The Jesus Agenda

POSTED BY JHW22

About a week and a half ago Desert Crone posted her take on Liberals and Christians. I agreed with a lot of what she said even though I am an atheist. So, as an atheist, I wanted to try to say the same thing, but with a different perspective. One that I formed over 30+ years as what I call, a Christian-magnet.

My parents raised me sans religion. They didn't raise me to not believe in God or to believe in God. In fact, I don't remember them really teaching or encouraging me much of anything when it came to religion and I am truly grateful for that. They raised me to be a clean slate to choose or believe what I alone am able to believe. The only true way to believe is to get there on your own.

But I had extended family and friends who had a huge impact on me when it came to forging what I did not believe. And for years, these people impacted in me in very negative ways. Without going into the drama and rants I would have loved to spew 10 or 15 years ago, I will summarize my early experiences this way: Christians are assholes.

That's what I came to believe. I couldn't believe how hateful, judgmental and hypocritical they were. WHY would I want to be part of their religion when I didn't like, agree with or even care to comprehend? Why would I want to be a fellow asshole?

Sadly, I thought this of some people in my life who I really should love.

Then, in college, I became friends with two wonderful women. They didn't try to make me something I wasn't or believe something I couldn't. Oh, they prayed for me to find whatever, but they didn't push. We would talk about religion and in our conversations, I felt a sincere desire to understand, not to believe, but to really understand them. Not their religion. I wanted to understand what made them want to believe. Although they didn't make a believer out of me, they did soften me to my hardened opinion of Christians as assholes.

And then I met my husband. My husband was raised in a liberal-minded, open-hearted Christian family. He doesn't consider himself a Christian, but if you knew him, you'd know he projects that which is ideally a Christian life - minus the acceptance of Christ as his savior. My husband, and his family became the new symbol of what a Christian can and should be. Seriously, his grandma, parents, uncles, aunt, cousins. They ALL walk the walk. And this stopped me in my tracks. I couldn't believe there were people who called themselves Christians, who led lives I could respect and they actually made the connection between their beliefs AND the ways they lived their lives EVERY DAY. Seriously. They didn't preach and judge me or anyone who didn't believe the same as them. Instead, they lived an example in a way I'd never imagined.

My husband's family was the first family I ever met who really lived what they said they believed.

And because of them, I really had to stop seeing Christians as assholes.

Since then, I have known many Christians who impress me. They support issues and causes and people that is perfectly in-line with their beliefs. None have converted me. I have no desire or need for a savior or a Heaven or forgiveness or any of that. But because of these wonderful Christians, I have worked hard at not labeling Christians as assholes. Not as a whole anyway.

That brings me to the distinction, that to me is quite simple. I love many Christians. And I despise many who call themselves Christians.

Jesus gave humans a to do list, or an agenda. It's not a hard list, or an impossible list. It doesn't require perfection. It requires simple tasks and thoughts. For someone to follow the agenda set forth by Jesus, one simply treats others well, cares for them, aides them. Easy peasy. The whole, "I'm not perfect, I'm forgiven" attitude is moot because Jesus didn't expect us to walk on water or perform miracles. Never did. He only "gives us what we can handle". Right? I mean, seriously, Jesus didn't ask us to be Him. He only set forth an agenda and hoped we'd follow it.

But when people who claim their principles are based on the Jesus agenda, put the Jesus agenda aside when it comes time to choosing elected leaders, when they choose a person who makes a career out of NOT doing the things on the Jesus agenda, and when they decide that there is a separate political set of principles that trumps their Jesus agenda, they essentially tell Jesus he's less important. YET, Jesus clearly states to render unto Caesar. And He never says, "Help the poor UNLESS..." or "Feed the hungry EXCEPT..." Jesus NEVER gave Christians an excuse to put His agenda on hold because of who was being asked to execute that agenda. Jesus NEVER gave Christians the option to not help people if helping meant helping via the government. He never said that if the government wants to help the poor people, using tax dollars, that Christians can or should choose otherwise. In fact, He makes it rather clear that Christians should be helping their neighbor despite any excuses.

So, that is why the many Christians I respect in my life tend to vote for liberal politicians, they support candidates who, using tax dollars or not, set policies that match the Jesus agenda.

When a Conservative politician says Americans can help the needy on their own dime, on their own time, and to leave government out of it, they say that the Jesus agenda is irrelevant. And that's where the irony/hypocrisy/bastardization comes in: when a party wants to put their faith INTO their politics then purposely eliminates the exact principles that define what they SAY Christians are about -- the teachings of Christ, the Jesus agenda -- that's the root of all their evil.

So when a Christian looks at candidates in an election year, they need to have their Jesus agenda handy. They need to look at which candidate supports policies that allow the Jesus agenda to be followed. They need to put away the concern over who will pay for it or how it will get done and just ask themselves which candidate's platform looks like the Jesus agenda. And they need to separate the number of times a candidate says "Jesus" or "God" or "pray". Because the agenda is less about the church a person goes to, or how vocal they are in their faith. The Jesus agenda is about acting, not preaching, it's about helping, not hindering. The Jesus agenda is about simple tasks that each of us can do and that each of us can elect others to do.

I am proud to say that I know more and more of the Christians who actually vote the Jesus agenda. And although I don't accept Jesus as my savior, I think his agenda is a pretty damn good one.

EDIT: After a good discussion with a friend, one who is a true moderate and a Christian, I posed this thought to Republicans

Republicans need to ask themselves if they are putting aside that which makes them Christian just to vote for that which makes them Republicans.

Ralph Nader Needs To Shut Up And Just Go Away - Updated

On Sunday, February 24, 2008, three days before his 74th birthday, Ralph Nader announced his presidential bid on Meet The Press. Happy birthday, Ralph. It is the fifth* time that Nader is running for President, previously running in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004.

I've rewritten this post in my head multiple times since Sunday waiting for my anger to subside else my post be a swear-filled rant probably topping most previous entries. Ralph Nader needs to go away. Just shut up and go away.

Don't misunderstand. Nader is an admirable man, with great credentials. His consumer advocacy is second to none. He's founded over four dozen non-profit organizations that are funded by most of his net worth according to the FEC disclosure report in 2000. Taking on the automobile industry on safety at a time when the car was king was stunning.

But one question must be asked: why does someone who has no chance of winning the highest office in the land, and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE, why would that person run again and again and again?

You can make a case for running once or twice. But this is Ralph Nader's fifth attempt at the Presidency. It's become a sad, sad joke. The power of his convictions has overtaken the rationale of his thinking. And call me cynical, but the only reason I think Nader is running is to fill his egotistical need to be in the spotlight and feel wanted.

Nader's fourth attempt in 2004 netted him a total of 463,653 votes, for 0.38% of the popular vote. Nader replied to this in filmed interviews by pointing out that, "Voting for a candidate of one's choice is a Constitutional right, and the Democrats who are asking me not to run are, without question, seeking to deny the Constitutional rights of voters who are, by law, otherwise free to choose to vote for me."

That's all well and good, Ralph, but the 2004 presidential election was up to that point, the most important election this country had ever seen. All you did was muddy up the waters. 0.38% of the popular vote is not viable, so why do it?

On principle, sure, you want to get your message out there. Here is what Nader's website states the issues are this time around:

- Adopt single payer national health insurance
- Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
- No to nuclear power, solar energy first
- Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare
- Open up the Presidential debates
- Adopt a carbon pollution tax
- Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
- Impeach Bush/Cheney
- Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
- Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
- Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
- Work to end corporate personhood

Well, it all sounds great, doesn't it? Even liberal radio talk show host Mike Malloy, when speaking of Nader's candidacy, has said that this is what the Democratic Party should have been, this is what it was gearing towards 30 years ago and we have strayed. I agree with him. But I also believe we had a Ralph Nader in this election. His name was Dennis Kucinich, and he went about his candidacy in a serious way, attempting to put his name on the ballot of every state, out there stumping on the campaign trail, trying to make his voice heard long before Nader emerged from the ground looking for the sustenance of the spotlight.

If Ralph Nader was serious about actually helping third parties or independents become viable, then why is it we hear nothing from Nader for three and a half years? Then suddenly, his coffin lid opens, he rises from the ground, dusts himself off and feeds on the egomanical blood he so desperately craves. His first official run was in 1992. That's sixteen years - SIXTEEN YEARS! - that he could have been working to make a third party legitimate and a contender, instead of eye-rolling laughable.

When asked by Tim Russert about the possibility of preventing a Democratic victory in 2008, Nader responded, "Not a chance. If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form."

On that, Nader and I can agree. But you have to ask yourself: if this is what Ralph Nader truly believes, then why bother entering the race?

UPDATE: Correction- This is Nader's third official run for the presidency. According to Wikipedia - In 1992, Nader stood in as a write-in for "none of the above" in both the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic and Republican Primaries. In 1996, Nader was drafted as a candidate for President of the United States on the Green Party ticket during the 1996 presidential election. He was not formally nominated by the Green Party USA, which was, at the time, the largest national Green group; instead he was nominated independently by various state Green parties (in some areas, he appeared on the ballot as an independent).

Will Bloomberg Run?

On New Year's Eve, Michael Bloomberg was asked by New Year's Rockin' Eve co-host Ryan Seacrest if he was planning on running for Prez. Bloomberg emphatically said he had no intention of doing so. But take a look at this video.

And this MSNBC news report on December 30th:

Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of launching an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.

It surely seems like an awful lot of of work to be doing for someone who has no intention of running. What a wrench in the works it would be if he did.

Where In The World Is Frederick of Hollywood?

I haven't heard word one on Thompson since he officially announced his candidacy. And apparently, neither has his supporters. Maybe he's in his bomb shelter awaitin' fer them Pinko Commies.

I think he’s kind of done a belly flop,” said an estranged Thompson backer who indicated he will not pull his public support before the “Super Tuesday” primaries. “We’ll just wait till after Feb. 5 because I think he’s going to get beat.”
Another GOP lawmaker said, “I’ve kind of pulled back. I’m not not supporting him, but I’m not doing anything.” With six weeks to go before the first contest, that’s not quite the enthusiasm a presidential hopeful wants to hear.

Uh... isn't "not doing anything" equivalent to not not NOT supporting him?

Cold War Fred

Thompson revealed himself to be another "not ready for prime time player" as most assumed he wouldn't be.

Edward Paul, an employee of the Delta Dental Plans Association, asked the question Monday, but had trouble being understood.

"I'm proud to say that in January 2008 New Hampshire has passed a law facilitating civil unions here. ... What is your belief for federal civil unions to be passed?" Paul asked.

"Soviet Union?" Thompson responded.

"No, civil unions," Paul said.

"Oh. No, I would not be in support of that," Thompson said.

Paul said he wasn't surprised, or impressed.

"I think he needs to do more homework on whatever state he's in and I don't think he did on that question," said Paul. He said he is a registered independent who plans to vote in the Democratic presidential primary.

What's Frederick of Hollywood's obsession with the Soviet Union? Doesn't he know that Ronald Reagan "tore down that wall"? ... another myth, by the way.

Republican Voters

Well, here's the problem. Republicans have a lackluster block of candidates, and yet listen to the responses you get (emphasis mine):

NEW YORK TIMES:

Mr. Goulet, 38, a welder foreman, voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, then did not vote in the next two elections. He now likes Mr. McCain, because of his military background. “It’s tough to send troops somewhere if you haven’t been there yourself,” Mr. Goulet said.

Josh Schultz, 28, of Lancaster, Ohio, who drives a bulldozer and also works as a mechanic, said was starting to like Mr. Romney "because he seems downt to earth."

William Sedlak, 47, a flight attendant who lives in Aliso Viejo, Calif., said he liked Mr. Giuliani because “he’s conservative enough but he’s still a little liberal enough.”

Wayne Horton, 53, who works in construction as a house framer and lives in Burton, Ohio, has been mulling the field and has decided he likes Mr. Romney because he looks presidential... Mr. Thompson? “I really don’t know much about him. I’m not that informed. Really, I just rely on TV and what my wife tells me from reading the paper, and then we talk about it over supper. We’re out
trying to make a living, so we rely on the media to tell us about the candidates’ qualifications.”

And there, in a nutshell is the mentality of the Republican voter. "He looks presidential" is a perfectly good reason to vote for someone to be President of the United States.

Mr. Horton relies on the media for the candidates qualifications but admits he's not that informed. Tells you something about the media, doesn't it? Do you think Mr. Horton knows much more about Paris Hilton or Owen Wilson than Sam Brownback or Ron Paul? Mr. Sedlak wants to be a conservative but is a closeted liberal and therefore likes Giuliani. Mr. Goulet likes McCain for his military service but his quote is confusing. “It’s tough to send troops somewhere if you haven’t been there yourself.” Does that mean that since McCain has visited Iraq he knows what it's like and can send more troops or does he hope that McCain's Vietnam experience will prevent him from causing further chaos in the Middle East?

Someday, the GOP voters will start asking questions that matter. I'm not saying that issues like immigration and right to privacy aren't important but in my opinion, health care, the war in Iraq, our straining economy and diplomatic standing in the world are priorities over the wedge issues that the Republican party uses time and time again to divide the citizens of this country.