As one delves further, it becomes apparent that the Reverend’s guiding tenet is that religion and conservatism are mutually exclusive concepts that could not possibly co–exist in the same soul:

For Jesus, as for many other great prophets of the Bible, the pursuit of riches and the pursuit of salvation are so incompatible that one cannot choose one without turning away from the other. And the more riches one possesses the harder it is to choose salvation, because it requires the repudiation of those riches. Any true follower of Christ who sees today’s “Religious Right” inviting the wealthy to come into their churches, to bring all their money in with them, to share it generously —- not with the poor, but —- with the churches and their clergy, knows that there is something very wrong with this picture.

So, I guess, using this logic, liberals can’t be interested in money. Of course, if this is indeed the case, why are the wealthiest members of Congress liberals? I guess the Reverend didn’t know that the top five richest senators in our nation are Democrats, or that John Kerry who sits at the very top of this list is considered to be the most liberal member. Isn’t this somewhat incongruous?

Conversely, with regard to the inherent greed of conservatives, in 2003, a Republican–controlled Congress, along with a Republican president, passed and enacted the largest expansion of an entitlement program since 1965. Strangely, only eleven Democratic senators voted for this huge social spending increase, as compared to 43 Republicans. Even more bizarre, in the House, only sixteen of the 220 votes in favor of this bill came from Democrats.
This obviously leads one to wonder how Jesus would look upon those who voted against a bill that for the first time in American history would pay some of the costs for the medicines that senior citizens take every day, and how the Reverend might reconcile this peculiar historical divergence in liberalism and social spending.

I further wonder how Jesus would feel about the huge reduction in tax burden on the poor orchestrated by the current administration and Republican–controlled Congress…

…the average wage earner in this bottom quintile is paying roughly 22% less in federal income taxes as a result of these legislative changes than under Clinton. Would Jesus disapprove of this tax reduction on our nation’s poor? Would Reverend Dubuque?

I also wonder how Jesus would view the charitable donation habits of the members of both of our political parties. For instance, the Catalogue For Philanthropy recently released their 2004 Generosity Index with some rather stunning findings. What this directory of non–profit organizations does every year is compare the average adjusted gross income of each state to the average itemized charitable deduction, and derive a ranking based upon the differences in these statistics.

According to their calculations, for the eighth year in a row, Mississippi is the most generous state in our nation, followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama —- all red states that Mr. Bush won by an average margin of 25%. In fact, the top 25 most philanthropic states according to this study all voted for Mr. Bush. This means that all the states that Mr. Kerry won in November fall into the bottom half of charitable contributions as related to income in our nation. Moreover, the worst seven states in this study also all voted for Mr. Kerry, including number 49 (Massachusetts) which Mr. Kerry won by a comfortable 25% margin.

Given these statistics, what would Jesus think of liberals if he were alive today? Is the Reverend correct in his assertions that Jesus would actually want to be one? Or, is this quite missing the point? Would Jesus be so myopic? Would he view charity in terms of numbers and percentages? Or, would he instead be pleased by the generosity of all souls, and not make such inane comparisons?

In fact, wouldn’t Jesus look at the poor in our nation, and how they live compared to anywhere else on the planet —- with television sets, DVD players, satellite dishes, and, maybe most important, the freedom to worship whomever, whenever, and wherever they want, and conclude that Americans —- Democrats and Republicans alike —- are by far the most charitable and generous of souls regardless of political leaning?

So much for the Democrats’ latest version of Rev. Ike. Game…Set… Match!

It appears crooked liberal democrat officials are omitted because after they take their cut, the give other peoples hard earned monies to minorities.

Rev.,

How much envy and resentment does one have to live with before they twist Christianity into socialism?

Unfortunately, at some point, Ray DuBuque began believing that the “social” gospel was more important than the real thing!

Exactly Proof, you nailed it!

Yes, I suspected he was an intolerant fake reverend, but I wanted to counter his idiotic accusations anyway.

Democrats used to run lowly working class people for office, but figured out along the way that the only way they could win elections against Greedy Old Party fat cats was to run with generous rich people like the Kennedy’s who had the money to GET ELECTED and then would work on behalf of working class people, as opposed to Republican fat cats who work constantly to make themselves ever richer.

As for Kerry being the most liberal, that’s absurd.
I have a complete listing of the Senate rankings in 2002 on my http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/demvsgop.html
page which shows him tied with Joe Lieberman as 28th most liberal.

“Conversely, with regard to the inherent greed of conservatives, in 2003, a Republican–controlled Congress, along with a Republican president, passed and enacted the largest expansion of an entitlement program since 1965. Strangely, only eleven Democratic senators voted for this huge social spending increase, as compared to 43 Republicans. Even more bizarre, in the House, only sixteen of the 220 votes in favor of this bill came from Democrats.
This obviously leads one to wonder how Jesus would look upon those who voted against a bill that for the first time in American history would pay some of the costs for the medicines that senior citizens take every day, and how the Reverend might reconcile this peculiar historical divergence in liberalism and social spending.”
Why is Sheppard so reluctant to NAME the bill in question, the infamous Medicare Part D bill, which only passed because its promoters LIED about its true cost, most of which DOESN’T go to buy healthcare, but goes to enrich the drug companies. This is the bill which also makes it ILLEGAL for the government to negotiate for lower prices, and makes it illegal for medicare patients to get lower priced medications from Canada (even if they were made in the U.S.A.!)
You are damned right that UNLIKE Republicans, Democrats – who have been pushing for a GOOD Medicare Drug plan for decades – opposed this boondoggle.
By the way, the former Democrat, turned Republican Congressman quit his seat as soon as he had pushed through this boondoggle in order to take one of the leading highest paying lobbyist job the pharmaceutical industry had to offer.

And yet there is no one in the center countering this, and no one on the right even accepts that this is an issue that can be used to club the nannystaters with.

We are in the DC area for the holiday, and the profusion of”Impeach Them” signs scattered about is quite entertaining, and heartening. Nothing would warm my heat more than watching the Democrats piss away what little political capital they have on long, drawn out impeachment proceedings. Nothing dreamed up by political hack for TV ads would be as effective at scuttling Democrat aspirations than that.

I’m afraid that you people would have despised our LIBERAL founding fathers for keeping God out of our Constitution and religion out of the public functions of the United State of America.

Rev,

The Declaration of Independence declares the source (Creator) of the unalienable rights of individuals, and the constitution acknowledges, secures and protects those rights. Just because the Creator is not directly mentioned does not mean He was “left out”.

Religion out of the public functions does not mean the Creator was left out. A simple scan of our historic documents proves this to be true. Thanksgiving is a national holiday established to give thanks to the Creator for the blessing of liberty.

Acknowledging the existence of a Creator does not require religion or religious belief.

And yet again the fake religionist vomits more Democrat propaganda.

I was wondering if it would bust some rock-a-billy tunes the likes of the Reverend Horton Heat.