Elizabeth Warren uses christian faith to support LGBTQ community

So, watch the video, it's short. Here's what I want to talk about, the Christian faith is generally flexible enough (or at least inconsistent enough) to use it to support pretty much anything you want to use it to support and this video is a perfect example of that. In recent years it seems that republicans refer to it to get Christians on board with supporting a generally exclusionary, angry, and even hateful agenda. For examples, think about the GOP's current stance on migrants, the lgbtq crowd, programs for the poor, etc.

What I don't understand is why Democrats don't use Christian values to support a more loving, inclusive, and supportive agenda, if only to stand in an obvious contrast to republicans. Corey Booker has actually been doing this for quite a while, but for the most part it seems like democrats ignore the opportunities to do this and thus find themselves ignoring a very large potential voting block in the country. Maybe it just doesn't work, or maybe they feel they'll lose interest from their base for being overtly religious, but I don't know, it seems like a lot of missed opportunities.

What do you guys think? Why don't democrats do this sort of thing more often?

First, not all "christians" are like a kid in a candy shop who pick and chose what they want and like at the moment.

But why the democrats don´t use "faith" is because among the liberals faith is seen as weakness and also incompatible with modern life in the 20th century.

So while Warren may win over a few independents on the border to being republican she will lose core democrats on the other side of the coin.

"Christians"? No True Scottsman much?

Not to mention, The bible has a ton of different ways it can be interpreted, not to mention, translated from hebrew. There is a reason there are so many different denominations. All still christian, despite radically different views.

@Jacanuk: correction, 21st century.

Jesus basically was against promiscuity. Therefore, any deviation from monogamy was wrong. That includes heterosexual promiscuity on the same plane as homosexual.

That get lost in all the holier than thou finger pointing.

Multiple Democratic leaders have discussed how faith has lead them to hold their ideals, so I don't think this idea that they can't and don't appeal to religion holds much water. Virtually none are claiming to be Agnostic, Atheist, or come from a non-practicing household. Its more a case that, unlike the other guys, they don't need to pander hard into it or hold it in regards as a strict blueprint for governance, nor misinterpret it for the purposes of tearing down minorities.

Ah but I see the GOP talking about Christian ideals but they never live up to the standards. They don't want to help the poor, the demonize immigrants, they love war, etc etc. You get the point. Attending a service on Sunday does not mean one is living a Christian life.

Also in regard to abortion...…..it would behoove them to come up with safety nets for those in need. That could at least slow the number down a bit...….I mean you can't throw the baby out after it's born and expect that is a solution.

The problem with most modern-day Christians is that they as you say in the next paragraph, interpret the bible after how they want to live.

Which is why Religion is ludicrous, you claim something is from an infallible being and yet you a fallible being are able to understand what is meant by it

Anyways back to the democrats, they may claim to hold and have faith but that faith will always come in after populist opinions,

Does it? One of the many tenets of Christianity is to help your neighbor. Which the GOP is loath to do and Democrats more likely to do.

Democrats more likely? You really want to try that one after we just saw what happened to Ellen after she admitted that she dared to be friends with Bush?

The only thing Democrats and the left and this board is a shining beacon of the same is openness to being divisive and closed to anything else than their own ideas,

Being friends with someone has jack shit to do with this post.

I'm not talking about the people here. Which party wants to constantly cut safety net programs?

You claim that democrats are more "help thy neighbour" when fact upon fact proves otherwise, so not sure what you are confused about there?

And being friends with someone was not the point,

Well you had no point and did in fact bring up the friend issue. I'm talking platforms not what individual people who vote democrat may do. No one is perfect. But a party platform that tries to harm people is fair game for criticism.

I think it’s disturbing to use religious language and symbolism in a secular and areligious institution like the government of a western democracy. Even if Warren uses such language for good, the government is inherently separate from the church. Not everyone in the US is a Christian, or even a Christian from the same sect as Elizabeth Warren.

Of course, there is was a point, but you just missed it again and again.

Also, are you really claiming that big words are enough? and it does not matter what happens when people actually go about their normal lives and how they treat other people.

But to be honest it´s not a surprise, it is again the hypocrisy democrats and the left show every day "we love everyone" when in fact they only want to help the ones on their side.

@leicam6: if it's any consolation, the political weaponization of Christianity as a means to further the agenda of a political party that is often antithetical to it's professed ideals has in part destroyed the religion's credibility, short term growth, and possibly it's long term future. They sacrificed their branding for political gain, and whatever they reap from that is deserved.

I have nothing particularly against religion I just believe it has no space in the public sphere.

However, I see your point. Interestingly enough you could probably say the same in your post to that same political party. It has potentially ruined their credibility and long term future as the country changes and becomes more areligious.

@leicam6: Yeah, it kinda sorta swings both ways (it doesn't necessarily do so, but it can and in this case has).

LOL in what world? It's been established for decades that Republicans are more charitable than democrats. Increasing tax rates and meaningless platitudes are not charity

no no no

"founded on judaeo-christian values"

it's ok to have the church integrated into the government as long as it's MY church.

Using Christian values to push moral beliefs such as inclusion is such an old 1800s tactic.

Crazy how things haven't changed much and that old political tactics keep being reused. Same goes for the right wing of America for using old tactics such as social darwinism to support laisser-faire capitalism.

Say, this reminds me of one of the camp interactions in Red Dead Redemption 2:

How to get support 101: use religion.

Maybe read before you post. POLITICAL world and policies which was stated above.

Nonetheless it stands to reason that tax write offs appeal to the top percentage with all the money whereas Democrats are working people.

Yes, this is what people don't get about most atheists. We don't care that you practice, enjoy. Just keep it to yourselves. Don't wake me up on a Saturday morning knocking on my door, and please stop trying to make your religion law.

And then there is the whole bit about the first person to cast a stone being one without sin.

I think these people could learn a lot from reading the bible, and seeing what Jesus actually had to say.

In all honesty, christians shouldnt be preaching hatred against anyone. There religion is all about love and forgiveness. they just seem to forget that when it is inconvenient.

And sins. Don't forget sins.

Well evangelicals believe in forgiveness of sins otherwise they'd denounce trump.

That is a very personal opinion and lol at it.

Aren't all opinions personal? And given the new testament, I'd say there's massive hypocrisy in any christian that preaches hate.

Only when it is a R next to their name on the ballot. :P

Well, not all opinions are personal, some can be parrot opinions.

Also, you have a major problem in calling their faith hate, if you look at what faith is and where it comes from, abiding by it is not hatred it´s their faith

So you and the left may not like it but that is not up to you or anyone to decide.

I'm not calling the faith hate, I'm calling their practices hate and actually in conflict with what their faith actually teaches.

At the same token Islamic extremists and terrorists also proclaim they are just "following their faith". Where do we draw the line between faith and "hate"?

Between Christian and other religions. ;)

There is a huge difference between "killing all who do not share my faith" and "Hey could I please be allowed to have my faith in peace and in my personal space"

Thought that was kinda obvious but I forgot where i was.

You are right, there is, however, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about one’s religion affecting others. if you use your Christian religion to justify discrimination against homosexuals, that is not “personal space”. That is directly inflicting others.

So I’ll ask again. Where do you draw the line between faith and hate? Why is that acceptable but not when Muslims do it? Also, you decided to make this about “killing all who do not share my faith”. I never said anything about killing for religion. Extremism can come out in other ways.

Good you can see the difference

But can you explain how it´s affecting others? Let´s take a well-known example - how are a bakers faith and following denial of service to someone hurting someone else? These people can just go to another baker and give them their business and they can even despite the latest hypocrisy against Blizzard and the NBA use their 1st amendment to give out bad reviews.

Because that is what we are talking about here, we are not talking about fundamentalists who demand everyone bow down to their faith or they will die or engage in a "holy war" against them.

@Jacanuk: You said it yourself “denial of service” - that is how it’s affecting others. It’s really not difficult to understand.

This is a private business and if you expect someone to respect your life, why are you not extending the same right?

Not to mention there are 100´s of bakers or stores so no one if forcing you to go to a certain store.

Yes, I expect them to respect people’s lives. By “respect people’s lives”, that would include by selling a product they are providing at their store. Denying service to homosexuals because of who they are is clear disrespect, regardless of where it comes from. I don’t believe the Bible has a section that says it’s okay to deny service to homosexuals.

Just because someone operates a “private business” doesn’t mean they are exempt from legal and societal rules, nor does that mean they are free to discriminate. This is evident in the fact that protect classes exist - religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. Some states have extended this to sexual orientation and it’s only a matter of time before it happens nationwide.

Of course, we should all give basic respect, but not sure who told you respect is free, but respect is earned not free.

And as you say it´s a two-way street so considering there are hundreds of shops, why is it that religion is ok to be stepped on? or do you think faith is something you turn on and off? Someone´s religion can be as fundamental to the person as someone openly being gay.

And no, a private business does not mean protected classes are no longer protected, but the federal law does not name sexuality because it´s not someone you need to openly portray. Not to mention as the supreme court showed.

And I assume you are ok with the cops who got turned away in the coffee shop or the federal staff being heckled out of a restaurant?

@Jacanuk: You are framing it as a religion being stepped on, but that’s not how it works. A cake shop is just a shop, it has no religion. The people who work there may have their own religion and views but that is not relevant in the actual process of creating and selling a cake, nor is it relevant in the process of setting up that business.

Your question about cops and federal staff being heckled misses the point of the issue here. Being a police officer or federal worker isn’t something fundamental or intrinsic to one’s existence like their sexual orientation. It’s not a relevant question to the issue at hand. However, if someone was being discriminated and denied service for being Christian, I would take issue with that just like I take issue with homosexuals being denied service.

Of course, I am framing it as "religion" being stepped on, in the regard that religion is a person and that person has some kind faith. So yes a cake shop is just a shop, but that shop has an owner who is usually also the person who is the craftsman or artist.

So let´s stay on the subject which is respecting a person's faith, like the left demand that a person's sexuality is respected. You cannot demand something without giving the same

You are also dead wrong on cops and federal staff, again we are about respect here, which again you cannot nor should you ask something "invisible" to be respected when you do not respect other people´s faith or job or whatever.

There is no real evidence to say he existed, so to state what he was for or against is just pure speculation...

In Christian religions there exists Gospels of which do exist and state what I said they stated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I probably shouldn't be, but I am still shocked at how large of a role religion still plays in the US (and world, if we are being honest) almost two decades into the 21st century.

Obviously it's speculation on my part, but I wonder where we'd be without it. Planes in the 1700s? Vaccinations in the 1800s? Colonies on Mars by now?

Yeah it's is not a great thing to do.

AFAIK and I'm pretty big on the subject, we have no contemporary witnesses to Jesus. The Gospels themselves, despite their claims, were not written until 80CE at the earliest with some coming a century later, with the possible exception of the letters of John of Patmos.

Anyone who uses Christianity in any moral context loses my vote.