Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate

[teishpriest]

You know, I thought Jesus taught us that we should be responsible for our own behaviour, not to get our government to take that responsibility from us by making it illegal...

For the most part, I agree. I'm very against govenment involvement in most things. However, one hot-button issue, abortion, is somthing that they should deal with. It is illegal, as we are garanteed the right to life, and are not to be deprived of it without due proccess of the law. The real purpose of government is to secure our God-given rights (including life). Anything beyond that is outside of their scope of authority.


Wouldn't it be great if we just threw out labels and political parties and voted on someone based on whether or not they were qualified????

 

[tulc]

Wouldn't it be great if we just threw out labels and political parties and voted on someone based on whether or not they were qualified????

tulc(really believes that)

 

[elanor]

I think it would serve the RR well to spend less energy on politics, and more on their congregations. As the old saying goes, you can't legislate morality, but you can turn people's hearts and make a meaningful change in society. Politicians will always reflect society's values, and the more biblically based our society is, the better the chance of having honest, Christian people running for office.

(emphasis mine)
Bummer! You have your rep button turned off and you really need to be repped for that.

Very well said!

 

[Adventist Dissident]

It's gonna be Chuck Hagle of Nebraska.

He fits the bill
1. U.S Senate experiance.
2. Married/never dirovced
3. Christian in belief
4. opposed to the War/ so it nuteralizes the criticizm of the Democrats. He has been a vocal opponet of the war. All over the place a frequent face on the polotics talk shows.
5. military record/ pro american
6. squekey clean image.

hard to beat

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Real Simple: It condradicts what the Lord has taught us....

Specific passages, please?

I don't find a single passage in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or Acts where Jesus says the government should take upon itself the role of regulating peoples' moral behavior.

I have to agree with Uber on this one. Government isn't the guardian of our morality. Our families, our Christian brethren and our priests and pastors are. Government is Caesar, to whom we pay taxes because his face is on the coin, and unless our government is monstrously unjust, we're also supposed to obey it... but voluntarily grant it a larger role in our lives? I don't think so, and more to the point, Jesus didn't think so either.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

It's gonna be Chuck Hagle of Nebraska.

He fits the bill
1. U.S Senate experiance.
2. Married/never dirovced
3. Christian in belief
4. opposed to the War/ so it nuteralizes the criticizm of the Democrats. He has been a vocal opponet of the war. All over the place a frequent face on the polotics talk shows.
5. military record/ pro american
6. squekey clean image.

hard to beat

Hagel would be a fine candidate except for one thing: there is presently no constituency for an anti-war candidate within the Republican Party. Hagel doesn't even register as a blip on the polls.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political Tracking/Republican Primary/2008GOPPresidentialPrimary.htm

I'm pretty sure Giuliani will be the Republican nominee, probably with a Southern religious conservative like Huckabee as his running mate to solidify the base, and that it'll be either Clinton or Obama for the Democrats.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

the problem with your argument is this. most of the country has turned against the war and the republicans in order to hang on to the white house will either have to have victory in Iraq or pull out before the election. they will also have to convince most of america that it was GWB's war and deception is not the party's fault.

Hagle is the only Republican Who has consistantly opposed the war. and being a soilder is not against the military. so no one can say he supported the War or supported Bush . it seems almost by design that that was the case.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I really don't think being anti-war will be a winning position in '08. I remember the 1972 campaign between Nixon and McGovern. The American people had mostly turned against the Vietnam war too... but the anti-war candidate, McGovern, was thoroughly trounced.

Being against the Iraq war would certainly help someone get the Democratic nomination, but I think it is profoundly wrong in terms of what's best for our national security, as the consequences of losing in Iraq, if that's what happens, will be horrendous.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Well upholding the Constitution would mean dismantling the "imperial presidency" which has existed since Roosevelt.

There are too many with vested interests in a very strong presidency who would not let that happen.

Actually since Lincoln...he was teh first President to start unconstitutional practise of "executive orders"...and the beginning of the "imperial president"

 

[Gwenyfur]

According to the constitution our government has 2 responsibilities and *only* 2:

1-Provide Peace
2-Provide Liberty


Now...think about all those tax dollars spent on something other than these 2 things.....

hrmmmmm

 

[Gwenyfur]

I really don't think being anti-war will be a winning position in '08. I remember the 1972 campaign between Nixon and McGovern. The American people had mostly turned against the Vietnam war too... but the anti-war candidate, McGovern, was thoroughly trounced.

Being against the Iraq war would certainly help someone get the Democratic nomination, but I think it is profoundly wrong in terms of what's best for our national security, as the consequences of losing in Iraq, if that's what happens, will be horrendous.

This is no Vietnam...

If we don't take care of biz over there...the next fight will be right here in our own neigborhoods...

However, it seems the American people would prefer it that way...clamoring for our boys to come home when htey haven't finished the job they were sent to do...

Maybe that will be what it takes for the people to realize this was a long haul deal...'til it's done...bringing them home anytime soon only allows for busses, schools and arenas to be blown up on our soil instead of theirs.

If ya don't want to be on the front lines...leave the men and women who volunteer to do so there in your stead and untie their hands so they can finish the job!

 

[PaladinWithGun2]

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. Romans 13:1-3

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. Romans 13:1-3

That's an interesting passage, which raises as many questions as it answers. It's clear that Christians should submit to the civil authorities when those authorities do as Paul suggests, and "hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong"; but what about when they do the opposite? What happens when a government rewards evil doers and punishes the just? I'm not suggesting that describes our present circumstances, but there have been such governments before.

I wonder what Paul would have us do then? Would he say America's Founders were correct in rebelling against King George III? Would Cambodians have been justified in rebelling against Pol Pot, who murdered many millions of them in the name of Marx?

A couple of interesting commentaries on this passage from Romans:

Rethinking Romans 13

Romans 13 in Context

 

[PaladinWithGun2]

That's an interesting passage, which raises as many questions as it answers. It's clear that Christians should submit to the civil authorities when those authorities do as Paul suggests, and "hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong"; but what about when they do the opposite? What happens when a government rewards evil doers and punishes the just? I'm not suggesting that describes our present circumstances, but there have been such governments before.

I wonder what Paul would have us do then? Would he say America's Founders were correct in rebelling against King George III? Would Cambodians have been justified in rebelling against Pol Pot, who murdered many millions of them in the name of Marx?

A couple of interesting commentaries on this passage from Romans:

Rethinking Romans 13

Romans 13 in Context

I'm not sure what Paul would say, but Psalm 37 tells us to do right and do not worry over the actions of those who evil and oppress the poor. The line in the sand is when those in authority would take our faith away and our right to worship, and in that season I believe God is with us if we resist.

 

[HaNotsri]

Well, I would consider myself a Republican. I am certainly socially conservative (though I am more fiscally liberal). I can tell you one thing though, I am very hard pressed to find the right candidate for the next election.

I am so disappointed in the Republican party. For one they tried catering to those of us who are on the "religious right" and garnering our votes, yet they didn't do anything. They had control of all three branches of government yet they did nothing to curb abortions, same-sex marriage, etc. Anyone whoever believed Roe v Wade will ever be overturned is fooling themselves. Republicans aren't any better than the Democrats. Both parties are morally bankrupt

 

[teishpriest]

I'm still hoping that Ron Paul will win the nomination, but if not, it's a safe bet that I won't be voting for the Republican or Democratic candidates. Actually, I can't think of any other potential candidates, even from the third parties, that I would vote for. It's a sad commentary on our society when so many should choose to run for office, but no godly men can be found.

I agree with the earlier comment about Lincoln too. We've become quite the empire, haven't we?

 

[kobuk]

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. Romans 13:1-3

A deception is associated with this passage of Scripture that's the foundation stone of the phony Christian Right. It's so easily debunked. Here's how...

...Just study the Prophets that Yah sent against wicked Nations.

If you need modern examples just look at Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Each was a homicidal maniac dictator installed by foriegn powers to sieze control, steal stuff and liquidate certain groups of people.

 

[PaladinWithGun2]

A deception is associated with this passage of Scripture that's the foundation stone of the phony Christian Right. It's so easily debunked. Here's how...

...Just study the Prophets that Yah sent against wicked Nations.

If you need modern examples just look at Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Each was a homicidal maniac dictator installed by foriegn powers to sieze control, steal stuff and liquidate certain groups of people.

The authority rulers are given and blessed by is God's, and the authority they carry is validated by God when they are in obedience to His ways. This passage is not license for revolt or open defiance, nor does it give any ruler carte blanche to run rough-shod of the people. It states that God is the supreme authority and all must answer to him when they step out of His ways.

As to the "phony" Christian Right reference, I was wondering if you brand that label and judgement on politicians only, or do you judge all of us who claim that title?

 

[bliz]

It's very early yet. There are many opportunities for candidates like:

Sam Brownbeck http://www.brownback.com/s/

Mike Huckabee http://www.explorehuckabee.com/

ChuckHagel http://hagel.senate.gov/

and others...

to talk to voters (rather than powerbrokers) in Iowa and New Hampshire and change the landscape.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

A deception is associated with this passage of Scripture that's the foundation stone of the phony Christian Right. It's so easily debunked. Here's how...

...Just study the Prophets that Yah sent against wicked Nations.

If you need modern examples just look at Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Each was a homicidal maniac dictator installed by foriegn powers to sieze control, steal stuff and liquidate certain groups of people.

Interesting. What foreign power installed those dictators? The USSR was the major backer of Mao, so that sorta makes sense in his case. But what foreign power had much of anything to do with the ascension of Stalin and Hitler?

The authority rulers are given and blessed by is God's, and the authority they carry is validated by God when they are in obedience to His ways. This passage is not license for revolt or open defiance, nor does it give any ruler carte blanche to run rough-shod of the people. It states that God is the supreme authority and all must answer to him when they step out of His ways.

As to the "phony" Christian Right reference, I was wondering if you brand that label and judgement on politicians only, or do you judge all of us who claim that title?

Yep, for sure, it goes both ways. Both the people and the rulers must answer to God. I'm glad you see it that way.

As for me, I'm Christian and of the Right, but not of the Christian Right. The difference? I think Classical Liberalism is more consistent with Christ's message than either Modern Liberalism or Conservatism. I think America's Founders had that exactly right. As I see it, our having strayed so far from their vision of a limited constitutional republic has been a big, big mistake.

Doing the right thing earns you no reward in Heaven if it is coerced. Then all you're doing is staying out of jail, and even bad people want to do that. That remains true whether we're talking about government overstepping its bounds in social welfare or in enforcing morality. In my view, government should be society's umpire, but not a player in the game. As Christians we should put our trust in God, not in Caesar.