New Group Christian Alliance emerges as alternative to Christian Coalition

[flpoljunkie]

Very interesting...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

ABC's The Note reports that this organization makes its debut today in Washington. From The Note:

According to the folks at Rabinowitz/Dorf communications, "The Christian Alliance for Progress is leading the movement to reclaim Christianity and transform American politics. The movement is deeply rooted in The Gospel and thus plays a unique role in challenging the theological and political foundations of the Christian conservative movement. They are truly a grassroots organization, and we think they'll eventually play the role of a Christian Coalition (and other Christian conservative groups), but on the left  though that's not their reason for being. In fact, we think their message challenges not just the politics of the right, but its deeper religious underpinnings." Take a gander: www.christianalliance.org

From the Christian Alliance Website:

The Movement to Reclaim Christianity and Transform American Politics

About the Alliance

The success of the Religious Right in appropriating the language of Christianity has led many people to become generally wary of religion in the public sphere and of Christianity in particular.  The Religious Right has used the language of Christianity to promote an extreme and divisive political agenda that has helped polarize our nation. But foundational Christian values like compassion, justice and peace are largely absent from our political discussion.  And there are millions of Christian Americans who share progressive views, or, at a minimum, are increasingly turned off by the extreme rhetoric and political agenda of the Religious Right.

The Christian Alliance for Progress is a national movement that started in Jacksonville, Florida among ordinary Americans who want to reclaim Christianity and change this current political picture.  Members in the movement want to restore core values of Christianity while honoring diverse views about religion and Christian life.  Many Americans, especially people of faith, are ready to hear from Christians who are tolerant, and who understand the many ways that our faiths impact our views of public life. The Christian Alliance advances a renewed, progressive vision of Gospel values and seeks to help Americans express this moral vision in our lives and in our politics


 

[gratuitous]

1. Wow, something GOOD coming out of Florida

It's a nice change.

[Ian David]

3. Finally, Christians that are actually Christian! n/t

[madeline_con]

49. Yes!

The fundies have hijacked Chrisitianity and Islam. The normal people need to wrest control of BOTH from the lunatic extremeists!

:spank:

[cprise]

7. This isn't progress.

This is backpedaling. It moves the focus away from the pluralistic Interfaith Alliance toward a Christian-only debate of political issues.

[gratuitous]

8. I'm not sure I see that

"Members in the movement want to restore core values of Christianity while honoring diverse views about religion and Christian life."

As a Christian, I have no problem with folks from other faith walks, and having worked in a group (Portland's Community of Welcoming Congregations) that included Christians of all stripes and sects, Jews, Unitarian Universalists, and non-sectarians, it's not really that difficult to be sensitive to various viewpoints and work on areas of agreement rather than focusing on disagreements. There was a time in our society when we actually did that, or at least strove for that ideal.

Christians have a lot of work to do in their own house, though, and this group looks like a good place for Christians to practice synthesizing diverse viewpoints while working toward a common goal.

[madeline_con]

48. Wouldn't it be nice...

If every time something good happened in my beautiful state, someone didn't have to make disparaging remarks like yours, or if something bad happened, it wasn't that tired old, "what do you sexpect from FL" attitude?

[Ian David]

2. This is excellent! Here's some more encouragement

See also:

Online dialogue on values and building a movement
Submitted by clnAdmin on Fri, 2005-05-06 20:28.



SPIRITUAL PROGRESSIVES:
A Dialogue on Values and Building a Movement

Are the words progressive and faith polar opposites? Of course not. But in America, the word "religious" seemingly has become synonymous with conservatism. The fact is that the religious right has spent 30 years melding Christian language with conservative political ideology. And they have been very successful. The influence of extreme right-wing religious organizations in politics and public discourse has taken America backwards, and has contributed to a divisive and coarsened politics. It has overshadowed progressives who are also people of faith. And it has created a divide of alienation between secular and religious progressives. We say enough is enough.

An Online Dialogue
------------------

On May 9th through the 20th, the Rockridge Institute, together with People for the American Way, Tikkun, Christian Alliance for Progress, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Muslim Peace Fellowship and a coalition of religious organizations, will be hosting an online dialogue on religious values and progressive political debate. Also joining us in the conversation will be scholars and noted leaders in the religious and spiritual community. Progressives from all faiths and perspectives are
invited to participate.

We want to explore the common ground between spiritual and secular progressives-to talk about who we are and why we believe what we do. What do spiritually progressive values have to say about policy issues like the environment, healthcare and war? How do spiritual progressives frame their beliefs? What unites the progressive movement? Why has this unity been so difficult to achieve? And what action can we take to promote our shared values?

More:
http://www.fvcommunity.org/beloved/node/526




What would Falwell do?

After years of near-invisibility, religious progressives want to regain their vanished political clout. But with conservatives claiming a monopoly on godliness, it's going to be a struggle of biblical proportions.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Amy Sullivan



March 10, 2005 | The Bush administration is going to hell. That, at least, could be the take-away message from a Tuesday press conference religious leaders from five major Protestant denominations held at the National Press Club. Clad in clerical collars, and invoking the Gospel story of Lazarus, a poor man ignored at the gate of a rich man's estate who went to heaven while the rich man was sent to hell, the leaders called on Congress to oppose what they called an "immoral budget" and staked a claim for moral values that don't have anything to do with abortion or gay marriage. "The 2006 budget that President Bush has sent to Capitol Hill is unjust," they charged. "It has much for the rich man and little for Lazarus." But while the press conference focused on calling attention to the need for truly compassionate policies that protect the most vulnerable in society, it had another mission as well: to assert the relevance of the religious left.

What's that, you say? The religious what?

Everyone knows about the religious right, a movement of conservative, mostly Christian, religious communities that has become increasingly involved in American politics over the last three decades. The idea that there could be a countervailing religious force, whether defined as religious progressives or simply everyone not part of the religious right, has long since been dismissed from public consciousness. Indeed, the religious left had almost forgotten about itself -- the community hadn't come together to protest a federal budget, one of the religious leaders told me, "since the early Reagan years."

And yet there was a time -- not so very long ago -- when the religious left was a powerful institution in American society and politics, when the term "religious" was not immediately assumed to connote "conservative." Moral giants with names like Reinhold Niebuhr and Dorothy Day and Martin Luther King Jr. led intellectual and social justice movements. It's nearly impossible to page through American history without coming across political causes that were driven either partly or entirely by progressive people of faith -- abolition, women's suffrage, labor reforms of the progressive era, civil rights, and any number of antiwar movements. Just a few decades ago, venerable organizations like the National Council of Churches (NCC) made pronouncements that carried not only moral weight but political influence as well. In short, the likes of Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Ralph Reed have not always dominated American politics; indeed, in the span of American history, the last three decades are an anomaly.

<snip>

For its part, although the religious left engaged in voter registration and education efforts, held bus tours, and ran newspaper ads, parts of the community remain stubbornly irrelevant. On Nov. 1, the day before the presidential election, the NCC sent out a press release on a matter of great importance to the organization: the treatment of Chinese Uighur Muslim prisoners in Guantánamo Bay. The release -- at a time when conservative evangelicals were mobilizing to increase their voting numbers by 4 million over 2000 and deliver the election to George W. Bush -- simply underscored how far the religious left has fallen from its days of national prominence.

More:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/03/10/religious_left/print.html



The Religious Left's Moment
Liberal and mainstream religious groups are becoming an increasingly visible and vital part of the antiwar movement.
By Rebecca Phillips
This fall, after major antiwar rallies in New York and Washington, it was movie stars like Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, and Martin Sheen who made headlines and got camera time for their speeches and participation. But since then the face of antiwar activism has taken on a humbler, older, and less glamorous look: that of United Methodist Bishop Melvin Talbert.

Talbert, a balding, bespectacled African-American bishop who is past president of the National Council of Churches, the organization of mainline Protestant and Orthodox Christians, appears in a new antiwar television ad that began running late January on CNN and FOX stations in New York and Washington. In the 30-second spot, sponsored by the NCC, and produced by Win Without War--an antiwar coalition of 32 national groups, from the NAACP to the National Organization of Women--Talbert says that invasion of Iraq "violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Talbert's presence in the ad campaign is symbolic of an antiwar movement that is becoming increasingly couched in religious terms.

"Religion is becoming the most important social base of opposition to the Bush race into war," said Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a prominent Jewish antiwar activist and head of The Shalom Center, a Jewish group based in Philadelphia.

More:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/121/story_12148_1.html

[KingFlorez]

30. Great!

Maybe this will wake some people up and show that being Christian isn't about a bunch of ignorant ranting and trampling all over people.

[liberal N proud]

4. I like the quote at the top of the page

"I feel embarrassed and angry that Christianity has been used to divide our country and to promote bigotry and war....
That is great and sums up some of my feelings

Thanks for posting.

[Toots]

5. Fight Fire with Fire

About Time.....But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

[AX10]

26. BINGO!

It's the only way to go.

[Totally Committed]

6. Jesus was a Liberal...

and a radical one, at that!

Bumpersticker spotted here in MA last week: "I am Christian by Choice, and a Democrat by the Grace of God"

TC

[cprise]

9. No he wasn't.

His position on slavery wasn't liberal, nor was his position on property.

That he urged the wealthy to give to the poor seems very kind (and it was for his time) but it is open for interpretation. The Right sees it as a mandate for the church to assume the role of social welfare provider (and that real social welfare administered by civil authority is intfering with divine providence); in other words, charity is the basis for a good society. Liberal Christians will never be able to refute the validity of this position, even if it is demonstrably bad for society.

[bunkerbuster1]

10. Eh. He gave Clintonian answers.

"Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's," always sounded like something Big Dog would say. Classic "definition of is" kinda thing.

Dunno if that's "liberal," but if it pisses off the Fundies to say so...

Here's the real question about Jesus I'd like to have answered by the experts here:

was He Punk Rock?

hmm?

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. Jesus a Punk? Well he had long hair, so probably not.

On the other hand, He had a few piercings ;)

[bunkerbuster1]

19. Joey Ramone had long hair

he wasn't punk rock?

[madeline_con]

50. No.

Jesus, as a beloved atheist friend of mine pointed out, fit the definition of "bum" perfectly. "Hippie" is an alternative description.

:smoke:

[Totally Committed]

11. So, you take every word in the Bible as literal?

Most of the Bible was written centuries after Jesus supposedly died.

None of it, supposedly, was written by him... only "channelled" by chosen men. The St. Paul stuff is enough to make any woman rip her hair out.

I was speaking of the "Jesus" of the "Sermon on the Mount", of the "least of my bretheran", of the "care for the poor and the sick". Not the manmade hellfire and damnation, knuckle under and pay up to Rome Jesus.

Besides... saying Jesus is a Liberal makes RW Extremist religious fanatics C R A Z Y....

TC

[cprise]

16. I take Christian interpretations of the Bible literally.

As for myself, I am a secular humanist.

Liberal Christians need to re-examine their collective assumption that the Sermon on the Mount calls for civil welfare based on economic human rights. Then you need to ask yourselves if you agree with economic human rights in the first place, or if you prefer the capriciousness of charity.

Simply wrapping yourselves in the SOTM is getting you nowhere and dragging the rest of us into debates that are chock full of posturing morality but show little concern for ethics.

[4_Legs_Good]

61. I think you're reaching...

but then again maybe we Liberal Christians are too.

Jesus instructed us to build a kingdom of God. The notion that he was only speaking of personal charity is as much an interpretation as the notion that he was speaking of organizational/state charity. In his society, when he was speaking to people who were powerless and oppressed by the authorities in Rome, he was organizing at a grassroots level. He was saying you don't need to consider government if it's ignoring your needs, you can take care of yourselves, and create a new kingdom of love and brotherhood.

It's very different from the society we live in today, with representative democracy and the ability to alleviate suffering from the top down instead. In effect, if done properly a democracy can be "A Kingdom of God", a nation that God can look down on and say "Damn! They're treating each other right!"

So say I, Master of All

david

[johnnomac]

22. Actually......

Most of the Bible was written centuries before Jesus was born. And I know plenty of women who have no objection at all to most of what St Paul said. Especially when it is taken in the context of its time.

[Gay Green]

36. The St. Paul stuff is enough to make any woman rip her hair out.

And any gay man to bang his head against the wall. :banghead:

[magnolia]

41. I think he was.

He said for the wealthy to give to the poor. Since when are the "wealthy" and the "church" the same thing. The "wealthy" are people who have a lot of money. The "church" is an organization made up of many people of various income levels for the purpose of worshipping God. Two very different things. The Right has decided that wealthy=church for the purpose of furthering their politcal agenda. What else is new! We know this! Why would we accept or qualify with our attention, their interpretations of the words of Jesus.

When Jesus was asked "what do we do about our enemies?" his answer was "love them." The Right has interpreted that to mean "kill them." Their interpretations have no rhyme or reason and aren't even worth our consideration.

If they believed in what Jesus said, they would be insisting that the Sermon on the Mount be put up all over the place, not the Ten Commandments. Unfortunately, the Sermon on the Mount doesn't fit their agenda.

In religion and all other areas, we Democrats have to stop playing defense and start playing offense. WE TELL THEM what the words of Jesus mean, instead of letting them define everything.

[cprise]

59. Jesus also believed in the Ten Commandments

And the RR's interpretation of the SOTM actually does fit their agenda. Like I said, they see welfare as a duty for charitable Christians to fulfill, and state entitlements interfere with that belief. It is not a bad interpretation, in itself, even when its insincere. Stuff like this leads me to believe that liberal Christians understand the RR probably less than anyone else.

If Jesus is the true model for a liberal, then liberalism ultimately does not take seriously the concept of economic justice.


When Jesus was asked "what do we do about our enemies?" his answer was "love them."

And the RR ignores this: Nice try, thanks for playin. A lot of Left Christians interpret this (correctly) as pacifism, so we know Jesus wasn't a conservative. But the liberal label is just as ludicrous.

[madeline_con]

51. Explain...

what is wrong with charity, if you would.

[Kurovski]

56. The position on slavery is likewise open to interpretation.

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/09/jesus_vs_slaver.html

apparently, his views on the poor are somewhat clearer.

[lukasahero]

60. It's only up for debate if you don't look at the instruction he gave,

and the question that prompted him to give it (i.e. - the entire basis of his advice.)

Luke 18:18 - 25
"And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none good, save one, , God.

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

He didn't "urge the wealthy to give to the poor", he told the wealthy to sell all they own and give it to the poor.

It wasn't about "charity", it was about how to get into Heaven. It wasn't about "aiding the poor" at all, it was about what will keep a person from coming closer to god. The question he answered wasn't about how to benefit society, it was how to "inherit eternal life". I would argue that there is no way a conservative can refute the validity of this position.

[DerekG]

27. Jesus was *not* a liberal

That he refused to bow to Satan--who offered him the world--and was unafraid to dialogue with a tyrant like Pilate indicates that the vision he presented to both the oppressed and prosperous transcends politics.

Precious few liberals are pacifists. So I suspect, when reflecting upon his call to nonviolence, that Christ would be just as unsparing to the presidents we admire as he would to thugs like Reagan and Bush.

[magnolia]

39. That's a good one!

The Virginia Young Democrats just came out with a good one too:

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God." Matthew 5 : 9
SUPPORT TRUE VALUES. VOTE DEMOCRAT.

[Nothing Without Hope]

12. I'm not Christian, but it's sure good to see these guys! The Bush-enabler

wacko ones are not Christians; what they do is OPPOSITE everything we know of the historical Jesus' teachings. They are Fristians, not Christians.

Thanks for posting this. Recommended. I hope these guys have loud, clear voices to reach all the people the Fristians have duped!

[electricray]

58. I'm not Christian either, but

I do consider at least some of Christ's teachings in my own version of spirituality. So I joined this organization because it seems like they are doing everything they can to extoll the virtues of the teachings I do value.

[usregimechange]

13. important, kick

[Nothing Without Hope]

14. Good FLASH MOVIE linked to on their home page - "Reclaim Christianity"

http://www.christianalliance.org.nyud.net:8090/atf/cf/{E5AFE725-E65D-4060-8796-B8AF6415F5B7}/front_reclaim_title.gif http://www.christianalliance.org.nyud.net:8090/atf/cf/{E5AFE725-E65D-4060-8796-B8AF6415F5B7}/thumb_flash.jpg

We made this short flash movie to introduce who we are and what we stand up for.

direct link:
http://www.christianalliance.org/becountedflash

(The link is also on the right side of their home page)

[FreedomAngel82]

33. Nice flash!

I signed up to be counted.

[Nothing Without Hope]

17. I've cross-posted in the GLBT forum - there is so much news of intolerance

there, it's good to be able to post this good news:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x12999

I also just cross-posted in the Church & State forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x2359

Again, thanks for posting this thread! Let's hope this new organization lives up to optimistic expectations.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. I'll take this at face value ... for now

If this turns out to be what it purports to be, then its a good thing. Not radical left or right. Just honest. That's all I ever ask for.

That said, I find myself unhealthily cynical these days when nothing is what it seems to be. And no one is more manipulative than the religious extremists coupled with the criminal cabal.

So I'll wait and see.

[geniph]

20. The difference between the Christian right and the Christian left:

The Christian right invariably quotes Leviticus and the Ten Commandments (conveniently ignoring the other 120 or so commandments).

The Christian left quotes, and tries to live by, the Beatitudes.

[Miss Chybil]

21. Oh, so they're made up of Christ-like Christians? Good. nt

[Nikki Stone 1]

23. New Testament's earliest texts from 4th Century AD

These were allegedly copied from earlier texts. The 4th century (the 300s) was the time of Constantine and of the Council of Nicea, which Constantine convened for the purpose of unifying the various Christian traditions which had surfaced by that time and for the purpose of bringing Christianity more in line with the Roman empire.

Because the earliest extant texts are from the 4th century, scholars have had to trace back the order of the NT books from internal information and references made in other ancient works of the time.

Most scholars agree that the letters of Paul were probably the earliest texts, first written some time in the 40's (AD). None of the Gospels predate Paul's letters. All of the Gospels are thought to have been written after the first Jewish war against Rome (AD 66-70). At the end of this war, the future Roman emperor Titus burned the temple in Jerusalem and banished the people from the city.

This was the point at which the Christian movement (which was centered in Jerusalem) found it necessary to write histories of Jesus and of the movement itself, as the central headquarters was lost.

[snowbear]

24. Water Cronkite, spokesman for "Interfaith Alliance" is pretty cool..

..as far as religious affiliations go. ~~ :headbang:

It's not just "Christians" but is made up of countless religions. They don't believe politics and religion should EVER be combined ~ :kick:

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/

[Nikki Stone 1]

29. The Interfaith Alliance is the REAL deal

Don't know about this other group. Could always be there to make fundamentalism more palatable to the less warlike. Wonder who is backing them.

[FreedomAngel82]

34. I really like them too

[KittyWampus]

25. kick

[DS9Voy]

28. WTF?

Why would they need two of the same thing?

[AspenRose]

31. Thank God...now we need an alternative to

Focus on the Family.

Teach kids acceptance, not just tolerance, of others a la MLK. Now THERE was a Christian man.

[FreedomAngel82]

35. Hear hear

God bless him.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. This is such a great site!

Thank you!!!

[Lofty Balsams]

37. Take it with a pillar of salt

Sounds like a "Good Cop, Bad Cop" ploy.

[Don_1967]

38. Great site !!

As a real Christian I loved this site if you did please check out this site http://www.liberalslikechrist.org. JESUS was & is a liberal check it out for your self an find the truth..

[insane_cratic_gal]

40. On the issues

Anything remotely related to a religion sends me into a defensive posture these days, I went and looked at their site. I of course went right for the issues section.

<Snip>

Caring for the Earth - Responsible Environmental Stewardship for Today
Jesus urged his followers to be good stewards and to act for good in the world here and now. We respond by caring for God's created world today, holding our environment in trust for our children.



Rejecting Bigotry, Embracing Dignity - Equality for Gays and Lesbians
Jesus taught equality, justice and obligation. We accept Jesus' call to love one another and to welcome all God's children at the table.


Honoring the Sanctity Of Childbearing Decisions
Effective Prevention vs. Criminalizing Abortion
Jesus taught compassion, responsibility, and equality. Following his call, we support responsible, compassionate programs that are genuinely effective in helping prevent unintended pregnancy. We affirm that each woman's body belongs to herself. No woman should be forced either to bear a child or to terminate a pregnancy.

[ClintonTyree]

42. Christian Americans?

"And there are millions of Christian Americans who share progressive views, or, at a minimum, are increasingly turned off by the extreme rhetoric and political agenda of the Religious Right".

Good message, but now we have "Christian Americans"? Why can't we just be plain old "Americans"? :shrug: It sounds like we're once again dividing Americans into subsets. Will we see "Christian American Pride" parades and festivities, or will they be banned as Gay Pride activities have?

We don't need another qualifier to, "American". Black, Hispanic, White, Christian, Muslim......we're all AMERICANS first, whatever else you want to tack onto that should be at the end, not before "American".

This is just one of those little things that bugs the hell out of me.

[madeline_con]

53. Why can't we just be plain old "Americans"?

Because the world needs to know that not all Christians go along with the lunatic fringe in Washington.

Just as normal Muslims want the world to understand that people who strap on bombs and kill innocent people are misinterpreting the Quran, the RW nuts are doing the same with the Bible.


>>>"......we're all AMERICANS first, "<<

O.K you win. American Christians. Feel better?

[4_Legs_Good]

62. "we're all AMERICANS first"...

Good Lord! No we're not!! At least not me. I am many MANY things before I'm an American.

America is where I live, it's where I make my home, it's where I choose to stay, it's the country I love.

But I'm a father, a husband, a son, a human being, a vegetarian, a Catholic and who knows what else before I'm an "American".

I guess maybe it means I somehow hate America, but give me a choice between my country and my family, and C-ya America!

david

[JRob]

43. dare we dream?

hopefully it will not be a fart in a wind storm...

[UrbScotty]

44. "LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU." John 13:34 (nt)

[azureblue]

45. How to stop a Theocon & reinforce true Christianity

I've used this a few times, and it always stops them. Converted one, too:
Whatever they come up with, simply reply, "what did Christ teach us about that?"
They will attempt to defend their version of cafeteria Christianity, and, in doing so, say something that goes against what Christ taught. Point this out, and let them try to defend. Inevitably, they will revert to church dogma. So the retort is," well, you refuse to believe and follow the teachings of Christ, so you are logically, not a Christian. Further, Christ says very plainly, "there are two commandments above all others, "love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and love you neighbor (fellow man) as yourself"". So, if you are to be a Christian, you must follow His teachings."

[madeline_con]

54. Lo, many a thread has had

its resident "Christian" leave after a post like that! KUDOS!!

[Singular73]

46. This is outstanding.

I've been waiting for someone to do this.

Right-wing radical fundementalist Christian groups were becoming WAY too scary to be allowed to represent Christianty.

[leftchick]

47. The Comment of the day is perfect!

This is exactly how I feel...

"I had become very discouraged with my church and had stopped going. It was evident that too many people were not living the teachings of Jesus and had some other egocentric agenda. How could someone believe that being prolife stopped at birth. That war was EVER ok in place of peace. That we were to hate anyone. I am grateful for this website and its message. Most of all I am grateful to know that there are others who feel as I do. Thank you."

[madeline_con]

52. This thread...

has turned into a Christ-bashing! Freaky!

The way I see it, the party needs all the help it can get, whatever the religious beliefs of the source of that help. The Atheists have given it their best shot. Let's give the REAL Christians a turn.

Just my 2 cents. :)

[Nothing Without Hope]

63. I'm not a Christian, but I believe that Jesus had world-changing ideas

that were especially amazing for his time. Tolerance, love, compassion, generosity - how much better this society would be for all if these cornerstones of his teaching were embraced by ALL the people who use his name! Sounds to me like this new group is trying to promote just that, and I'm very glad to see it.

[progressivebydesign]

55. I'm thrilled! The rightwing Christians have driven me to atheism. n/t

[baron j]

57. Good on them if their intentions are good, but I still feel uneasy

about all of these various organizations with complicated, difficult to remember names. They creep me out.