia Bill of Rights and had strong opinions on the subject.

The "Separation of Church and State"...that was a phrase Thomas Jefferson used in an 1802 letter to the Danbury [Connecticut] Baptist Association. Jefferson's "separation" phrase has become shorthand for the "Establishment Clause" of the 1st Amendment, but there's actually nothing in the Amendment that compels the "separation of Church and State".

The 1st Amendment simply states that the "US Congress" can't "Establish" a State religion or interfere with an individual's "Free Exercise" of any religion they chose.

To The Point...

The Republican candidate for Virginia Lt. Governor, Rev. E.W. Jackson (actually a Bishop with a degree from Harvard Law), simply stated that he believes the Democratic platform is diametrically opposed to core Christian beliefs and that, in his view, Christians should leave the Democratic party.

You are correct, the United States has no established State religion...Christian or otherwise. However, I don't see how Rev. Jackson's personal "Free Exercise" of religious expression (as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment) can be construed as the Congressional "Establishment" of a State religion.

Additionally, I've listened to the interview multiple times and never heard him say anything that I would characterize as a "Bellow" or a "Rant".

He never said that Democrats aren't Christians or (as the OP suggests) that a person can't be a Democrat and a Christian at the same time.

He simply said that [in his view] the Democratic party is an anti-God party and recommended that Christians leave it.


Whether you agree with him or not...I don't see a problem with him expressing his views. Isn't that what we want a candidate for public office to do? ...so we know how to vote?

 

Aside from all the self-serving founding fathers mischaracterizations, selective interpretations of the Constitution, and out right lies that are a regular part of the religious debate in this country, does anyone here really believe that we should have any kind of formal relationship between religion and government? Really? Where has a state sponsored religion ever worked out or even a ban on religion by the state been a good idea? The answer is pretty much never. You can't make people believe something, you can't prevent them from believing something, and you can't put the power of the state behind doing either. Separation is clearly the most logical solution to insure that no religious belief is trampled on or rises to the level of a dictatorial theocracy. Other than religious zealots, how can anyone be opposed to that?

 

You would make a great barber my friend. Splitting hairs seems to be your forte.

In other words, according to Jackson's interpretation/opinion, the Democratic Party is anti-God for whatever reason he decides.

But could I not say that the Republican Party is anti-God for supporting the death penalty? Or for their support of the military industrial complex, or for their hatred of gays? It would be my opinion just as it is Jackson's opinion and if I further stated that you can't be a Christian and a Republican, would you feel the same detached objectivity you seem to have for Jackson's comments? It's easy to just say "yes" but does it feel the same or does your mind run straight for the rationalization corner of your mind?

 

Yep. And he's endorsing a specific religion, which is in conflict with other religions.

The point being: So much for equality in respect to religion.

Why? Because when you have someone who is extremely religious in power, they automatically defer to their religion when deciding policy. They enforce morality laws, where they have no justification to do so besides their religious beliefs.

It's happened before, and we currently live under a lot of those idiotic morality laws. I don't want even more laws based on religious beliefs. That's what Sharia is about, religious law being the law.

I'm against that kind of bs because it requires faith. If you don't have faith, if you don't believe in the state's religious laws, if you break a state's religious law, you're punished for it. That's why religiously-guided people shouldn't be voted into office: Because they will eventually punish those who don't believe in their particular religion.

 

Yes! ...absolutely!!!

Welcome to the Tea Party!

 

I'm just barely old enough to remember the election of 1960. You're making the same argument that Republicans made against John F. Kennedy. They said that a Kennedy Presidency would allow the Pope to implement Catholic policies into American law.