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

[Dave-W]

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?

Probably the classic example of that was Lyndon LaRouche's US Labor Party in the 1970s and 80s. The media could never figure out if he was so far left he was right or so far right he was left.

So they started describing it as a circle. Think of moving along the equator from West Africa (Congo Gabon border). You can go west longitude or east longitude and end up in the same place, in the Marshal Islands.

 

[RDKirk]

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

Which is as different from Communism as was the 1st century congregation of the Body of Christ in Jerusalem, which "held all things in common." The Body of Christ, btw, is classically Fascist.

 

[Dave-W]

Which is as different from Communism

As promulgated by Lenin. Marxism could be very much in line with a commune situation, only on a much grander scale.

 

[RDKirk]

As promulgated by Lenin. Marxism could be very much in line with a commune situation, only on a much grander scale.

Has nothing to do with "hippyism." Both Communism and Marxism are government-controlled, government-planned economic systems. Classical hippies, even while living in communes, are fundamentally opposed to both social planning and government control.

In, specifically, the two major issues of American politics--the two issues fundamental from the beginning-- classical hippies are the diametric opposite of Communists and Marxists. A lot of Israelies have lived in communes as well--did that make them Communists? Or did it even make them hippies?

Some issues--say, abortion--in themselves have very little to do with political position. However, whether a person believes the government should establish control over abortion does make a difference or not. Thus, someone who believes the government should regulate childbearing and require abortion is on the same end of the "attitude toward government control" axis as someone who believes government should forbid all abortions.

 

[Dave-W]

Both Communism and Marxism are government-controlled, government-planned economic systems.

In true Marxism - there is no government, no plan, no control.

 

[RDKirk]

In true Marxism - there is no government, no plan, no control.

Yeah, right.

 

[Dave-W]

Yeah, right.

Well - that was the main reason Lenin did not follow Marx's plan on that. He saw that 'no government' was unworkable. First off, it had to be global at the same time (meaning the worker uprisings that seized the means of production had to be simultaneous everywhere); and it required EVERYONE to be on their best behavior. There was no control to keep someone from scamming the system.

 

[RDKirk]

Well - that was the main reason Lenin did not follow Marx's plan on that. He saw that 'no government' was unworkable. First off, it had to be global at the same time (meaning the worker uprisings that seized the means of production had to be simultaneous everywhere); and it required EVERYONE to be on their best behavior. There was no control to keep someone from scamming the system.

The Chinese Communist Party tried it, even to the point of having no concept of "rank" in their military. Notice, they have military ranks now.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yeah, right.

That's true. A truly Marxist society is a stateless society. In the Marxist model a Communist state would exist only for the purpose of transition, it is supposed to be transitional, temporary--a truly Marxist society has no state.

Which is why we have never seen an actual Marxist nation, we've instead seen totalitarian regimes talk communism but, in fact, the means of industry and control not existing among the proletariat, but held within the clutches of the few at the top. That is, by definition, antithetical to Marxism.

I'm not arguing for Marxism here, only picking at nits. I actually don't think a truly Marxist society is practical, human nature naturally gravitates toward power and consumption.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

That's true. A truly Marxist society is a stateless society. In the Marxist model a Communist state would exist only for the purpose of transition, it is supposed to be transitional, temporary--a truly Marxist society has no state.

Which is why we have never seen an actual Marxist nation, we've instead seen totalitarian regimes talk communism but, in fact, the means of industry and control not existing among the proletariat, but held within the clutches of the few at the top. That is, by definition, antithetical to Marxism.

I'm not arguing for Marxism here, only picking at nits. I actually don't think a truly Marxist society is practical, human nature naturally gravitates toward power and consumption.

-CryptoLutheran

I meant ,"Yeah, right" as in "That's gonna happen."

 

[Dave-W]

I actually don't think a truly Marxist society is practical, human nature naturally gravitates toward power and consumption.

True. That is why Lenin rejected that part of it; and Mao found out it did not work.

 

[toramei]

Liberal=generous,ample abundant,not literal or strict,tolerant broad minded favoring reforms or progress.
Libertarian= an advocate of full individual freedom of thought and action.
Democrat=one who supports or practices democracy government by the PEOPLE. What happened here?
Conservative= tending to preserve established institutions,moderate,cautious.
I myself like individual thinking.The masses might be going down a road with road that has a bridge out.

 

[RDKirk]

True. That is why Lenin rejected that part of it; and Mao found out it did not work.

I'm not sure Mao ever realized it, but his successors definitely did.

 

[rltrdc]

Neither the left nor the right value Christ. I think if Christ were here today he would be ashamed at how the Christians cling to the Republican party. No, he would not command us to go out and vote Democrat, he would say why are we not starting our own party based on the true teachings of Christ?

It seems to me most of the Democrats oppose the church and rather than having 'freedom of religion' they are trying to delete any mention of God and make atheism the state sponsored religion. Trying to remove Christianity and the associated values from society little by little, by supporting abortion, pornography, and homosexuality as societal norms while opposing prayer at basically anything tied to the government.

It seems to me the Republican party loves, loves, LOVES to start wars, they favor the rich, and despise the poor. Their stance on homosexuality seems to be more condeming and hate filled than it is anything. They speak virulent, putrid, deceptive rhetoric against anyone who opposes them. They do not care for God's earth and deny the harmful effects we are causing it. This is not good stewardship.

Democrats and Republicans alike take campaign donations with invisible strings attached. They are not thinking about their constiutents when they vote, yet how to stay in office. They are not spending wisely, they both agree to spend spend spend, they are not good stewards of our tax dollars.

Where is the politician that is honest, humble, mild, full of love, joy, and grace. Where is the politician that is a diplomat first and foremost? Where is the politician that stands up for the poor and for God and values without condeming and speaking hate? Where is the politician who tells us what he can do for America rather than trying to condemn his opponent with deceptive sound bytes? I haven't seen one yet.

Who in Congress really reads the Bible and makes Jesus his role model? How can you vote for either party without a heavy heart that you are choosing what you feel is the lesser of the two evils? Do you think the Dems are praying for the GOP or the GOP praying for the Dems?

 

[Dave-W]

Where is the politician that is honest, humble, mild, full of love, joy, and grace. Where is the politician that is a diplomat first and foremost? Where is the politician that stands up for the poor and for God and values without condeming and speaking hate? Where is the politician who tells us what he can do for America rather than trying to condemn his opponent with deceptive sound bytes?

Unable to get voted into office.

 

[Albion]

Neither the left nor the right value Christ. I think if Christ were here today he would be ashamed at how the Christians cling to the Republican party. No, he would not command us to go out and vote Democrat, he would say why are we not starting our own party based on the true teachings of Christ?

They cling to the Republican Party (to the extent that they do. This is a notion that isn't as true as people think it is) because they only get two choices in this country.

It only makes sense not to choose the party that opposes religion in public life, religious liberty, and traditional morals, so that leaves only the other party!

 

[KWCrazy]

I have a greater issue with the Democratic Party.
How can Christians support open encouragement of the wholesale slaughter of the unborn?
How can Christians support the redefinition of marriage from God's ordained union to anyone wanting sex with each other?
How can Christians support a party whose national chairman can't come up with any difference between what they believe and socialism?

The Democratic Party lost its moral compass when it fully supported Bill Clinton, a know rapist and perjurer, throughout one of the most corrupt administrations in history. They went so far as to marvel at his ability to lie; some even lecturing us an how lying could be a good thing. Democrats like Zel Miller had enough, but it was too little too late. The party had kicked God out of its platform and was spiraling into an abyss of moral relativism where any lie that achieved its objective was a good lie.

The Republican Party isn't much better. After generations of being out of power they forgot how to lead; how to make a bold stand for the American way of life. The establishment has chosen to become center-left; acting as a lighter version of Democrats. When they control both houses of Congress, they kowtow to Obama and willfully fund the programs they swore to defund. Rather than taking a stand for the Constitution, they punt on overreaching executive authority and shift the heavy lifting to four liberals, three conservatives and two confused old men in the Supreme Court. That isn't leadership.

The hope for America lies in new candidates unstained by the malaise of the establishment. People like Scott Walker or Rand Paul who will stand up for what they believe in whether they stand alone or not. We haven't seen such people on the Democratic side. A cadre of ancient men and women rule the party like their own private club and dissent is not allowed. Pro-life Democrats need not attempt to run for national office. Until these people are pushed from the seat of power and people with common sense, honor and a sense of decency are allowed in the Democratic Party will wallow in their insanity and the Republicans in their incompetence.

 

[bhsmte]

They cling to the Republican Party (to the extent that they do. This is a notion that isn't as true as people think it is) because they only get two choices in this country.

It only makes sense not to choose the party that opposes religion in public life, religious liberty, and traditional morals, so that leaves only the other party!

Why do you need your religion in the public, where it impacts other people, who may not agree with your religion?

Is it not good enough, to be able to; go to the church of your choosing, worship the God of your choosing, teach your kids the religion of your choosing and to worship your religion all you like in your private life?

 

[Albion]

Why do you need your religion in the public, where it impacts other people, who may not agree with your religion?

Because "I" am in public, natch.

Why do you think that religious people should not be permitted to express their beliefs in public? Just because non-religious people don't like it?? If so, why stop there without asking why racial minorities or gays "need" to be themselves...and in public, of all places?

 

[bhsmte]

Because "I" am in public, natch.

Why do you think that religious people should not be permitted to express their beliefs in public? Just because non-religious people don't like it?? If so, why stop there without asking why racial minorities or gays "need" to be themselves...and in public, of all places?

Nothing wrong with "expressing" your beliefs in public (Westboro Baptist does and I support their right to do so), but expressing religious beliefs in public, should not infringe on the rights of others.