If Jesus were alive today and living in a democratic nation, would he vote?

[Insomniac]

I once read a biography of the radical pacifist abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. It's downplayed somewhat, but he was also highly religious, and that's probably the source of everything else about him.

During some intra-abolitionist squabbles, someone posed the question to him, "Mr Garrison! Do you or do you not believe it a sin to go to the polls?"

Garrison's response, "Sin for me."

"I ask you again," the fellow said, "do you or do you not believe it a sin to go to the polls?"

"Sin for me."

And they got nothing more out of him.

The whole issue was that Garrison, individually at least, believed that the cause of abolitionism was corrupted by the political process of wheeling, dealing, and compromising. Meanwhile as a pacifist, he was quite firmly against the idea of voting for anyone who would have the practical responsibility of waging war against another nation, even in self-defense. People can turn the other cheek, but countries can't do that in the face of an invading army.

Garrison isn't Christ, but I see nothing in the teachings of Jesus that would go opposite this. Frankly, it wasn't a problem. You could rely on the pagan, rat-bastard Romans to take care of you, and not have a guilty conscience because you had no voice in how it went about things. God placed rulers and masters there for a reason, you rendered unto Caesar, that was that. Once Christians got some standing and had to serve in the military, the doctrine of just war had to be formulated, and really, Christianity changed forever.

In the 2004 Illinois senate elections, Republican Alan Keyes said Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. He's probably right. But it's possible he wouldn't vote at all.

You can make the argument moral people have the responsibility to elect moral people in a democracy and pass moral laws. But it's a much more convincing argument that Christianity at its essence is an entirely subservient and subversive religion that convinces people to behave well, doesn't force them, and if the highest goal of Christians is the imitation of Christ, shouldn't the Rick Warrens and John Hagees be urging their congregations to ignore politics entirely?

I'm not saying this is realistic or will happen, but look at it this way, and "religious fundamentalism" would solve all sort of problems.

[Charlatan]

You can make the argument moral people have the responsibility to elect moral people in a democracy and pass moral laws. But it's a much more convincing argument that Christianity at its essence is an entirely subservient and subversive religion that convinces people to behave well, doesn't force them, and if the highest goal of Christians is the imitation of Christ, shouldn't the Rick Warrens and John Hagees be urging their congregations to ignore politics entirely?On principle alone, I would be all for this. If I can live in a world where decisions on matters of national policy aren't swayed by a religious voting bloc, I'm a happy camper.

To justify that, I would like to point out my stringent belief that the average person is an idiot and that, by extension, the average Christian is an idiot. Just as the average Muslim, just as the average Scientologist, just as the average atheist. Lest any of you think that I single out any one group, remember that I loathe everybody equally.

[Tar Heel]

Dude. Jesus is a Republican. I thought this was pretty much common knowledge.

[freegood]

My impression of Christ is that he would work through the grassroots, under appreciated and full of sacrifice.

The CIA would get to him somehow. Frame him with a drug overdose or caught dead along with a hooker.

[Archetype]

The whole issue was that Garrison, individually at least, believed that the cause of abolitionism was corrupted by the political process of wheeling, dealing, and compromising. Meanwhile as a pacifist, he was quite firmly against the idea of voting for anyone who would have the practical responsibility of waging war against another nation, even in self-defense.

Just got around to reading Kingdom of God a little while ago, and Tolstoy's the same way.


Garrison isn't Christ, but I see nothing in the teachings of Jesus that would go opposite this. Frankly, it wasn't a problem. You could rely on the pagan, rat-bastard Romans to take care of you, and not have a guilty conscience because you had no voice in how it went about things. God placed rulers and masters there for a reason, you rendered unto Caesar, that was that.

But he was also nailed to the cross, so I can't say that "it wasn't a problem," nor do I think the two parts you're referring to are all that well linked, at least not in principle. When he's talking of taxes, emphasis is placed on Caesar's image being on the coin, so with everything from his disdain for material wealth to God making man in His image, I think he's politely calling Caesar the devil.

And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.


So no, I'm positive Jesus wouldn't vote. But can he turn my ketchup into beer, that's the answer I want.

Once Christians got some standing and had to serve in the military, the doctrine of just war had to be formulated, and really, Christianity changed forever.

I'd say it was more Christianity gaining power. And then what always happens when someone achieves authority, yada yada.

You can make the argument moral people have the responsibility to elect moral people in a democracy and pass moral laws. But it's a much more convincing argument that Christianity at its essence is an entirely subservient and subversive religion that convinces people to behave well, doesn't force them, and if the highest goal of Christians is the imitation of Christ, shouldn't the Rick Warrens and John Hagees be urging their congregations to ignore politics entirely?

Which is one of the major problems, I suppose, Christianity has just become the name of a mainstream, conservative, religion, as opposed to a revolutionizing theory of life. Nobody wants to do the work that would entail, shit, I don't.

[Da Raider]

Jesus would vote independant!

[halfabubbleoff]

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." or some close approximation thereof.

I'm not enough of a Bible Thumper anymore to tell you chapter/verse for the quote, but you get the idea. I think Jesus would vote, and I think he would be very vocal in the grass roots. I also think that he would not be partisan, though. I don't see him as telling anyone who he voted for or telling anyone who they should vote for. He would provide guidance and perspective and leave the rest to free will.

The only reason I can see for Jesus abstaining to vote (or take part in politics at all) would be because he either A: already knows the outcome (predestination) or B: thinks it would be unfair since he can see into the true nature of the candidates and believes that would give him an unfair advantage.

Jesus never had a problem mixing morality and politics (see vendors in the temple for an example). He did tend to be more of a guide than a commander, though. He would give people reasons to do something without always coming out and telling them to just do it.

[Das Kahlua]

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." or some close approximation thereof.

I'm not enough of a Bible Thumper anymore to tell you chapter/verse for the quote, but you get the idea. I think Jesus would vote, and I think he would be very vocal in the grass roots. I also think that he would not be partisan, though. I don't see him as telling anyone who he voted for or telling anyone who they should vote for. He would provide guidance and perspective and leave the rest to free will.

The only reason I can see for Jesus abstaining to vote (or take part in politics at all) would be because he either A: already knows the outcome (predestination) or B: thinks it would be unfair since he can see into the true nature of the candidates and believes that would give him an unfair advantage.

Jesus never had a problem mixing morality and politics (see vendors in the temple for an example). He did tend to be more of a guide than a commander, though. He would give people reasons to do something without always coming out and telling them to just do it.

True morality is above any single political party; in fact, all groups and parties probably encompass at least part of Jesus' message, but none can capture it in its entirety.

Jesus would probably be a grass-roots proponent for real change, not Obama's notion of 'Change,' and would thus be ostracized and persecuted by society, like He was in His time. If He were to have the mindset of a politician, he never would have allowed himself to be crucified in the first place.

Jesus would have upset both established parties, but would have appealed to the masses as a whole, which is all that really matters in the end.

[Archetype]

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." or some close approximation thereof.

I'm not enough of a Bible Thumper anymore to tell you chapter/verse for the quote, but you get the idea.

Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."


It's funny how some of the most black and white statements are ignored.

[halfabubbleoff]

Originally Posted by Luke 23:1-2
Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.
It's funny how some of the most black and white statements are ignored.


You do know that the statement in bold was all an attempt to get him arrested for treason, right? The religious assembly saw him as a threat and sought to have him arrested. The section you quoted is actually the beginning of the crucifixion story.


It does underline another good reason why Jesus would either abstain from voting, or distance himself from politics entirely.


Original quote: Matthew 22:21
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" 18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

[Fornicator]

Jesus wouldn't vote. As an illegal immigrant he wouldn't be able to.

More importantly, he ends up paying taxes and does so without representation. This would really piss him off.

This would be bad.

[Archetype]

You do know that the statement in bold was all an attempt to get him arrested for treason, right? The religious assembly saw him as a threat and sought to have him arrested. The section you quoted is actually the beginning of the crucifixion story.

I've considered it yes, and you could be right, but it seems to me that the writing would have made it more apparent, or that Jesus would have denied openly the part about taxes, but instead he simply says, "It is as you say," to the Roman. But I spose the case could be made that the emphasis was placed on the passive resistance side of him. Can't say it would be very good, but I'd listen.

Original quote: Matthew 22:21

What, Luke not good enough for you?

Jesus wouldn't vote. As an illegal immigrant he wouldn't be able to.

Not a bad point, actually, being the travelling hippy that he was, but at the same time, he was a carpenter and if you know the context of when he grew up and where the stories point to, he would have actually had steady work in one of the growing cities nearby. I can't think of the name, the glory of being casually dedicated I spose. Plus a rabbi, and a "preacher" to both Romans and Greeks. So illegal immigrant doesn't automatically click.

More importantly, he ends up paying taxes and does so without representation.

Not necessarily, and especially not if he were, as you say, an illegal immigrant.

This would really piss him off.

Maybe, but unlikely. There aren't many times where the Hey Zeus of the gospels gets angry, let alone right pissed off. Doesn't fit the ideal of the character.

[The Batman]

Dude. Jesus is a Republican. I thought this was pretty much common knowledge.

I disagree. I think he would be an independent. Republicans hate poor people. Jesus loves them. Democrats are for more social programs. Jesus would totally go for that. So he would probably have his own party.

[halfabubbleoff]

I've considered it yes, and you could be right, but it seems to me that the writing would have made it more apparent, or that Jesus would have denied openly the part about taxes, but instead he simply says, "It is as you say," to the Roman. But I spose the case could be made that the emphasis was placed on the passive resistance side of him. Can't say it would be very good, but I'd listen.


That is exactly the case. The point is clear in the writing, you just have to go back to Matthew for the context. By this point in the story, Jesus had already resigned himself that this was the beginning of the Crucifixion and did not seek to defend himself at all. he "humbly accepted" his fate at this point. The lack of defense against false charges was a statement that he was giving himself over to the fate handed down in the old messiah prophesies.

As for Luke? Luke is as good as Matthew. You just humbled me by citing your sources, so I had to do likewise.

I still say he would have been a grass roots independent concentrating on issues and not endorse anyone.

[eightkid]

Felons can't vote.

[Area Man]

The OP makes a solid point of this, but I'm pretty sure the teachings of Jesus are incompatible with any major political party. This is what drives me crazy about the rabid evangelicals who worshiped bush. Simply the act of going to war, not to mention completely ignoring the problems of poor people in favor of pandering to corporate interests, both in America and overseas.

I'm not a Christian but everything I know about Jesus seems to indicate he would be completely opposed to our political process and the American empire as a whole.

[AJ]

You're just starting threads to start threads now, aren't you.

[Morfin]

I'm sorry. Whenever I read hypothetical questions like this, I flash back to a very old Saturday Night Live skit about What If Superman had grown up in Germany instead of America?

Link to the transcript. (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78jwhatif.phtml)

Sorry, back to your discussion.

[momsshizzle]

McCain/Jesus '08!

[JohnQRotten]

My impression of Christ is that he would work through the grassroots, under appreciated and full of sacrifice.

The CIA would get to him somehow. Frame him with a drug overdose or caught dead along with a hooker.

Definitely! Jesus would be using those kick-ass carpentry skills for Habitat for Humanity and multiplying the food at soup kitchens.

I agree about the CIA getting him and it wouldn't be hard to catch Jesus with a hooker. I seem to remember he liked hanging out with them. :p

[Archangel]

If Jesus were here today, then that would be the Second Coming, and seeing as how He would reign as Lord over all of creation, why the fuck would he Have to vote?

Might be hard getting to the booths in the middle of the apocalypse, just saying...










And no, I'm not really being serious.

[mbslugger89]

i think hed vote bc its the LAW!

[BIG PIZZLE]

He would be Ron Pual.

[Nosebuckle]

If he were alive today, he'd probably be on the ballot

[Morfin]

i think hed vote bc its the LAW!

Oh, that's right. I forgot that you have to vote or else be thrown in jail.

Thank you for adding some intelligence to this discussion. As the evangelicals breathlessly await the Second Coming, I await your next posting.

[lce-man]

Jesus definitely is a Republican. Cause the Democrats are smarter than that. ^^

[bdjlo09]

Yes, I think Jesus would vote.

[Syberian]

Jesus doesn't vote. In today's world, his presence and actions would be the starting point for a widespread cultural, religious, and social revolution we can't easily define. I think he would give us the tools to rethink most of what we take for granted, including democracy itself. If there are two candidates, he would probably tell and/or convince people not to vote.

[STDSkillz]

I agree with some of the posts in this thread, but I also disagree with some of them.

[matelotindien]

Jesus would vote. Matthew 22 "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Ergo i believe he would have followed the democratic process.

[bdjlo09]

Jesus would vote for someone who follows him. he likes the sheep.

[Yelram]

Jesus would throw a concert, with everyone there, and lots of drugs, and then he'd call the two political sides up on stage, and hold their arms together over his head, and say ONE LOVE!!, and then we'd all leave the auditorium and realize it was all just a really good show....

[Bassmonster]

If Jesus was alive and as righteous as they say was, he wouldn't vote, because he would know his vote didn't matter.