People sometimes ask which political party Jesus or God would belong to, if he were a U.S. citizen.  That's not just a purely hypothetical question. Because no one anticipates that either Jesus nor God is ever going to become an American citizen and be asked how they want to register to vote, it's pointless to ask how they would vote.  What is pertinent "people of faith" to ask is what Jesus and/or God may think about the human conditions in our various times and places and how they might want their followers to impact those conditions.  For anyone who imagines that Jesus was or would be "above politics", we urge the reading of Jesus&politics.html, where I address that very issue in depth.

        When Adolf Hitler was promoting the invasion and subjugation of the entire European continent, and the extermination of every Jew that his SS could get their hands on, how can anyone imagine that it did not matter to Jesus whether his followers joined or opposed the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" ?  For his misguided efforts to "keep the Church out of politics", Pius XII earned the unenviable title of "Hitler's Pope". 
        When the "Grand Old Party" came into existence in President Lincoln's day, can you imagine that Jesus would not have wanted his followers to be "Republicans" (not to be confused with the party that bears that name today), and to participate energetically in that party's heroic campaign to eradicate the scourge of slavery from the United States of America?  Actually, as we show at JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/BibleBeltChristianity.html, that there are still Christian Conservatives in the Bible Belt who believe that segregation and even slavery are called for by the 'Word of God'.  That misquided way of interpreting the bible would certainly move its adherents to embrace today's Conservative Republican Party over the more Liberal Democratic Party.

        Teddy Roosevelt was another great "Republican" President, whom Jesus might well have recognized as a man after his own heart.  Not only did he fight to preserve vast areas of the country from those who were bent on exploiting the public's land, water and air for their own selfish gain, but he also fought on behalf of oppressed working people for many of the reasons that would later be embraced by the Democratic Party under his even more liberal cousins, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.
        Over the decades, both major parties have had their share of men and women of high moral character on the one hand,  and of remarkably low moral character on the other, and they still do.  In the 20th century, however,   a very consistent pattern emerged at the national level in America.  Whenever weaker members of our society  – or in the world at large –  were being bullied by more powerful groups, if either party went to the aid of the oppressed, it was the "Liberal" party,  while the "Conservative" party could be counted on to do all in its power to preserve (or "conserve") the power and privileges of the whites over "coloreds", of the well-to-do over the poor, of men over women, of straights over gays, of those long immigrated over those trying to get into America now, and on and on.  ( We dedicate a whole web page elsewhere to what appears to be the one exception, abortion.  *1 )

      If there is a just and holy God, there will never be a political party anywhere that will rate a perfect score from him (or her), simply because it's impossible to make a perfect whole out of imperfect parts.  So long as political parties, and other human institutions – including churches – have to draw their membership and leaders from the pool of defective human beings, there is no way that they can even approach perfection.  ( In this connection, Southern Baptists are convinced that Roman Catholics are deluded for believing that they are "God's one and only true church".  And Roman Catholics are convinced that Southern Baptists are deluded for believing that their's is the only correct road to salvation.  The rest of mankind knows that the Baptists and Catholics are both right:   they are indeed both deluded! )
        Since Conservative "Bible-believing" Republicans have been trying to lay claim to the title of "GOD's Party", pious Jews, Muslims and Christians who know and believe in that same Bible have every right to ask where these people get that kind of gall !  Displayed below is much of the Bible's most important teaching about how God expects his followers to treat their "neighbors".  Interspersed with that teaching are the many ways in which Democratic presidents and / or Democratic congresses have responded to the needs of a whole array of needy people, both in our own country and in the world at large.
        While the Democratic Party was responding to the needs of all of the poor, the weak, the oppressed, and the ordinary working men and women of America just the way the Bible says that we should, more often than not, the Republican Party opposed those very efforts.  And very often the conservative Democrats or "Dixiecrats" of the so-called "Bible Belt" sided with the Republican Party.  Indeed, ever since the G.O.P. has become the outright champions of native born, English-speaking, male, white, upper class privilege, most of those former Dixiecrats have been switching their allegiance to the new and revised Republican (or should that be "Confederate") Party. 

        When Jesus said "By their fruits, you will know them!"  he meant that people manifest their true character, not by what they say or "profess", but by what they do. Political parties being nothing but groups of people organized for public purposes should likewise be judged by the public policies which they promote and pursue.  If actions do indeed speak louder than words, then the record below makes it abundantly clear which of America's two major parties has been acting "under the influence" of the Bible's teaching, and which has not.

        ( If you have trouble with "mixing religion and politics",  before going any further on this page, we urge you to read "They say that Religion & Politics don't mix.")

        "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ...  it expects what never was and never will be."  – Thomas Jefferson

       Christians usually start with the "New" Testament, but that part of the Bible cannot be understood properly without the context of its foundation, what the Jews call the "Law and the Prophets".  There is a very important difference in the way the Hebrew and Christian scriptures deal with one's obligations toward the needy.   More often than not, the emphasis in the Gospels and Epistles is on loving those who may not have earned that love, i.e.  loving out of charity.  Although they, too, occasionally call for that kind of love of neighbor as well, more often than not what the "Law and the Prophets" emphasize is something more basic, and in a sense more urgent, than charity, i.e.  doing what is right by others for justice' sake.  And that contrast is very, very significant.
       While the New Testament allows for the impression that we must give to the needy what belongs to us (i.e.  out of charity), the Old Testament spells out many duties that we have to help the needy,  because they are entitled to that help, as redress for injustice they have suffered either at our hands, or those of others.  The "Law and the Prophets" are full of specific obligations imposed on those who have power over the lives of others in this world (rulers, judges, legislators, employers, businessmen, landlords, and even clergymen) to be just and fair to those who are at their mercy (orphans, widows, debtors, customers, employees, homeless people, the sick, the handicapped and even foreigners and people in prison.)
        When there were barely a handful of people in the world, the very first book of the Bible, Genesis { 4:9 }  was already teaching the necessity of being concerned about the well-being of others.  An emphatic "No" is the way Cain (and many conservative Christians today) would like to answer the rhetorical question "Am I my brother's keeper? "  But from beginning to end,  the answer the Bible keeps giving to that question is:  " If you want God's approval, you must indeed be your brother's, and your sister's, and even your neighbor's keeper ! "
       Here are some of the earliest admonitions in the most important part of the Hebrew bible, which the Jews call "the Law of Moses" :

{ Leviticus 25:35-36 }

" If your brother becomes poor, you are responsible to help him; invite him to live with you as a guest in your home.  Fear your God and let your brother live with you; and don't charge him interest on money you lend him.  Remember – no interest; and give him what he needs, at your cost: don't try to make a profit! "

        Far from blaming the victims of poverty and the like for their plight, as Conservatives tend to do, the great prophets of the bible usually blame those with power over the weak for those ills and expect the community as a whole to redress what they perceive as injustices.

{ Deuteronomy 24:14 } 

"Never oppress a poor hired man, whether a fellow Israelite or a foreigner living in your town.  Pay him his wage each day before sunset, for since he is poor he needs it right away; otherwise he may cry out to the Lord against you and it would be counted as a sin against you."

Links to some of my other sites :

• Click here to find out why, in a democracy like ours,
  devout Christians  can and should be  "Pro-Choice"
• Article on Why President Carter thinks            
  Democrats can win over many Evangelical Christians
•