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

[RDKirk]

And , again, I remain convinced that Jesus was neighter a liberal nor a conservative. Those terms simply did not exist in His lifetime.

That's true.

 

[RDKirk]

Render unto God what belongs to God.
What belongs to God? If you are a Christian, you know the answer to that question.
What belongs to God? You do.

As a point to that, remember Jesus' actual illustration: Whose image was stamped on the coin? Caesar's. So the coin belonged to Caesar.

"Let us make man in our own image."

God's image is stamped on man.

 

[RDKirk]

The behaviors that related to each did exist though.

Not really. I could argue that Jesus was a monarchy reactionary, merely opposing the current power structure in every way it operated with the intention of imposing His own monarchy.

I could argue as well that Jesus and Paul preached and practiced classical fascism as explicitly defined by Mussolini.

Back in the latter years of the USSR, we in the intelligence community had an inside joke: If Communists are "lefties," then are the Communist hardliners left-wing or right-wing?

 

[Desk trauma]

However, I don't remember reading anything about anyone actually being stoned under that law...

People are executed by the state and lynched by mobs to this day for homosexuality, are you claiming that this never took place in Israel when they explicitly call for executing homosexuals in their divinely inspired law?

It is possible to repeal an amendment to the Constitution...the precedent has already been set.

It's not a matter of legal precedent it was written into the document its self in article V.

I suppose I'd repeal the 14th and rewrite it to make sure there was no loophole for sexual perversion to poke it's ugly butt through...

You would have to repeal a bit more then that. The fourth amendment would need to be radically altered so that the right to privacy is explicitly stricken from the law so that Lawrence Vs. Texas is no longer a concern.

Assuming that your butchery of the constitution somehow gets the super majorities needed to pass, which is not going to happen given the polling on the issue, and your anti-ugly butt amendment makes it in, how would you like to see it worded? What would the penalties for homosexuality be? Would the law include other sexual practices that the bible condemns or would it be limited to homosexuals? If so why?

 

[bhsmte]

Not really. I could argue that Jesus was a monarchy reactionary, merely opposing the current power structure in every way it operated with the intention of imposing His own monarchy.

I could argue as well that Jesus and Paul preached and practiced classical fascism as explicitly defined by Mussolini.

Back in the latter years of the USSR, we in the intelligence community had an inside joke: If Communists are "lefties," then are the Communist hardliners left-wing or right-wing?

What kind of monarchy did Jesus want to impose on others?

 

[Undiscoveredcountry2]

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)

But that statement in itself is very US-focussed in the assumptions it makes. UK and Europe-wise, for better or worse, there are just as many Conservatives as Liberals and Socialists that are pro-non marital sexuality, are functionally athiest/agnostic in their faith, secretly engage in drug use, and are pro-homosexuality (Remember that it was the Conservative-led previous coalition government that introduced same-sex marriage in the UK). Trying to create linkages between particular political parties and Christianity is unhelpful (as it immediately implies to supporters of other parties that there is a barrier to them becoming a Christian) and simply reflects individual countries' political history rather than having any meaningful link to theology.

 

[RDKirk]

What kind of monarchy did Jesus want to impose on others?

I didn't say "impose," I said "oppose."

 

[Dave-W]

But that statement in itself is very US-focused in the assumptions it makes.

Of course it is. I have lived in the US for 60 years.

Aside from the current political definitions of liberal and conservative (which I generally reject); the words mean "to change the status quo" [liberal] and "maintain the current status quo, or go back to a previous status quo" [conservative] respectively.

So for a "Conservative" group to advocate a serious change in the current status quo by introducing same sex marriage means they are not truly conservative.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course it is. I have lived in the US for 60 years.

Aside from the current political definitions of liberal and conservative (which I generally reject); the words mean "to change the status quo" [liberal] and "maintain the current status quo, or go back to a previous status quo" [conservative] respectively.

So for a "Conservative" group to advocate a serious change in the current status quo by introducing same sex marriage means they are not truly conservative.

That still leaves your statement as American-focused because it addresses issues of the "status quo" as defined by American politics. Same sex marriage isn't even on the table as an issue for liberals in North Korea, for instance.

As well, in the US, Communists are considered "liberals." But when the Soviet Union was collapsing, were the Communists the liberals or the conservatives?

 

[RDKirk]

.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't say "impose," I said "oppose."

My bad.

 

[bhsmte]

That still leaves your statement as American-focused because it addresses issues of the "status quo" as defined by American politics. Same sex marriage isn't even on the table as an issue for liberals in North Korea, for instance.

As well, in the US, Communists are considered "liberals." But when the Soviet Union was collapsing, were the Communists the liberals or the conservatives?

Great question.

One thing I always found interesting, is I always looked at communists philosophy, as trying very hard to control the behavior of their citizens, as a top priority. I have also found that as you move further to the right in American politics, you tend to see this same desire to control and or limit the behaviors of citizens.

 

[FireDragon76]

Some people need to get beyond their polarizing worldview of "liberal" vs. "conservative".

 

[Dave-W]

in the US, Communists are considered "liberals."

They were in the 1960s anyway....

But when the Soviet Union was collapsing, were the Communists the liberals or the conservatives?

During the years of the Soviet Union, hard line Communists were the right wing conservatives and those who advocated for democracy were flaming leftist liberals. (and often dead) As a kid I found that rather confusing.

 

[Dave-W]

One thing I always found interesting, is I always looked at communists philosophy, as trying very hard to control the behavior of their citizens, as a top priority. I have also found that as you move further to the right in American politics, you tend to see this same desire to control and or limit the behaviors of citizens.

That happens if you move to the left as well.

 

[Albion]

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

If you were to actually "go against" Christ's values, there'd be a point to be made. But voting is not against Christ's values.

 

[bhsmte]

That happens if you move to the left as well.

What you are saying then, is the further someone moves to the right, the closer they get to those on the far left, in regards to having a desire to control the behavior of others?

 

[RDKirk]

That happens if you move to the left as well.

The answer to that is something more useful than a single-axis left-right spectrum. There are several 2-axes political graphs and at least one 3-axes graph I've seen. But my favorite is the Jerry Pournelle 2-axis matrix that was part of his poli sci doctoral thesis.

The significant thing here is that his two axes are the two most significant issues for American political thought: "Attitude toward social planning" on one axis and "attitude toward government control" on the other. It produces some interesting and sometimes surprising results--that make complete sense when you think about it.

For instance, classical hippies are strongly negative in both "Attitude toward social planning" and "attitude toward government control." OTOH, Communists are strongly positive in both "Attitude toward social planning" and "attitude toward government control." That makes hippies the extreme political opposite of Communists--so there was never any such thing as the proverbial "Commie hippy."

 

[FireDragon76]

The answer to that is something more useful than a single-axis left-right spectrum. There are several 2-axes political graphs and at least one 3-axes graph I've seen. But my favorite is the Jerry Pournelle 2-axis matrix that was part of his poli sci doctoral thesis.

That's a good example of how politics is more complicated than "left-right" dynamics.

I'm a moderate left-libertarian.

 

[Dave-W]

For instance, classical hippies are strongly negative in both "Attitude toward social planning" and "attitude toward government control." OTOH, Communists are strongly positive in both "Attitude toward social planning" and "attitude toward government control." That makes hippies the extreme political opposite of Communists--so there was never any such thing as the proverbial "Commie hippy."

And yet there were hundreds or thousands of hippies living in communes ......