Can you morally call yourself a Christian if you vote conservative.

[The_Gaurdian87]

God/ Jesus does not belong to a political party and does not care what political party his followers are in. All God/Jesus cares about is if you have accepted him as your lord and savior and you have a personal relationship with him, and living a life that honors him to the best of your ability.

 

[Undiscoveredcountry2]

I have a feeling that if anyone had tried to put Jesus in any kind of political box He would have immediately made a comment that would not fit that box at all.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Why are we talking politics as if charity and/or bankrolling irresponsible activities are the sum and total of either party?

You might as well be discussing your own views of your own individual parties platforms and that has nothing to do with Christianity, Christ or any form of religion.

 

[wilts43]

As a UK participant let me observe that this thread is totally bound up in an “American” agenda.
Let's just remember your where your “conservative” ethic devolves from?....... a situation in which you first stole so-called “under-utilised” land & resources from its traditional “owners”. You then re-distributed this “property-theft” freely to poor immigrants. At this point a highly revolutionary, violent, & “communistic” foundation!

But, having been given these resources for independence, Americans had only to work reasonably to prosper. Hence the “Pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps” approach became the new established ethic of the comfortable. (Conservative)......Forgetting the theft & the handouts of land necessary.

But, now all natural resources are nearly as "pre-bought-up" for you Americans as for medieval Europeans,.....this conservative ethic is no longer appropriate.
A return to a revolutionary ethic is indicated, but virulently resisted by the comfortable.....locked in their ethic of convenience.

Your religion may be defined as “that which you put first”
If you trim your Christianity to fit your politics then those politics are your religion. And we see all the time people shoring up their selfish politics by appealing to religion.

But if you adjust your politics to fit your Christianity, you would be a pro-redistributive taxation, pro free-healthcare, pro-affordable housing, Pro environmental nurturing, pro-land-reform, you would probably favour small enterprise over the corporate takeover of power, you would be liberal in all that helps nurture the individual whilst recognising that this is always in a societal context, and you would probably be very, very sceptical about abortion.

Overall the Liberals and Socialists currently more often fit the Christian agenda.... except on abortion. In their rush to defend “Women's reproductive rights” they run straight past the issue (Is there only the woman involved?). They have a blind spot here. Work for us to do.

But this fault must not be our justification to therefore neglect the only matters on which we will be judged. “Did you feed me when I was hungry etc.?”
Let's remember the ability of the marginalised now, in our highly regulated, urbanised societies, to just "go out" & interact with the natural world....hunt food, build shelters, claim space....is outlawed. They are in a cage we all make. Things can be improved by improving the cage but wider restructuring is required to unlock access to the worlds resources for the poor to be independent again.
Letting every square inch be gobbled up by multi-national conglomerates (who will pay wage-slaves) is NOT the right direction. Both Conservatives & Liberals can support this for different reasons but at least the pope is resisting it.

 

[Dave-W]

Overall the Liberals and Socialists currently more often fit the Christian agenda.... except on abortion.

I would say on more than just abortion. Liberals are pro-drug use, pro-homosexuality, pro-non marital sexuality; and they are against the idea of one true religion. (which means that they consider them all equally wrong)

 

[bhsmte]

I would say on more than just abortion. Liberals are pro-drug use, pro-homosexuality, pro-non marital sexuality; and they are against the idea of one true religion. (which means that they consider them all equally wrong)

I would think it would be more like; people are free to worship the religion of their choosing.

For their to be "one true" religion, one would have to demonstrate this religion, is indeed true.

 

[wilts43]

I would say on more than just abortion. Liberals are pro-drug use, pro-homosexuality, pro-non marital sexuality; and they are against the idea of one true religion. (which means that they consider them all equally wrong)

You say "Liberals are pro-drug use".
I don't know? They may take a wider, more questioning perspective.....If we tolerate alcohol, caffeine & Tobacco have we drawn those lines logically & fairly?
Same with tolerating homosexuality; we now know that God didn't just "make them male female" (as Paul presages his arguably-interpreted strictures) ....He made them of indeterminant gender, chromosonally abnormal, and indeed homosexual.
But everything we have learned of life in the womb since the 60's should make us more cautious of abortion not more tolerant?
Liberals have not been called to account on this life-issue because we are so easily undermined on lesser sexual- issues.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

Jesus was an anti -establishment hippie.
A true Christian lives a life of charity and poverty.

The vast majority of people of all political beliefs simply cherry pick the things they want to from Christianity as a means of validating their own way of life and prejudices.

Jesus said that a tree will be judged by its fruit.Certainly not by which political party or ideology it chooses to follow.

 

[paulm50]

As a UK participant let me observe that this thread is totally bound up in an “American” agenda.
Let's just remember your where your “conservative” ethic devolves from?....... a situation in which you first stole so-called “under-utilised” land & resources from its traditional “owners”. You then re-distributed this “property-theft” freely to poor immigrants. At this point a highly revolutionary, violent, & “communistic” foundation!

But, having been given these resources for independence, Americans had only to work reasonably to prosper. Hence the “Pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps” approach became the new established ethic of the comfortable. (Conservative)......Forgetting the theft & the handouts of land necessary.

But, now all natural resources are nearly as "pre-bought-up" for you Americans as for medieval Europeans,.....this conservative ethic is no longer appropriate.
A return to a revolutionary ethic is indicated, but virulently resisted by the comfortable.....locked in their ethic of convenience.

Your religion may be defined as “that which you put first”
If you trim your Christianity to fit your politics then those politics are your religion. And we see all the time people shoring up their selfish politics by appealing to religion.

But if you adjust your politics to fit your Christianity, you would be a pro-redistributive taxation, pro free-healthcare, pro-affordable housing, Pro environmental nurturing, pro-land-reform, you would probably favour small enterprise over the corporate takeover of power, you would be liberal in all that helps nurture the individual whilst recognising that this is always in a societal context, and you would probably be very, very sceptical about abortion.

Overall the Liberals and Socialists currently more often fit the Christian agenda.... except on abortion. In their rush to defend “Women's reproductive rights” they run straight past the issue (Is there only the woman involved?). They have a blind spot here. Work for us to do.

But this fault must not be our justification to therefore neglect the only matters on which we will be judged. “Did you feed me when I was hungry etc.?”
Let's remember the ability of the marginalised now, in our highly regulated, urbanised societies, to just "go out" & interact with the natural world....hunt food, build shelters, claim space....is outlawed. They are in a cage we all make. Things can be improved by improving the cage but wider restructuring is required to unlock access to the worlds resources for the poor to be independent again.
Letting every square inch be gobbled up by multi-national conglomerates (who will pay wage-slaves) is NOT the right direction. Both Conservatives & Liberals can support this for different reasons but at least the pope is resisting it.

You forgot to mention slavery. Without which The US would be far poorer, want to war to defend or destroy, and even today is a scar on America. And the UK.

Jesus's message was to love thy fellow man. That can't be done in a society that's so keen on oppressing so much of it.

The cost of a Left Wing approach to love thy fellow man, means everyone will be poorer, even the poor. Because to fund a Left Wing approach is expensive and without the rewards of generating vast amount of capital. Vast amounts of capital aren't generated.

Catch 22.

For me it means be as kind as I can, help others around me and love my fellow man.

 

[Dave-W]

For their to be "one true" religion, one would have to demonstrate this religion, is indeed true.

In one sense - true.

But since Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and a host of other belief systems all claim to be the ONLY one; To say that all have equal footing is the same as saying they are ALL WRONG. None of them are the ONLY way.

 

[Dave-W]

Jesus was an anti -establishment hippie.

Hippy? Really? Advocating indiscriminate sex, the use of psychedelic and psychotropic drugs, and refusing to take a bath?
I don't think so.

A true Christian lives a life of charity and poverty.

Charity? Absolutely.

Poverty? Since it is considered a curse in the bible, and He died to relieve us from curses; I do not agree at all.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

You say "Liberals are pro-drug use".
I don't know? They may take a wider, more questioning perspective.....If we tolerate alcohol, caffeine & Tobacco have we drawn those lines logically & fairly?
Same with tolerating homosexuality; we now know that God didn't just "make them male female" (as Paul presages his arguably-interpreted strictures) ....He made them of indeterminant gender, chromosonally abnormal, and indeed homosexual.
But everything we have learned of life in the womb since the 60's should make us more cautious of abortion not more tolerant?
Liberals have not been called to account on this life-issue because we are so easily undermined on lesser sexual- issues.

The trouble is that the anti abortion agenda is promoted by a group of people who are the least likely to be impacted by it and the least likely to have any moral right to impose their will on others regarding this matter.
That is -PRIVILEGED WHITE MEN.
Some women may support it but their direction comes from these men and in the case of nuns are also the least likely to be impacted by it.
Men need to BUTT OUT.
It is none of their business.

 

[LynnC]

I think to be a Christian is to be conservative.
To take the hard path.
To stand out as different from the world.
It is the liberals that are always trying to fit in with the world(the newest fad, the newest way of thinking) and that ignore the guides of God.
God is unchanging.
You can not walk with one foot in the world and one on the path of God, for a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.
and friendship with the world is enmity with God.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

I think to be a Christian is to be conservative.
To take the hard path.
To stand out as different from the world.
It is the liberals that are always trying to fit in with the world(the newest fad, the newest way of thinking) and that ignore the guides of God.
God is unchanging.
You can not walk with one foot in the world and one on the path of God, for a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.
and friendship with the world is enmity with God.

No.If you are a conservative you would follow the Orthodox Jewish faith.

 

[LynnC]

No.If you are a conservative you would follow the Orthodox Jewish faith.

Greetings hiphipopotomus, (wow, that's hard to type )
Didn't Yshwe(known as Jesus) follow the Orthodox Jewish faith?

 

[wilts43]

The trouble is that the anti abortion agenda is promoted by a group of people who are the least likely to be impacted by it and the least likely to have any moral right to impose their will on others regarding this matter.
That is -PRIVILEGED WHITE MEN.
Some women may support it but their direction comes from these men and in the case of nuns are also the least likely to be impacted by it.
Men need to BUTT OUT.
It is none of their business.

The assertion that "Abortion is solely a woman's business" is exactly what I meant by "rushing past the question to get to the slogan".
The very question/controversy over abortion hinges on: whether (or not) only the woman is involved?
Is, what is killed, simply & solely part of the woman?
If it isn't, then surely everyone has a duty to speak?

In my experience, "pro-choice" advocates make no effort to prove that "only the woman" is involved.
It is an unproven assumption that liberals feel disloyal to question.
(As a general-liberal I feel we fall into a partisan groupthink here)
But (apart from the life that is killed) the woman does indeed bear the brunt of consequences for unwanted or unintended new lives. And I wonder how many women, with real choices and real alternatives, would choose abortion. This is where Christian action is needed; pro-life solutions not judgements.
And what I meant by "everything we have learned of life in the womb since the 60's" was that the early development of human life in the womb (& its biological "separateness") has been astonishing.

I am a male; I am white; I am poor rather than priviledged. Does that invalidate what I say or not?
We are all always told to "butt out" when we comment on human rights abuses. Historically Communist Bloc countries rejected Western criticisms on the basis that it was none of their business. Likewise South Africa.
To say that only potentially reproductive women may express an opinion on this matter prejudges the issue.
And could be like saying I have to be a slave-owner, or part of their class, to say that slavery was wrong.
NB
In saying all of this I am not judging those I know, or those I don't know, who have had abortions, anymore than when speak against war I am judging all those who have taken part in wars.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

The assertion that "Abortion is solely a woman's business" is exactly what I meant by "rushing past the question to get to the slogan".
The very question/controversy over abortion hinges on: whether (or not) only the woman is involved?
Is, what is killed, simply & solely part of the woman?
If it isn't, then surely everyone has a duty to speak?

In my experience, "pro-choice" advocates make no effort to prove that "only the woman" is involved.
It is an unproven assumption that liberals feel disloyal to question.
(As a general-liberal I feel we fall into a partisan groupthink here)
But (apart from the life that is killed) the woman does indeed bear the brunt of consequences for unwanted or unintended new lives. And I wonder how many women, with real choices and real alternatives, would choose abortion. This is where Christian action is needed; pro-life solutions not judgements.
And what I meant by "everything we have learned of life in the womb since the 60's" was that the early development of human life in the womb (& its biological "separateness") has been astonishing.

I am a male; I am white; I am poor rather than priviledged. Does that invalidate what I say or not?
We are all always told to "butt out" when we comment on human rights abuses. Historically Communist Bloc countries rejected Western criticisms on the basis that it was none of their business. Likewise South Africa.
To say that only potentially reproductive women may express an opinion on this matter prejudges the issue.
And could be like saying I have to be a slave-owner, or part of their class, to say that slavery was wrong.
NB
In saying all of this I am not judging those I know, or those I don't know, who have had abortions, anymore than when speak against war I am judging all those who have taken part in wars.

What invalidates what you are saying is that you can never walk a mile in the shoes of a women faced with making such a decision.Especially in complex cases where the pregnancy is the result rape or incest or which has severe health implications for either mother or baby.
Furthermore banning abortion is never going to stop it.Only make it more traumatic and dangerous .

 

[wilts43]

What invalidates what you are saying is that you can never walk a mile in the shoes of a women faced with making such a decision.Especially in complex cases where the pregnancy is the result rape or incest or which has severe health implications for either mother or baby.
Furthermore banning abortion is never going to stop it.Only make it more traumatic and dangerous .

(1) Hard cases make bad law.

(2)Quite right. "I can never walk in her shoes"......neither can I, you, or her, walk in the shoes of the aborted baby.
But I don't see that my comments are invalidated by that fact?

(3)I am not blanket judging, or condemning, individuals cornered by very varying circumstances.
Just as I presume neither of us would condemn those who steal because they have to. But this does not mean all theft is OK; nor does it justify a blanket right to steal. And being forced to steal does not destroy life.
Many intrinsically evil acts are comitted by humans when cornered (think war) and our response is compassion and foregiveness....but let us retain the right to say they wrong.

But do we all not have a duty to speak when our laws allow those without a voice to be destroyed en masse? Surely?

(4)It is indefensible to say that only those in the group who commit an act can say whether that act is justified.

(5) I think this is PC, liberal groupthink. We side with our habitual allies, who say womens' rights trumps all, rather than deal with an horrendously difficult moral isssue.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

(1) Hard cases make bad law.

(2)Quite right. "I can never walk in her shoes"......neither can I, you, or her, walk in the shoes of the aborted baby.
But I don't see that my comments are invalidated by that fact?

(3)I am not blanket judging, or condemning, individuals cornered by very varying circumstances.
Just as I presume neither of us would condemn those who steal because they have to. But this does not mean all theft is OK; nor does it justify a blanket right to steal. And being forced to steal does not destroy life.
Many intrinsically evil acts are comitted by humans when cornered (think war) and our response is compassion and foregiveness....but let us retain the right to say they wrong.

But do we all not have a duty to speak when our laws allow those without a voice to be destroyed en masse? Surely?

(4)It is indefensible to say that only those in the group who commit an act can say whether that act is justified.

(5) I think this is PC, liberal groupthink. We side with our habitual allies, who say womens' rights trumps all, rather than deal with an horrendously difficult moral isssue.

Well it is an horrendously difficult moral issue but women have had to suffer the injustice of laws,religious dictates and bullying imposed on them by men which have been more about repressing and controlling them than about what is morally the right thing.Women have been forced to marry,forced to obey,forced to conform,prevented from working or pursuing a career,forced to suffer genital mutilation,forced to have sex.. etc etc.Being forced to have children is just another one of these injustices.

 

[Steven Wood]

I say not cause you go against Christs values but it will interesting to see what others think.

I don't understand this thread at all. I'm republican. I conservative. And a Christian. Well I actually take that back. If I have to be thrown into a general mix then I'd say the closest I would be are those 3 but if you got down to the brass tacks and dissected the 3 and also my ways of thinking. I have very little in common with them but more in common than I do with any other groups.