how does devout christians justify voting Democrat?

[Caretaker]

Interesting discussion. I'm not in the US and I'm not a US citizen,

Ahh! Too bad more of those who are can't seem to comprehend how much commonsense is embedded in the rest of greenguzzi's post.

 

[greenguzzi]

I never said you should be concerned with who I like. I did that we should be concerned with how God feels about our vote and which candidates line up with biblical values. Most Demcrats support abortion and gay marriage, two things the Bible is in strict opposition against.

So those two issues are enough to make a decision on? I wish the decision on who to vote for were really that simple.

Actually the Democrats' stance on abortion is more complex and nuanced than you claim. It's not as black-and-white as you seem to think.

The Republicans may oppose gay marriage, but they have policies that encourage poverty. Are you saying that gay marriage is more important an issue to God than poverty? Christ talked a lot about poverty, He never spoke about gay marriage or homosexuality at all. I think you might have your priorities wrong.

The Republicans may oppose gay marriage, but they have policies that completely ignore global warming. Are you saying that the stewardship of Earth is less important a moral issue for God than gay marriage? Once again, I think you might have your priorities wrong.

Now, I'm not saying that you should change who you vote for. I'm just saying that your decision should be based on more than a naive understanding of just two issues.

 

[Caretaker]

Most Demcrats support abortion and gay marriage, two things the Bible is in strict opposition against.

And most Republicans support US militarism, aggression, and clandestine meddling which results in the wholesale destruction of entire countries. "We bombed them back to the stone age" was the proud - and true - claim of many Republicans regarding the US aggression against Iraq which resulted in more than one million Iraqi deaths and destroyed an entire modern civilization. That, of course, was piggy backed on the US having provided Sadam chemical weapons to use against Iran. Which was done because Iran had the temerity to overthrow the Shah and his secret police which had been installed and propped up by the US government after the US overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953. That was done by the US because come-uppity Iran had put an end to the exploitation of Iranian oil by British oil companies. And never you mind what the US did to the democratically elected government of the Ukraine in 2014, nor Chile's president Allende in 1973, nor South Vietnam's Diem in 1963, nor what Carter and Reagan did in Central America in the 1970's and 1980's, nor what Bush attempted in Venezuela in 2002, nor to the democratically elected president of the Congo, Partrice Lumumba, in 1961, nor what the CIA did to US president John F. Kennedy in 1963 (see James Douglass's book, JFK and the Unspeakable), nor to what US Marine General Smedley Butler did in Central America in the early 1900's (see his book War is a Racket here: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html), nor to the "Trail of Tears" in in 1838 and 1839, nor to the wholesale firebombing of cities in WWII, nor to FDR's sacrifice of the US Seventh Fleet at Pearl Harbor to draw a WWI weary US population into WWII in 1941 (see circuit judge John Denson's A Century of War), nor to the wholesale systematic slaughter of and abrogation of treaties with American Indians by the US and British governments over the course of three centuries (and counting), nor to the dropping of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that all the military leaders of the day said was completely unnecessary (no, it did not save 1/2 million US military lives - see James Bradley's The Imperial Cruise), nor to the deliberate US sacrifice of the Lusitania in order to draw the US into WWI, nor to the real reasons for the US civil war (tariffs against foreign manufactured goods that fostered the growth of the industrialized northern US at the expense of the agrarian southern US), nor to the acquiescence of the US to the slaughter of 100,000 civilians in East Timore by Indonesia at virtually the exact moment the US was decrying the incursion by Iraq into Kuwait (which the US had allowed Sadam to think was approved by the US), nor to the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, and Malcolm X, nor to how the US destroyed Libya in 2011, nor to how the US caused the current refugee crisis in Syria, ..... space and time does not permit more, but see here: https://www.globalpolicy.org/us-military-expansion-and-intervention/26024.html for a more detailed list.

And the bizarre thing is the Republican war mongers then claim that the Democrats are destroying the morality of the United States. Come on! Was there EVER such a thing as morality in the United States? It seems pretty clear that neither party has any legitimate claim to morality.

What is also clear is there is precious little basis for any claim to a US national standard of morality. Shall we discuss the horrendous record of law enforcement in condemning innocent people to death and the subsequent lack of remedial action? Shall we discuss police brutality? Shall we discuss how the "American Dream" of parents leaving their children better off and the ability to raise one's standard of living is now more attainable in most foreign countries than it is in the US today? Shall we discuss how the US uses "depleted" uranium in its weapons and thereby causes birth defects for generations to come? Shall we discuss how the US dropped more bombs on tiny Vietnam than were dropped in all of WWII? I could go on - if I had the time, which I don't.

So, what's the purpose of calling attention to all of this?

Simple.

We can never rise above our bad behavior if we refuse to acknowledge it, own it, and take appropriate action to remedy it.

And, given the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of wrong doing by the US, it's hard to imagine that the American populace at large is ignorant of it. This raises questions regarding the real nature of morality of the general US populace. Perhaps what our government is and has been doing has never been very far from what the majority of the population approved, explicitly or tacitly.

 

[RDKirk]

But God will hold us accountable for how we vote.

Scripture for that?

 

[RDKirk]

At one time I believed that as well. But, the more I know of law and the more I know of Scripture the more I am convinced that that is wrong. The essence of Paul's teachings, throughout his epistles, especially in Romans and Galatians, is that law is powerless to bring about goodness. Now, in Paul's context, he was talking about God's law.. But, if that is true of God's law, which is perfect, how much more true is it of human law, which is flawed? Human law exists to provide a sense of order so that a society can function most effectively. If cannot, does not, and should not, seek to punish every immoral act, and it should punish no act solely on the basis of morality. Rather, the purpose of human law is to ensure that individuals within a society can act within the society in a manner that is beneficial to themselves and to others. In short, the role of the government is to enact laws that protect each person's life and safety, their liberty, and their property, and to provide the basic infrastructure needed for each person within the society to live relatively safely, freely, and prosperously.

Yes, so having done that:

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 1 Timothy 2

That's what we are praying for from authorities. "...That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence" is what and all government is required to provide. If the government provides a safe and stable social regime that permits Christians to carry out our mission, the government has met God's requirements.

 

[greenguzzi]

Citizen of Heaven, currently deployed to the US -- 1 Peter 1:1

I like your sig. I'm tempted to pinch it, but I won't. I'll use it for inspiration.

 

[greenguzzi]

Ahh! Too bad more of those who are can't seem to comprehend how much commonsense is embedded in the rest of greenguzzi's post.

Thanks, I think. I hope you are not being ironic, it's so rare that I am accused of common sense. ;-)

 

[greenguzzi]

And most Republicans support US militarism, aggression, and clandestine meddling which results in the wholesale destruction of entire countries. "We bombed them back to the stone age" was the proud - and true - claim of many Republicans regarding the US aggression against Iraq which resulted in more than one million Iraqi deaths and destroyed an entire modern civilization. That, of course, was piggy backed on the US having provided Sadam chemical weapons to use against Iran. Which was done because Iran had the temerity to overthrow the Shah and his secret police which had been installed and propped up by the US government after the US overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953. That was done by the US because come-uppity Iran had put an end to the exploitation of Iranian oil by British oil companies. And never you mind what the US did to the democratically elected government of the Ukraine in 2014, nor Chile's president Allende in 1973, nor South Vietnam's Diem in 1963, nor what Carter and Reagan did in Central America in the 1970's and 1980's, nor what Bush attempted in Venezuela in 2002, nor to the democratically elected president of the Congo, Partrice Lumumba, in 1961, nor what the CIA did to US president John F. Kennedy in 1963 (see James Douglass's book, JFK and the Unspeakable), nor to what US Marine General Smedley Butler did in Central America in the early 1900's (see his book War is a Racket here: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html), nor to the "Trail of Tears" in in 1838 and 1839, nor to the wholesale firebombing of cities in WWII, nor to FDR's sacrifice of the US Seventh Fleet at Pearl Harbor to draw a WWI weary US population into WWII in 1941 (see circuit judge John Denson's A Century of War), nor to the wholesale systematic slaughter of and abrogation of treaties with American Indians by the US and British governments over the course of three centuries (and counting), nor to the dropping of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that all the military leaders of the day said was completely unnecessary (no, it did not save 1/2 million US military lives - see James Bradley's The Imperial Cruise), nor to the deliberate US sacrifice of the Lusitania in order to draw the US into WWI, nor to the real reasons for the US civil war (tariffs against foreign manufactured goods that fostered the growth of the industrialized northern US at the expense of the agrarian southern US), nor to the acquiescence of the US to the slaughter of 100,000 civilians in East Timore by Indonesia at virtually the exact moment the US was decrying the incursion by Iraq into Kuwait (which the US had allowed Sadam to think was approved by the US), nor to the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, and Malcolm X, nor to how the US destroyed Libya in 2011, nor to how the US caused the current refugee crisis in Syria, ..... space and time does not permit more, but see here: https://www.globalpolicy.org/us-military-expansion-and-intervention/26024.html for a more detailed list.

And the bizarre thing is the Republican war mongers then claim that the Democrats are destroying the morality of the United States. Come on! Was there EVER such a thing as morality in the United States? It seems pretty clear that neither party has any legitimate claim to morality.

What is also clear is there is precious little basis for any claim to a US national standard of morality. Shall we discuss the horrendous record of law enforcement in condemning innocent people to death and the subsequent lack of remedial action? Shall we discuss police brutality? Shall we discuss how the "American Dream" of parents leaving their children better off and the ability to raise one's standard of living is now more attainable in most foreign countries than it is in the US today? Shall we discuss how the US uses "depleted" uranium in its weapons and thereby causes birth defects for generations to come? Shall we discuss how the US dropped more bombs on tiny Vietnam than were dropped in all of WWII? I could go on - if I had the time, which I don't.

So, what's the purpose of calling attention to all of this?

Simple.

We can never rise above our bad behavior if we refuse to acknowledge it, own it, and take appropriate action to remedy it.

And, given the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of wrong doing by the US, it's hard to imagine that the American populace at large is ignorant of it. This raises questions regarding the real nature of morality of the general US populace. Perhaps what our government is and has been doing has never been very far from what the majority of the population approved, explicitly or tacitly.

That's smegging devastating! Remind me to never get on the opposing team when you are debating.
Respect.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I vote Democratic because:
1. Social justice. I do not believe that having a home, food, medical care, clothing and everything else should be predicated only on income level. I also believe that if one has much, it is required of that one to give to the one who has little.

2. Abortion. Making it illegal will not stop it. I prefer to keep it legal to avoid MORE deaths.

3. Universal health care. EVERY human being is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore there is no reason to deny anyone the right to medical care due to inability to pay for it. Neither is it right to expect people to go bankrupt trying to pay for medical care.

4. The growing gap between the haves and have nots.

I take Matthew 25:31-46 as the basis for my beliefs. That passage condemns those who would not do for the "least of these".

 

[Caretaker]

I vote Democratic because:
1. Social justice. I do not believe that having a home, food, medical care, clothing and everything else should be predicated only on income level. I also believe that if one has much, it is required of that one to give to the one who has little.

2. Abortion. Making it illegal will not stop it. I prefer to keep it legal to avoid MORE deaths.

3. Universal health care. EVERY human being is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore there is no reason to deny anyone the right to medical care due to inability to pay for it. Neither is it right to expect people to go bankrupt trying to pay for medical care.

4. The growing gap between the haves and have nots.

I take Matthew 25:31-46 as the basis for my beliefs. That passage condemns those who would not do for the "least of these".

Then you, like I, must have been hugely disappointed with Obama.

But what if this election turns out to be Hillary vs Trump? For whom will you vote?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Then you, like I, must have been hugely disappointed with Obama.

But what if this election turns out to be Hillary vs Trump? For whom will you vote?

I will not vote for Trump...that's a given. As a Latina, he terrifies me. I still hold out hope for Bernie Sanders and will not be making that decision until after the conventions. I'm certain that I will not be voting for any Republican, whether it's local, state or national office.

 

[Caretaker]

I will not vote for Trump...that's a given. As a Latina, he terrifies me. I still hold out hope for Bernie Sanders and will not be making that decision until after the conventions. I'm certain that I will not be voting for any Republican, whether it's local, state or national office.

Why is Hillary doing so much better than Bernie among Latinos and blacks? If Bernie had the Latino and black vote - which, in my view, he should - he'd be walking away with the nomination. As it is, it seems his only hope is if Hillary gets arrested.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Why is Hillary doing so much better than Bernie among Latinos and blacks? If Bernie had the Latino and black vote - which, in my view, he should - he'd be walking away with the nomination. As it is, it seems his only hope is if Hillary gets arrested.

I think it's more a lack of name recognition...although I don't really know. Also, Latinos are not some monolithic block of people...we're from different countries and different cultures. Some Latinos choose to stay within their insular communities (Little Havana for example) and some don't. Some don't really make the effort to lose their accent and others do. When I speak English, I have a southern twang in there because I grew up in the south, yet my Spanish is not "gringoized" at all. Hillary has really made the effort to reach out to the Latino community and I'm not seeing a whole lot of that from Bernie...he needs to step up his game and come out with a REAL immigration policy.

 

[Caretaker]

I think it's more a lack of name recognition...although I don't really know. Also, Latinos are not some monolithic block of people...we're from different countries and different cultures. Some Latinos choose to stay within their insular communities (Little Havana for example) and some don't. Some don't really make the effort to lose their accent and others do. When I speak English, I have a southern twang in there because I grew up in the south, yet my Spanish is not "gringoized" at all. Hillary has really made the effort to reach out to the Latino community and I'm not seeing a whole lot of that from Bernie...he needs to step up his game and come out with a REAL immigration policy.

Here's a recent news story (5 hours ago) about Bernie on the border on immigration. I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on it.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...ico-border-talks-immigration-reform/82049492/

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Here's the crux of the matter. From the article "She also has the support of most of the Democratic political establishment." Many Latinos, unfortunately are low information voters. IOW they don't spend time on the internet, and the Spanish language news reporting is just as biased as the English news reporting. So, I think there's a lot of fault to go around as to why Bernie isn't on the Latino radar.

Although, tbh, I've spent most of my life in the "white" world. Since I look "white" and speak like a native caucasian, I really don't have a lot of interfacing with the Latino community here where I live. I am Cuban-American, and my parents chose to leave Little Havana after they immigrated from Cuba. So, I was raised in essentially a white, lower-middle class community elsewhere in the south. I can count the number of Latinos I knew growing up that weren't family, on one hand. I think there were 3. Also, within the greater Latino "community" there's plenty of prejudice. Cubans don't like anybody else, Mexicans aren't fond of Panamanians or Hondurans...etc. Of us 5 kids, i'm called the "throwback" because I actually look more Native American than the rest of my family. Needless to say, I got a lot of rubbish growing up. I have cousins who came out looking more black than white and they get called "negritos". Cubans generally think their stuff doesn't stink...they also tend to be more conservative than others.

Again, there are numerous factors going into this...and I'm not a sociologist...just a retired engineer who happens to be Latina...married to a gringo.

 

[Caretaker]

Here's the crux of the matter. From the article "She also has the support of most of the Democratic political establishment." Many Latinos, unfortunately are low information voters. IOW they don't spend time on the internet, and the Spanish language news reporting is just as biased as the English news reporting. So, I think there's a lot of fault to go around as to why Bernie isn't on the Latino radar.

Although, tbh, I've spent most of my life in the "white" world. Since I look "white" and speak like a native caucasian, I really don't have a lot of interfacing with the Latino community here where I live. I am Cuban-American, and my parents chose to leave Little Havana after they immigrated from Cuba. So, I was raised in essentially a white, lower-middle class community elsewhere in the south. I can count the number of Latinos I knew growing up that weren't family, on one hand. I think there were 3. Also, within the greater Latino "community" there's plenty of prejudice. Cubans don't like anybody else, Mexicans aren't fond of Panamanians or Hondurans...etc. Of us 5 kids, i'm called the "throwback" because I actually look more Native American than the rest of my family. Needless to say, I got a lot of rubbish growing up. I have cousins who came out looking more black than white and they get called "negritos". Cubans generally think their stuff doesn't stink...they also tend to be more conservative than others.

Again, there are numerous factors going into this...and I'm not a sociologist...just a retired engineer who happens to be Latina...married to a gringo.

Thanks! Interesting!

Not paying sufficient attention is not restricted to Latinos!

 

[Kersh]

Then you, like I, must have been hugely disappointed with Obama.

But what if this election turns out to be Hillary vs Trump? For whom will you vote?

I am embarrassed to admit that I voted for Obama, twice. He's been a terrible President. But, I think that if either Clinton or Trump is elected, we will long for the good old days of Obama. And, I fear that a Trump-Hillary race is all but inevitable.

 

[Thunder Peel]

Scripture for that?

I think Romans 14:12 is a pretty good indicator:

"So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God."

If we choose to vote then we must assume that there will be consequences for who we support and the outcome of those decisions. It's hard to believe that God is unconcerned when we elect candidates that hold views contradictory to His Word.

 

[Hieronymus]

"How does a devout Christian justify voting ?"

Because every candidate holds views that contradict God's Word.

Also, it's just distraction.
The world goes its ways regardless of votes by the plebs.
There is no democracy, only a right to vote for liars every so many years.

 

[RDKirk]

I think Romans 14:12 is a pretty good indicator:

"So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God."

If we choose to vote then we must assume that there will be consequences for who we support and the outcome of those decisions. It's hard to believe that God is unconcerned when we elect candidates that hold views contradictory to His Word.

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:27

It's also hard to believe that God is unconcerned about every television program you choose to watch, every article of clothing you choose to wear, how you interacted with the last person you met, whether you reached out care for the last poor person you passed....

And it's hard to believe that God is unconcerned if you don't vote for the candidate who made caring for the powerless and indigent his main priority...inasmuch as that is explicitly defined as pure and faultless religion.