Why are most Christians republicans?

[Hupomone10]

To me it seems that most are. Why is that? What is it about the republican philosophy that Christians vote for them? And what is it about the democratic philosophy that Christians don't like?

I know democrats are for gay marriage and abortion... is that why Christians vote republican?

I'm trying to figure out who to vote for.

Vote your values.

If you believe two men having sex together should be allowed to marry and be called a married couple and a family, that this should be part of the foundation of a good godly society, vote democrat.

If you believe in the murder of unborn children, vote democrat.

If you believe people should be given all they need by the government rather than assisted and encouraged as they take responsibility for their lives, vote democrat.

If you believe people should be allowed to vote without identification, even though the same people have to produce an identification to use a charge card and even though they have to produce proof of identification to even be allowed into the democratic convention that argues that we don't need a photo ID to vote, vote democrat.

If you believe the socialist philosophy of equal distribution of wealth regardless of the initiative taken by the individual to gain those things, and that this socialist society has helped mankind around the world, vote democrat.

If you believe Jerusalem should not be recognized as the capital of Israel even though it has been ever since the foundation of the country, vote democrat.

If you have the philosophy "I care for the poor, therefore others should pay more taxes to take care of them," vote democrat.

But if you care for the poor and want to help them make all of their lives that they can in the greatest free country and best system in the midst of the imperfect systems we have, if you care for the rights of "the least of these my brethren", the unborn, if you believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman and that homosexuality is what the Bible says it is, if you believe that facts are facts and God will honor those who support His chosen people and punish the countries that don't and that terrorists of false religions are the problem today not a people who merely wish to be allowed to live peacefully and even to exist at all and be left alone (Israel), you might want to consider voting republican.

God bless,

H.

 

[dysert]

Vote your values.

If you believe two men having sex together should be allowed to marry and be called a married couple and a family, that this should be part of the foundation of a good godly society, vote democrat.

If you believe in the murder of unborn children, vote democrat.

If you believe people should be given all they need by the government rather than assisted and encouraged as they take responsibility for their lives, vote democrat.

If you believe people should be allowed to vote without identification, even though the same people have to produce an identification to use a charge card and even though they have to produce proof of identification to even be allowed into the democratic convention that argues that we don't need a photo ID to vote, vote democrat.

If you believe the socialist philosophy of equal distribution of wealth regardless of the initiative taken by the individual to gain those things, and that this socialist society has helped mankind around the world, vote democrat.

If you believe Jerusalem should not be recognized as the capital of Israel even though it has been ever since the foundation of the country, vote democrat.

If you have the philosophy "I care for the poor, therefore others should pay more taxes to take care of them, vote democrat.

But if you care for the poor and want to help them make all of their lives that they can in the greatest free country and best system in the midst of the imperfect systems we have, if you care for the rights of "the least of these my brethren", the unborn, if you believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman and that homosexuality is what the Bible says it is, if you believe that facts are facts and God will honor those who support His chosen people and punish the countries that don't and that terrorists of false religions are the problem today not a people who merely wish to be allowed to live peacefully and even to exist at all and be left alone (Israel), you might want to consider voting republican.

God bless,

H.

These could pass for a party's Platform Planks

 

[WannaWitness]

If you look beyond the surface, I think you will find that most Christians are not Republicans and that most Republicans are not necessarily Christians. What you will find, I believe is that those Republicans who happen to be evangelical Christians are very outspoken and very passionate about their political and religious views. Likewise, the same can be said for secularists who happen to be Democrats.

My own opinion is that a Christian can, in good conscience, vote for either party or none of the above. No political party is perfect and they are all purely secular and human institutions, no matter how much of a moral or religious spin they might put on their platforms. Assuming that you are considering only the two major political parties, I would summarize your options as the following:

If you believe that government has a major role to play in preventing widespread acceptance of homosexuality and abortion, then you might prefer to vote Republican. If you believe that those are issues that should largely be left to individual conscience and that government has little or no role to play in determining public opinion on these issues, then you might prefer to vote Republican.

If you believe that government has a major role in providing for the needs of the poor and other social services (such as orphan care, care for the elderly, care for the disabled, etc), the you might prefer to vote Democratic. If you believe that these services are more effectively rendered by private charity and the free market, then you might prefer to vote Republican (I assume that, as a Christian, the third option -- believing that these issues are unimportant -- is not a position you would hold).

If you believe that the best way to balance a budget is to reduce spending, then you might prefer to vote Republican. If you believe that the best way to balance a budget is to increase income (keeping in mind that income is increased by raising taxes), then you might prefer to vote Democratic.

If you believe that allowing wealthy people to keep and potentially invest more of their money generally helps improve the economy, then you might prefer to vote Republican. If you believe that wealthy people should be expected to pay more, because they have benefited more, then you might prefer to vote Democratic.

If you believe that our society is mostly post-racial and that by and large the economic opportunities of racial minorities are not affected negatively by institutional racism, then you might prefer to vote Republican. If you believe that racism is still very much an issue that leaves racial minorities with far fewer economic opportunities than their Caucasian counterparts, then you might prefer to vote Democratic.

This is just a smattering of the differences of opinion of people who have strong opinions in favor of one party or the other. Some people decide that one or more of the above issues is determinative of how they should vote. Some people make their decision, looking at these issues in sum. Most people, I suspect, vote the way they believe that some social structure (their family, their friends, their church, etc.) wants them to vote.

You have presented some great points. This is why I find that a given Christian can have various reasons for voting as he/she does, wherever he/she sits on the political spectrum. As for me (and probably many others), there are many issues in which I could be somewhat split, while right-leaning on social issues and left-leaning when it comes to economic/health care issues. This makes me a moderate, as I feel that both main parties are poor representatives of "true Christian morals", not to mention that half the time they (both sides) don't deliver on what they say they're going to do. I know some will disagree, but I personally don't think there is a "lesser of two evils". Yes, murder and sexual sins are wrong in the eyes of God, but they are no worse than sins of gluttony/overindulgence, greed, vanity, swearing, and even the "little white lie". I heard this point being made in a sermon a couple of weeks ago. So, there you go... and this is why we all should be willing to open our minds and see where those with opposing viewpoints are coming from.

In conclusion, we should all vote how we honestly feel (or maybe you don't want to vote at all), then pray for all of the candidates, as well as for the one who makes it in, to make right, fair, just, and moral decisions. All politicians deserve our prayers, no matter what the party.

 

[dysert]

Yes, murder and sexual sins are wrong in the eyes of God, but they are no worse than sins of gluttony/overindulgence, greed, vanity, swearing, and even the "little white lie".

They are worse in terms of the consequences that result.

In conclusion, we should all vote how we honestly feel (or maybe you don't want to vote at all), then pray for all of the candidates, as well as for the one who makes it in, to make right, fair, just, and moral decisions. All politicians deserve our prayers, no matter what the party.

I'll second that!

 

[WannaWitness]

They are worse in terms of the consequences that result.

I see your point, as well.

 

[dies-l]

If you look beyond the surface, I think you will find that most Christians are not Republicans and that most Republicans are not necessarily Christians. What you will find, I believe is that those Republicans who happen to be evangelical Christians are very outspoken and very passionate about their political and religious views. Likewise, the same can be said for secularists who happen to be Democrats.

My own opinion is that a Christian can, in good conscience, vote for either party or none of the above. No political party is perfect and they are all purely secular and human institutions, no matter how much of a moral or religious spin they might put on their platforms. Assuming that you are considering only the two major political parties, I would summarize your options as the following:

If you believe that government has a major role to play in preventing widespread acceptance of homosexuality and abortion, then you might prefer to vote Republican. If you believe that those are issues that should largely be left to individual conscience and that government has little or no role to play in determining public opinion on these issues, then you might prefer to vote Republican.

If you believe that government has a major role in providing for the needs of the poor and other social services (such as orphan care, care for the elderly, care for the disabled, etc), the you might prefer to vote Democratic. If you believe that these services are more effectively rendered by private charity and the free market, then you might prefer to vote Republican (I assume that, as a Christian, the third option -- believing that these issues are unimportant -- is not a position you would hold).

If you believe that the best way to balance a budget is to reduce spending, then you might prefer to vote Republican. If you believe that the best way to balance a budget is to increase income (keeping in mind that income is increased by raising taxes), then you might prefer to vote Democratic.

If you believe that allowing wealthy people to keep and potentially invest more of their money generally helps improve the economy, then you might prefer to vote Republican. If you believe that wealthy people should be expected to pay more, because they have benefited more, then you might prefer to vote Democratic.

If you believe that our society is mostly post-racial and that by and large the economic opportunities of racial minorities are not affected negatively by institutional racism, then you might prefer to vote Republican. If you believe that racism is still very much an issue that leaves racial minorities with far fewer economic opportunities than their Caucasian counterparts, then you might prefer to vote Democratic.

This is just a smattering of the differences of opinion of people who have strong opinions in favor of one party or the other. Some people decide that one or more of the above issues is determinative of how they should vote. Some people make their decision, looking at these issues in sum. Most people, I suspect, vote the way they believe that some social structure (their family, their friends, their church, etc.) wants them to vote.

Vote your values.

If you believe two men having sex together should be allowed to marry and be called a married couple and a family, that this should be part of the foundation of a good godly society, vote democrat.

If you believe in the murder of unborn children, vote democrat.

If you believe people should be given all they need by the government rather than assisted and encouraged as they take responsibility for their lives, vote democrat.

If you believe people should be allowed to vote without identification, even though the same people have to produce an identification to use a charge card and even though they have to produce proof of identification to even be allowed into the democratic convention that argues that we don't need a photo ID to vote, vote democrat.

If you believe the socialist philosophy of equal distribution of wealth regardless of the initiative taken by the individual to gain those things, and that this socialist society has helped mankind around the world, vote democrat.

If you believe Jerusalem should not be recognized as the capital of Israel even though it has been ever since the foundation of the country, vote democrat.

If you have the philosophy "I care for the poor, therefore others should pay more taxes to take care of them," vote democrat.

But if you care for the poor and want to help them make all of their lives that they can in the greatest free country and best system in the midst of the imperfect systems we have, if you care for the rights of "the least of these my brethren", the unborn, if you believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman and that homosexuality is what the Bible says it is, if you believe that facts are facts and God will honor those who support His chosen people and punish the countries that don't and that terrorists of false religions are the problem today not a people who merely wish to be allowed to live peacefully and even to exist at all and be left alone (Israel), you might want to consider voting republican.

God bless,

H.

And, here we see an interesting contrast. The first is an honest attempt to objectively discuss the core values of each of the two major parties. The latter is a mockery of that attempt, which demonizes and maligns the party that the poster disagrees with. Now, it would be easy at this point to highlight the fact that the honest and objective approach comes from a Democrat and the dishonest attempt to vilify the opponent comes from a Republican. But, in the interest of maintaining honesty, hupo's response reflects only on hupo's opinion, and does not reflect any negative propensity or tendency on the part of Republicans as a whole. To the OP, however, I use this contrast as an illustration of the reason to look beyond the emotional arguments and look to the issues themselves, as each party understands them.

 

[98cwitr]

Hedgin' all your bets, huh?

In the faith,
Clare

Im not a betting man It's God's Will that sin is in the world and apparent in all of us...doesn't mean I should go out and rampantly commit sin now does it?

 

[GQ Chris]

Its all about the philosophies that you believe in.

 

[Clare73]

As for me...I don't vote. I do not wish to even potentially be involved in the ushering in of the antichrist, even while it may be God's Will for his time to be apparent.

Hedgin' your bets, huh?

Im not a betting man It's God's Will that sin is in the world and apparent in all of us...doesn't mean I should go out and rampantly commit sin now does it?

I'm just funnin' ya'.

Playing both sides of the table, yours (no antichrist by me!) and God's (God's will be done.).

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Hupomone10]

Aside from the audacity of using the word "values" to describe the democrat position toward either homosexuality or the murder of unborn children, I think when we have to take our own post and refer to it as

an honest attempt to objectively discuss the core values of each of the two major parties... the honest and objective approach

we have lost the argument at the outset. It only makes it worse, after judging his own post as 'objective' and 'honest' when the poster judges the other's as

a mockery of that attempt, which demonizes and maligns the party that the poster disagrees with... the dishonest attempt to vilify the opponent

I am guilty of sharing the cold stark truth with a little sarcasm, nothing more. Since he does not know I am a Republican, it is presumption, but I'll let that one slide since I expect such emotional rebuttals coming from the position that either supports or takes a middle-of-the-road position toward the murder of unborn children. Notice that I attacked a system, this poster made a personal attack. Giving a personal attack is a response often used by those who oppose the ones who stand for Biblical values.

in the interest of maintaining honesty, hupo's response reflects only on hupo's opinion, and does not reflect any negative propensity or tendency on the part of Republicans as a whole.

And, in the interest of further honesty, which I will come back to in a moment, dies-I's post I have not even read. We often see posts that disagree with our own as directed at us; but we think too highly of ourselves. I am guilty only of seeing the first post and desiring to answer the OP; it had nothing to do with dies-I. I am guilty only of NOT being guilty of what he accuses me of, I haven't yet read the other posts beyond the OP.

To the OP, however, I use this contrast as an illustration of the reason to look beyond the emotional arguments and look to the issues themselves, as each party understands them.

And to the OP, I will merely point out that this individual did what he accused me of, and offered no support for saying I misrepresented democrats.

Let's look at the facts:

Do they support the murder of unborn children on demand? Yes. "I don't want to punish my daughter with a baby." - Barack Obama.

Do they support both homosexuality and the recognition of homosexual men with men and women with women as legitimate marriage? Yes.

Did they not take support and recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel out of their plank until caught at it and forced by some with sense and even the president himself to put it back in? Yes.

Do they not support more and more government spending and the philosophy of redistribution of wealth as a successful way to take care of the poor? Yes.

I have been neither dishonest nor failed to be objective.

Blessings,
H.

 

[dies-l]

Aside from the audacity of using the word "values" to describe the democrat position toward either homosexuality or the murder of unborn children, I think when we have to take our own post and refer to it as we have lost the argument at the outset. It only makes it worse, after judging his own post as 'objective' and 'honest' when the poster judges the other's as I am guilty of sharing the cold stark truth with a little sarcasm, nothing more. Since he does not know I am a Republican, it is presumption, but I'll let that one slide since I expect such emotional rebuttals coming from the position that either supports or takes a middle-of-the-road position toward the murder of unborn children. Notice that I attacked a system, this poster made a personal attack. Giving a personal attack is a response often used by those who oppose the ones who stand for Biblical values.
And, in the interest of further honesty, which I will come back to in a moment, dies-I's post I have not even read. We often see posts that disagree with our own as directed at us; but we think too highly of ourselves. I am guilty only of seeing the first post and desiring to answer the OP; it had nothing to do with dies-I. I am guilty only of NOT being guilty of what he accuses me of, I haven't yet read the other posts beyond the OP. And to the OP, I will merely point out that this individual did what he accused me of, and offered no support for saying I misrepresented democrats.

Let's look at the facts:

Do they support the murder of unborn children on demand? Yes. "I don't want to punish my daughter with a baby." - Barack Obama.

Do they support both homosexuality and the recognition of homosexual men with men and women with women as legitimate marriage? Yes.

Did they not take support and recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel out of their plank until caught at it and forced by some with sense and even the president himself to put it back in? Yes.

Do they not support more and more government spending and the philosophy of redistribution of wealth as a successful way to take care of the poor? Yes.

I have been neither dishonest nor failed to be objective.

Blessings,
H.

Thank you for proving my point once again. : thumbsup:

 

[Hupomone10]

I just learned from my wife that this democrat president who snubbed the leader of Israel before when he walked out on him during a dinner together, who bowed before the leader of Saudi Arabia, said regarding Netanyahu's upcoming trip to the states that he "doesn't have time to meet with him."

More facts, not emotion.

 

[Hupomone10]

Thank you for proving my point once again. : thumbsup:

I'm not surprised you said that; but I'd be very surprised if you really thought that. We both know you're too intelligent to really think such. It's simply the comeback you have to make. And that's fine.

No apologies for misrepresenting what I said and calling me dishonest, eh.

Ok,

God bless you,
H.

 

[revrobor]

OK guys, have you made this thread beneficial to anyone?

 

[dies-l]

I'm not surprised you said that; but I'd be very surprised if you really thought that. We both know you're too intelligent to really think such. It's simply the comeback you have to make. And that's fine.

No apologies for misrepresenting what I said and calling me dishonest, eh.

Ok,

God bless you,
H.

What do I have to apologize for? I said what I believe is true and I still believe it to be true. But, I'm not going to let you bait me any further. Robert is right; this argument is distracting from the beneficial aspect of the thread. If you want tge last word, help yourself. Your posts have proven my point better than I could ever hope to myself.

ETA: I looked back through the thread to see where I called you dishonest, as if I had I would owe you an apology. Turns out I never said that. I said that your post was dishonest, because it was. But, I never once said that you were a dishonest person. I also liked back to see where i misrepresented what you said. Turns out that i didn't. I commented on it, but I never represented in any other than quoting it in its entirety.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

ETA: I looked back through the thread to see where I called you dishonest, as if I had I would owe you an apology. Turns out I never said that. I said that your post was dishonest, because it was.

If you claim a person's post is dishonest are you not in return saying that the person that made the post was dishonest? Just trying to follow your logic here since the post didn't write itself.

 

[dies-l]

If you claim a person's post is dishonest are you not in return saying that the person that made the post was dishonest? Just trying to follow your logic here since the post didn't write itself.

You are reading into my statement something that is neither there nor implied in any way. To say that a particular statement is dishonest is not an assault on the person's character in any general way. Do you know ANYONE who has never done anything remotely dishonest? If you think you do, I submit to you that you have been deceived. So, considering that none of us can claim a perfect track record for dishonesty, to call out a specific act of dishonesty cannot objectively be viewed as an assault on their character. If you cannot understand the distinction between "you are a bad/dishonest person" and "you did something that was bad/dishonest" then I don't know how to show you.

I have no reason to believe that hupo is generally a bad or dishonest person. I would guess that he is a fallen sinner like the rest of us, who makes mistakes from time to time. Calling him out one what looks to me to be one if those mistakes is not the same as calling him a dishonest person (unless of course you believe that his accusations against me amount to him calling me a slanderer or somehow otherwise evil).

Or to simplify, are you calling me a slanderous person?

 

[revrobor]

OK guys, start another thread. Your discussion has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[Hupomone10]

What do I have to apologize for? I said what I believe is true and I still believe it to be true. But, I'm not going to let you bait me any further. Robert is right; this argument is distracting from the beneficial aspect of the thread. If you want tge last word, help yourself. Your posts have proven my point better than I could ever hope to myself.

ETA: I looked back through the thread to see where I called you dishonest, as if I had I would owe you an apology. Turns out I never said that. I said that your post was dishonest, because it was. But, I never once said that you were a dishonest person. I also liked back to see where i misrepresented what you said. Turns out that i didn't. I commented on it, but I never represented in any other than quoting it in its entirety.

You can play with semantics all you want, brother, but the fact is you took it personally as if aimed at you when it had nothing to do with you.If you said you disagreed, that would be one thing. If you said you disagreed and offered even a hint of evidence to support your position, that would be an even better thing. I dealt with a system of belief and you responded with personal attack.You said my post was dishonest, meaning I myself am dishonest. You offered nothing to support the false claim. This is against the guidelines of CF as you are very well aware. You do not get to just say someone's post is dishonest without backing it up. If you wish to justify your position, show what I said and show how it is not the position of the democrat party.

revrobor:

You are probably right. But I didn't draw first blood. I think the posts bear that out. If someone dislikes my position and wants to refute the position offering evidence to the contrary, that's one thing. If one just wants to make the claim they are 'objective' and 'honest' and malign the other poster as 'dishonest' and not objective, that is quite another.

Now, back to the two parties... and their leader

 

[Hupomone10]

I am wondering why the President doesn't have time to see Netanyahu but seems to have time for David Letterman.

"WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM (Reuters) - In a highly unusual rebuff to a close ally as tensions escalated over how to deal with Iran's nuclear program, the White House said on Tuesday President Barack Obama would not meet Benjamin Netanyahu during the Israeli prime minister's U.S. visit later this month."
Here

"President Obama will appear as a guest on The Late Show with David Letterman during a trip to New York on Tuesday, Sept. 18, a source tells National Journal."

and Here