Who would Jesus vote for?

[bhavv]

Maybe you're to think 'If Jesus was alive today?'.

Its not really a difficult assumption to make.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Different time, different upbringing, different cultural background means Jesus would be a different person..

 

[Sommerswerd]

I am flabergasted by the number of UK Parties ... Are they all viable? In the US we only have 2 viable parties (Democrats and Republicans)

 

[bathsheba666]

People who have been crushed under an IDF tank or bulldozer are not in a position to vote - unless three days have passed since.

I guess this would also explain the number of Palestinian children mown down by IDF guns -
when will He learn how bad an idea it is saying 'let they among you without sin cast the first stone'

Complete rabble rouser.

 

[classical_hero]

Actually Jesus was quite the social radical. He would not vote for the socially conservative parties as they are now.

If you look at his position on marriage it is most definitely the message of social conservatism. He defines it as one man and one woman for life. He obeyed the law, not what the religious leaders of the time had put up as the law, since they made it so bad that it was against the law. But he could offer forgiveness for those who break the law since he was the lawgiver. But many people seem to think that social conservatives don't give to the poor, what we don't believe is that it is the governments job to do that and rather that we believe it is the individual to do that and as a result most of us very generous givers to charity. You will never find in Jesus' message that the government should be looking after the poor, in fact he said that we will always have poor with us, certainly not a progressive message.

 

[Borachio]

Well, now...

... who'd vote for Jesus?

 

[JollyRoger]

Did Jesus go against the Old Testament's call for collective responsibility for the poor? The whole governance system was taxation by tithing and mandated gleaning rights. The sin of Sodom was actually a collective failure to care for the poor.

 

[Borachio]

You will never find in Jesus' message that the government should be looking after the poor, in fact he said that we will always have poor with us, certainly not a progressive message.

Wow! Double, and Triple, Wow!

Is that really how you interpret it? That's so unlike how I see it, I can't quite believe you really think this.

Sure, Jesus never says that the government should be looking after the poor, but you seem to think that this means the government shouldn't be looking after the poor. They're really not the same idea at all.

As for always having the poor with us, I'd interpret that as meaning that the system is so set up that some people will always be at the bottom of the pile. An inevitable, if regrettable, feature of the real material world if you like. It's not "not a progressive message" but a pessimistic, if realistic, one, imo. Give human beings, and Jesus, a break, why don't you?

Honestly, Mr Hero, I think your religious views are maybe verging on psychosis sometimes. Still, I don't know do I? But you do worry me.

 

[JollyRoger]

Jesus would run a local NAACP group.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

He wouldn't concern Himself with partisan politics. Pretty much all major political parties are in opposition to the teachings of Christ in some way or another.

 

[classical_hero]

Wow! Double, and Triple, Wow!

Is that really how you interpret it? That's so unlike how I see it, I can't quite believe you really think this.

Sure, Jesus never says that the government should be looking after the poor, but you seem to think that this means the government shouldn't be looking after the poor. They're really not the same idea at all.

As for always having the poor with us, I'd interpret that as meaning that the system is so set up that some people will always be at the bottom of the pile. An inevitable, if regrettable, feature of the real material world if you like. It's not "not a progressive message" but a pessimistic, if realistic, one, imo. Give human beings, and Jesus, a break, why don't you?

Honestly, Mr Hero, I think your religious views are maybe verging on psychosis sometimes. Still, I don't know do I? But you do worry me.

This thread is specifically about Jesus and what his potential political views would be. It doesn't matter whether you think governments should or shouldn't do, we are talking about the views of Jesus. It is pretty clear from his words.

But if you say give everyone one million dollars, then the poor will all have one mill dollars and will still be poor compared to someone else. Many people just do not realise how rich we are even the very poorest of the poor in our society Many of the poor complain about not being able to afford many of the modern luxuries, but a few centuries ago the poor would simply be struggling to survive. Poor is simply a relative term since the average poor in the west is far richer than the majority of the world.

 

[warpus]

I don't think Jesus would care how the poor get fed, as long as they get fed. If the government was doing it, he wouldn't be against it. No way is that something Jesus would do - can you imagine?

"Sorry guys, stop feeding poor people, you're doing it wrong" - Maybe you're talking about a different Jesus, because from my understanding he would be happy that poor people are fed and leave it at that.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Jesus would certainly not support any of the major parties. Any candidate whose polices were good enough to win Christ's vote would be so unelectable that there wouldn't be any point in voting anyway.

If you look at his position on marriage it is most definitely the message of social conservatism. He defines it as one man and one woman for life. He obeyed the law, not what the religious leaders of the time had put up as the law, since they made it so bad that it was against the law. But he could offer forgiveness for those who break the law since he was the lawgiver. But many people seem to think that social conservatives don't give to the poor, what we don't believe is that it is the governments job to do that and rather that we believe it is the individual to do that and as a result most of us very generous givers to charity. You will never find in Jesus' message that the government should be looking after the poor, in fact he said that we will always have poor with us, certainly not a progressive message.

The "conservative" position on marriage in Jesus's time was that a woman could never divorce her husband at all but a man could unilaterally divorce his wife at any time and for any reason, so long as he provided her with a get (a document making it clear that the relationship was over and that she was free to pursue relations with other men without it being considered adultery).

Shammai took the more radical view that a man could not divorce his wife without an extremely good reason.

Jesus (who usually had more in common with Hillel than Shammai) took a position close to Shammai's but even more radical, where sexual immorality was the only sort of defect that could excuse a man divorcing his wife. He then went even further by banning divorcees from remarrying.

The conservative Jewish position at the time was also that polygamy is perfectly acceptable for the few men wealthy enough to afford supporting multiple wives without lessening their standard of living. Jesus was closer to the Samaritan position in requiring monogamy.

Jesus's views on marriage were so far from conservative that his disciples thought it would be foolish for any man to marry under such terms.

Conservatives in Jesus's culture greatly pressured men to marry, but Jesus held that some individuals are better suited for marriage and others for celibacy.

No one in that context even considered the issue of same sex marriage.




Social conservatives certainly give to the poor, but in my experience they don't tend to be cheerful givers. The way I've heard several individuals at my family's conservative Southern Baptist church talk about the poor frankly disgusts me. They have an extremely paternalistic attitude, assuming the worst and demanding strict (and costly) means testing before giving anything. There also seems to be of the view that the poor should be required to listen to their lecturing and proselytizing before being given anything, but that being willing to listen to he poor talk about the hardships in their own lives is pointlessly opening oneself to being scammed. Such conservatives may give he poor money, food, clothes, etc, but they don't give them much respect. Their giving seems to have less to do with actually helping the recipients as with elevating the givers, seeking to make themselves look better to their peers and also seeking rewards in heaven.

(Incidentally, studies have shown that non-religious conservatives are by far the least charitable demographic. Those on the left who are not religious are significantly more charitable, although still significantly less charitable than those who are religious. There is no statistically significant difference in charitable giving per capita between the religious right and the religious left, although as a whole the religious right gives more due to their greater numbers. They probably have more strings attached though, and might not be as effective in their altruism.)



It is worth noting that Jesus's statement that "the poor shall always be with you" is a direct quote from Deuteronomy, and that the very same chapter of Deuteronomy promises the Israelites that "there shall be no poor among your own people" so long as they follow the law of Moses. This section emphasizes the need to follow the law protecting Gleaner's Rights and requiring tithes of the first-fruits of all agricultural products to be redistributed to those who are not land owners. These protections are explicitly guaranteed not only for poor Israelites but also for any poor foreigners who choose to journey through or settle in the land.

Statutes limiting immigration, or even denying illegal immigrants equal access to the social safety net programs provided for native born citizens, are thus completely contrary to the law of God.

Jesus explicitly says that he will judge nations based on how they treat the least of these, which expressly includes whether they welcome foreigners.

I think it is fair to say that Jesus would support a policy of Open Borders, which is far more liberal than most democrats or progressives are willing to accept.



When not publicly caught in a trap, Jesus strongly implied that there is no duty to pay taxes. He does so any way, not because the taxing authority is legitimate but because he considers it more wrong to offend those who think it is. Earthy rulers are like robbers who take from foreigners while enriching their own families. Jesus never suggested resisting taxes, but also never supported resisting ordinary robbers. Instead he taught "do not resist evil." (Note that the word translated "resist" is ἀνθίστημι and implies holding one's ground against an assault and fighting back in kind, especially when one could just run away to avoid conflict. The verb does seem to encapsulate the action of conservative "Culture Warriors.")

Jesus taught that the rulers of the nations lord over them and exercise their authority down over those beneath them, but that it must not be so among us.

Frankly, Jesus sounds most like an Anarcho-Pacifist.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Jesus loves everone!!!

Unless you're happen to be a Red.

 

[LucyDuke]

Jesus would vote for downtown.

 

[civvver]

Well on the surface I think if there were such a thing as a pure communal society, a true communism, then Jesus' teachings would most mirror that. A society in which everyone loves their neighbor as themselves, people give to those less fortunate and no one is a slave to materialism.

But Jesus also taught about making good decisions with money and the gifts and talents God gave you, in different parables and such. I don't think he'd be opposed to a capitalist society as long as it was based around fairness, where you are rewarded for providing fair and good service or products to others, not the selfish capitalism we usually think of today where the wealthy take advantage of the poor and people take shortcuts to rip each other off.

Ultimately I don't think Jesus cares about political stances at all, all he really cares about is that you are a decent human being who loves and cares for your fellow man, whether you do that through capitalism, socialism, communism or any other -ism you can think of. Jesus didn't directly say but Paul wrote to the Corinthians a passage about if you speak in tongues of men and angels and give all your possessions away to the poor but don't have love you are nothing. Jesus is more about love than a specific set of actions/politics. Therefore I vote apolitical.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I find it interesting that most of the atheist/agnostic crowd supports the ideas that Jesus would be apolitical or feels unqualified to try to "speak for him," but our favorite self purported true believer has not the slightest hesitation about stepping up and saying "if Jesus were here he would say I was right, no doubt about it." Somewhere Jesus is flipping through a big book saying "Where did I tell them to be so flaming arrogant? I'm sure I never commanded that!"

 

[JollyRoger]

Jesus would vote for downtown.

That could hurt downtown politically.

 

[warpus]

If Jesus voted for downtown and downtown voted for Jesus.. could they make it into a PR stunt that would benefit them both politically?

 

[gay_Aleks]

No, the idea of democracy would fall into a singularity and they would rule the world as eternal dictators.

You know, like in the Bible?