Unitarians say: “Vote Democrat”
By JR Hoeft | Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010 | PoliticsJesus has often been called a communist. While others still think there’s a bit of a capitalist in Him. (see CNN)
Personally, I think He is the Lord of all, the incarnate God, whose grace and mercy has given me salvation from damnation for my sins.
But that’s just me.
That is, also, of course, why this post on a Unitarian Church’s website is so troubling.
Is there really a need for such shameless promotion via a church?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
30 Responses to "Unitarians say: “Vote Democrat”"
The liberal progressive left has no problem whatsoever with the fallacious “separation of church and state” argument when it is about left-wing progressive politics. They just don’t want the faith of constitution loving, liberty minded conservatives, especially actual Christians, to influence politics. Do as they say, not as they do.
JR: I’m not a religious scholar but I believe Unitarian Universalist is different denomination than just plain Unitarian. That said, that message has no place on a church website.
Karen: If you’re determining who “actual Christians” are because of their political leanings, you may be as big a part of the problem at the Unitarian Universalist blogger.
People can disagree with you politically without being heathens or evil. They could just be wrong.
I’m not picking on you, I made this same point yesterday when Blue Virginia called Bob Marshall a ‘bigot” and “latently gay” because of his National Guard proposal.
Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about politics without one side or the other having bad motives.
This reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Bart goes over to play with Ned Flanders’ kids. The video game they get to play is like “Bible Thumper” or something where you run around trying to hit people with your Bible — in which case they convert from an unbeliever into a Christian.
Bart sits there playing — Space Invaders shoot-em-up sounds and all. One of the Flanders kids speaks up:
“I think you grazed him — that one became a Unitarian.”
@ Steve-
“Actual Christians” means those who claim Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, and seek to genuinely live out the principles of Christianity however imperfectly human beings live their lives.
Christianity is not a political label, except to the Left.
Those of us who proclaim our faith and are involved in politics (as opposed to sitting quietly in our private spiritual corners hoping everything “gets better”) are the ones who are not supposed to “mix church and state”.
I was pointing out the absolute inconsistency that the left, and anti-Christian people have when it comes to the “separation of church and state” or the “imposition of values”.
The Left takes to heart Orwell’s statement in 1984 – “Some people are more equal than other people”. This is especially true for those of us who seek to maintain the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States, and the cultural traditions like Menorahs and Creches in the public square and “Merry Christmas being a blessing instead of an offensive curse.
We are not as equal as those who seek to eradicate or marginalize the influence orthodox Christianity or Judaism in our culture, our laws and our history.
However, “interfaith groups” which are leftist progressive, co-opt the language of faith to advance progressive political policies. The left wing media machine and liberal cultural icons welcome this “faith based influence” because it isn’t grounded in historic Christianity and Judaism. Hence the Unitarian website that overtly promotes the Democrat party – will they be reported to the IRS for their partisan stance? The odds are no. If a Christian Pastor, or a Rabbi dared to do the same- he would be a hate monger and subject to hate crimes law.
It’s already happened.
Gee Karen, rather than being fallacious, I thought the concept of the separation of church and state was referring to the first amendment of the constitution. Reading your extended explanations, I would suggest that if you wish to display wisdon that you post no more on this topic.
The lie that the left puts forth that Jesus is a communist or socialist displays their lack of knowledge of Scripture or Christian theology. Sadly, far too many on the right share this lack of familiarity with Christianity as they too have sat too long in churches that no longer believe the Scriptures. As a result, too few can give an answer to this absurdity.
Jesus did say we should care for the poor, sick and widows. . .BUT He didn’t say that the Roman government should do it, He said we believers (the Church) should do it.
He also always called us to voluntarily follow Him, He didn’t coerce or recommend taxing people unfairly to meet these ends. He always dealt with us as individuals. “If you will follow Me. . .” Voluntary.
While Christians are to pay legitimate taxes to support the functions of secular government, Nowhere does Jesus support unfair taxation to meet the needs of the poor which He clearly said were the responsibility of the church and not the government.
The question is would not Jesus support greater tax breaks for those who contribute to the church to care for the poor? I doubt it, but much more logical than to claim He is a socialist.
Karen: I see. You believe Christians are persecuted in America and that there is a “War on Christmas”
Okay. We disagree. Doesn’t make you a bad person.;-)
If you feel that strongly about the website, which I agree with you is inappropriate, why don’t you report them to the IRS? That’s certainly your right as a citizen.
“The Left takes to heart Orwell’s statement in 1984 – Some people are more equal than other people.’”
That’s your opinion, which you’re certainly entitled to. But I gaurantee you there are folks on the “Left” who’d substitute the “Right” or “the Radical Right” or the “Christian Right” into you sentence and find it an entirely truthful statement.
My take is that neither the people on the “left” or the “right” in America, which are much closer than they are in most other democratic countries, are seeking to turn it into a totalitarian state. Everybody is trying to make the country better, to make American more fully realize its promise, we just disagree on the best way to go about that and about what a more perfect America would look like. But nobody in mainstream politics in America is a “fascist” or a “communist.” I suppose there are a few socialists because there’s a self-identified one in the U.S. Senate. The terms “conservative,” “liberal,” “moderate” and “progressive” are so elastic in American politics that they mean pretty much whatever the user wants them to mean.
For example, the “conservative” position on abortion in America expouses the theory that the state should interpose its judgement over that of a woman and her doctor in regard to her reproductive health. Seems like a big, intrusive government to me.
And the “liberal” position on gun control is that the state should have a monopoly on armed force. That seems to me to be a pretty authoritarian view of government and a pretty limited view of the rights of the individual, in short pretty “conservative.”
The point of the ramble was, I guess, that things are not as black and white as they may appear.
DV- to try to enlist Jesus in 20th century political debates, on whichever side, seems me futile and, if you’re a believer — I’m not, somewhat sacreligious.
But if we have to enlist his opinion on anything. he’s pretty clear on the “War on Christmas.” He was very specific about what his followers should do “in rememberance of me” and it didn’t include shopping, mistletoe, church services or really any recognition of his day of birth. He also didn’t sanctify any reverence for the cross or placing any signifance on the day of his death, which would probably have horrified him, since his message was about the love of God and love of each other. It seems to me like a message about how to live happily in the world that’s been perverted into a death cult over the years.
But then again, I’m a self-confessed heathen.
“Some people are more equal than other people”.
Wasn’t that “Some pigs are more equal than others” from Animal Farm?
Also:
“anti-Christian people have when it comes to the “separation of church and state””
Do you not think that any Christians actually believe in a strong separation of church and state? I think that Jesus actually supported such a separation with his clear distinction between the two:
Mark 12:17
Leave the clowning to Kirwin, J.R.
Who cares what the Unitarians think? They’re Protestants so they’re all going to Hell anyway, right? At least that is what my Irish-German Catholic mother taught me to believe, along with Sister Mary Euthanasia when I attended Sacred Heart School.
Well, Jim… “Unitarian Universalist” kinda says it all. Since their theology is so *ahem* lacking *cough*, it does spill over into other things…
@Mike B “Gee Karen, rather than being fallacious, I thought the concept of the separation of church and state was referring to the first amendment of the constitution. ”
First Amendment to the Constitution:
Nowhere does the First Amendment talk about “separation of church and state.” This is a FEDERAL law prohibiting Congress from setting up a State religion, like, say, Anglicanism in Britain??? And also prohibiting Congress from persecuting/banning/squelching religious speech/affiliation/activity.
The First Amendment does NOT say, “Religion, there’s your corner, and Federal Government, that’s yours. Here’s the wall between you, and don’t either of you ever try to cross it.”
Our Founders did not view the two entities as adversaries or as unconnected; the State could be guided by the Church in moral and spiritual matters – marriage and family relations, personal integrity, true charitable assistance, proportional criminal punishment and restoration &c. – while the Church would be blessed by the law enforcement and order and general protection of citizens by the State.
Not “separation,” which is found in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists [link]- assuring them that the GOVERNMENT is prohibited from infringing on RELIGION.
The Danbury Baptists’ concern was [link] -
Jefferson was reassuring the Baptists, not barring the Church from advising and influencing the State. Context, dearie. CONTEXT.
(Oh, and HEY, KAREN!!! Remember me? I’m one of your downline people *grinz* [Gotta get some orders in....])
Kat, to an extent, I must disagree. There is a seperation. It should be apparent that the text you just quoted maintains that Federal law must be neutral in reference to religion. “Establishment” in context refers to an external establishment of religion, not an establishment by the state. The key words being “respecting an establishment of”. Clearly, the Federal Government is prohibited from favoring or harming a religion or interfere with practice.
That is a seperation, but does that mean that Congressmen or other persons of the federal government must show a lack of religion? No. And you wouldn’t have to apologize for wishing someone a Merry Christmas or being sworn in on the Bible. Does it mean electeds are prohibited from having spiritual advisors? No.
It simply means that a specific religion can not be propped up or gain some sort of advantage, nor can it be specifically harmed or harmed indirectly by an assault on all religions. Specifically through legislation.
@ Steve Vaughan “My take is that neither the people on the “left” or the “right” in America, which are much closer than they are in most other democratic countries, are seeking to turn it into a totalitarian state.”
I would have agreed with you before the last few years, although totalitarianism (unlike simple dictatorship) is essentially incompatible with conservatism and most obviously Constitutional limited government.
The Left today has basically sided with the totalitarian ideologues of the Left and has abandoned the more moderate “anticommunist” liberalism that had dominance in the Democrat party up to the 1980s and 90s. Witness their strong affection for Cuba, Venezuela and China. Obama is the first Dem President to systematically include these ideologues in the government.
Steve,
You started to go where I was going with this: the Unitarian congregation can lose their tax-exempt status over that post. Paging the IRS….
Karen,
Where do I start?
Your TEA Party has tried to throw moral issues under the bus in pursuit of a brain-dead fiscal agenda, then you want to pose as a defender of America’s moral fabric? Left to the TEA Party, the GOP would nominate fiscally fringe right candidates over social conservatives.
Also, had to shake my head at your comment about our Judeo-Christian heritage. While historically correct, you’re violating the Constitution’s establishment clause in giving preference to one religious sect over another.
The TEA Party: the group that best understands the Constitution – NOT!
HisRoc,
As a devout Catholic, I can tell you your mother was largely right.
Sorry Kat, I prefer TJ’s interpretation to yours.
Is someone is going to complain about this Unitarian website then they need to balance this against what you will hear on right wing, tax exempt AFR (American Family Radio). They only interview and then praise Republican candidates on their broadcasts for agreeing with them on political issues.
I recently hauled a load from Texas to Virginia through the Bible Belt and was able to sample some of the broadcasts of more local Christian radio right after the repeal of DADT (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) and I can tell you much of what I sampled was much more flagrant then what you can hear on AFR, however AFR is national in scope so perhaps more familiar to most of you.
Happy Festivus For The Rest Of Us!
Shall we begin the Airing of Grievances?
I got a lot of problems with you people, starting with the Tea Party Movement! Nationally, they managed to ensure that the Democrats maintained control of the Senate by running unelectable bozos against vulnerable Democrats. Exhibit A: Sharon Angle against Dirty Harry Reid in Nevada. Locally, they ran Keith Fimian in VA-11 to ensure that Gonzo Gerry Connolly could be one of the few 2008 House freshmen to survive the Tsunami of 2010.
Pass the meatloaf.
LD: I wouldn’t say that Christian radio commenting on the repeal of DADT was violating the rules against being non-partisan. There is, after all, a religious dimension to that issue. There are people who have sincere religious beliefs that don’t condone homosexuality. I don’t agree with those beliefs, but the folks who hold them have a right to air them.
Steve Vaughn,
But on AFR even when we get into other issues beyond morality, they have ways of voicing that the Republicans are right.
How about economics? AFR has an opinion on that too.
@HisRoc –
…only if proceeded by the Feats of Strength!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, Greg Habeeb. Greg Habeeb said: Congrats to my opponent for getting the support of the Unitarian Universalists of Arlington. http://tinyurl.com/33828gf [...]
Unitarians… the ones that begin all prayers? with “To Whom it May Concern” Yes they a religious organization under the IRS code for tax purposes. The question here is were the directors of this specific blog/group aware of and sanctioning or approving the post as a tenet of their group? If so they are subject to losing their tax exempt status.
JTR,
How about then we analyze AFR? Are the directors of this network aware they only endorse candidates from one political party in what they broadcast?
Let me quote you: “Yes they a religious organization under the IRS code for tax purposes.” But where do we draw the line and where is when we draw the line only keeping them under the line so long as they agree with us?
The 1st Amendment is not only for those who agree with me.
LD, Is AFR a 501c3 or 501c4. Both are non profit but donations to one are deductible and donations to the other are not. In the case of a non profit who is involved in political speech or process, donors may NOT deduct contributions for tax purposes. I would be fairly confident that the UUA is a full 501c3 which prohibits them from political expenditures and activities.
i think its a slight stretch to equate a personal user profile encouraging people to vote democratic to the entire Unitarian Universalist church promoting Democrats.
From the same Green Sanctuary Church. If they realise that Human Sacrifice is a great way to cut personal CO2 emissions, perhaps it would be time to worry about them.
“Green Action initiatives in every area of church life, from worship services, religious education and building upgrades to educational projects on reducing personal CO2 emissions and cooperation with other churches in political action – have led to our church being formally accredited as a “Green Sanctuary”* by the national Unitarian Universalist Association.”
http://uucava.ning.com/page/uuca-green-action
Thank You Lord for my cheap electricity.
Karen is 100% absolutely right, and if you disagree, I question your sanity.
Anyone who doesn’t see that conservative, religious activism is treated differently than liberal, religious activism is blind or lying.
Karen is 100% absolutely right, and if you disagree, I question your sanity. Anyone who doesn’t see that conservative, religious activism is treated differently than liberal, religious activism is blind or lying.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.