Did some religious people compromise in order to gain a conservative supreme court?

[RandyPNW]

Interesting way to phrase the question. A reader could draw the conclusion that you contend that politically conservative leaders are deeply immoral. Whether that's your contention or not, the answer is another question: deeply immoral compared to who? Like it or not, there are very few political candidates who are staunchly Christian. Members of a church, yes; staunchly Christian, no. That leaves a Christian to chose between candidates who likely do not genuinely share the faith. Imagine if the Roman Empire selected Caesars by general election, and all the names on the ballot were pagans. That's the choice Christians usually face, at least here in the US.

True. The Republican Party in the US consists of a mix between Establishment Republicans and more Conservative Republicans. The Democrat Party consists of Progressives and Moderates. But the more activist group in each party, the Conservative Republicans and the Progressive Democrats, seem to be dominant.

Yes, Christianity is not dominant although it is more prominent in the Republican Party--I'm speaking of the more orthodox brand of Christianity, conservative Christianity. The dominance of the Left in the Democrat Party is either antireligious or antichristian. It moves with the social trend towards a "Brave New World," and believes in religious pluralism as opposed to a single Christian ethic.

The Democrats are actually moving in a direction against the Constitution, which is not really "theocratic" at its core. And so, they use the Constitution as a "Living Document" to justify greater and greater freedoms to the extent they want freedom *from the Constitution!* I suggest reading Mark Levin or listening to him somewhere. He is a Jew with a profound ability to make the political issues clear in this regard.

 

[hislegacy]

What secularists vote and why is up to them, if I vote according to my moral values then who wins is up to God. I'd feel like I betrayed God if I voted for a person that I was sure was morally bad.

Does that mean you could not possibly vote for Joe Biden? He is so morally bankrupt the Roman Catholic Church barred him from receiving the Sacraments.

 

[RandyPNW]

We wanted to vote for Ben Carson... but secularists would not vote for such a good man. Pence would have worked too, but again, the secularists would not have it. So, I think your question backfires. Why will secular people not vote for a righteous man? I think your point answers that question. Secular people "vote their values," and that is why we end up with Trump, Biden, Obama, and Clinton. Speaking only for myself, I vote for the lesser of the evils. At least Trump's policies were reasonable. I can never vote for pro-death candidates.

I like Ben Carson, and a whole host of genuine Christians who vote both Christian and Conservative in their politics. But what I would say to this will win me no points with people here or elsewhere. This shows I speak with my own conscience, for God, and not for people.

Everything in Western democracies are influenced by the general trend over the centuries towards Enlightenment philosophy. This movement was essentially the establishment of a different kind of "freedom" than the freedom of the soul. It was freedom *from Christianity* to believe what you like.

Now this may sound so good in our ears today because our public education system has been based on this Enlightenment philosophy itself. It has taught us that we have "the best political system in the world," we "represent freedom of religion," and we best represent all people and cultures and religions.

But in reality the belief in "freedom for all religions" runs exactly counter to "you shall have no other gods." Theocracy runs counter to Enlightenment philosophy.

In defense of this philosophy we hear that governments are by nature corrupt, and require checks and balances against any religious or idealistic political establishment. Though there is certainly truth in this, to oppose Christian establishment is to impose a different kind of establishment based on Enlightenment philosophy. It is to impose either "no religion" or "all religions as equal." And this is not only against "theocracy," but it is also against Christianity.

So we cannot have overtly Christian candidates in our compromised philosophy of government. A candidate must represent all of the people, Christian or not, and not just Christian beliefs.

It's a difficult world we live in. Theocracy only works with a large Christian majority. Some would say it doesn't work at all...ever! Personally, I will go on record as supporting candidates who lean towards conservative ideals that at least partly support Christian morals. If they are truly Christian, and yet advocate for all of their constituents, I will vote for them.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Does that mean you could not possibly vote for Joe Biden? He is so morally bankrupt the Roman Catholic Church barred him from receiving the Sacraments.

A web search revealed this:

Joe Biden was denied communion by a priest in South Carolina in 2019 1. The pastor, Robert Morey, refused to give him Communion, citing Biden’s support for legalized abortion as the reason 1. According to the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law, Holy Communion should not be given to those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” 1. The church allows only those who have not committed a ‘grave sin’ or have been forgiven to receive communion 1.​

​

It is worth noting that the issue of whether or not Biden should be allowed to take communion has been a topic of debate among Catholic bishops. Some bishops have argued that being pro-choice, Democrats like Joe Biden have made themselves unsuitable to take Communion 2. However, President Biden has brushed off the possibility that Catholic bishops will ban him from receiving Communion over his support for abortion 3.​

President Joe Biden is, it seems, accountable to Catholic Church discipline but is that the case with a candidate such as Donald Trump? And if your post implies that voting for Joe Biden is excluded because he supports laws to make abortion available then how should a voter react to Donald Trump's actions?

Furthermore, why not vote for a different candidate if the likely candidates for the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are morally unsuitable? And what of prayer; if one votes according to one's moral beliefs and consequently chooses a candidate who is morally fit for office even if that means that the candidate is not from the two major parties then cannot God be petitioned for a good president who is morally fit for office?

 

[hislegacy]

A web search revealed this:

Joe Biden was denied communion by a priest in South Carolina in 2019 1. The pastor, Robert Morey, refused to give him Communion, citing Biden’s support for legalized abortion as the reason 1. According to the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law, Holy Communion should not be given to those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” 1. The church allows only those who have not committed a ‘grave sin’ or have been forgiven to receive communion 1.​

​

It is worth noting that the issue of whether or not Biden should be allowed to take communion has been a topic of debate among Catholic bishops. Some bishops have argued that being pro-choice, Democrats like Joe Biden have made themselves unsuitable to take Communion 2. However, President Biden has brushed off the possibility that Catholic bishops will ban him from receiving Communion over his support for abortion 3.​

President Joe Biden is, it seems, accountable to Catholic Church discipline but is that the case with a candidate such as Donald Trump? And if your post implies that voting for Joe Biden is excluded because he supports laws to make abortion available then how should a voter react to Donald Trump's actions?

Furthermore, why not vote for a different candidate if the likely candidates for the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are morally unsuitable? And what of prayer; if one votes according to one's moral beliefs and consequently chooses a candidate who is morally fit for office even if that means that the candidate is not from the two major parties then cannot God be petitioned for a good president who is morally fit for office?

How about Joe bathing with his daughter? Is that a moral man?

Or how about him swimming naked in front of femal Secret Service personnel -

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/08/01/biden-swims-naked-upsetting-female-secret-service-agents-book-claims

You still didn't answer the question - will you vote for such an immoral man?

Perhaps we can speak of his morals in embracing practicing homosexuals?

There is an old adage about people in glass houses throwing rocks.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You have the freedom to speak. Democrats try to take away the freedom to speak for conservatives. Since the Democrat Party dominates in the Media, it is not surprising that you have such hostility to Trump. That is all you are being "gaslighted" to believe.

If anyone has been "gaslighted" it is by Trump's own well documents words and actions. No need for media.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You still didn't answer the question - will you vote for such an immoral man?

I am an Australian, it is not legal for me to vote in USA elections. Your question is out of the ballpark.

PS: let's not get into current USA politics, it is a rabbit hole that leads nowhere I want to go. Let's stick with the topic outlined in the original post.

 

[hislegacy]

Did some religious people want a conservative supreme court so much that they were willing to vote for a deeply immoral political leader?

PS: let's not get into current USA politics, it is a rabbit hole that leads nowhere I want to go. Let's stick with the topic outlined in the original post.

That is from the original post. Does Australia have a conservative supreme court?

So, is it okay to vote for a Democratic party person?

Does Australia?

The politics of Australia has a mild two-party system, with two dominant political groupings in the Australian political system, the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal/National Coalition. Federally, 17 of the 151 members of the lower house (Members of Parliament, or MPs) are not members of major parties, as are 17 of the 76 members of the upper house (senators).

evidently not

Sure sounds like you are addressing American Politics...

 

[Hazelelponi]

Did some religious people want a conservative supreme court so much that they were willing to vote for a deeply immoral political leader?

There was a slogan from long ago VOTE YOUR VALUES that meant Christians should let their moral principles lead them in their choice of a candidate for the house, senate, and presidency as well as governor, state legislature, judges and every other elected position.

Voting isn't a biblical phenomenon, so the voting question has to be decided by other teachings from scripture or tradition that link personal choices with religious morality.

I think people are confused as to what values even are.

For instance, many voters desire to vote for the candidate they think has the best outward appearance - regardless of what manner of policies the candidate will enact in office.

Others vote for the candidate with the best policy platform, regardless of the outward appearance of the candidate themselves, since it's the policies that matter most.

Since God is a God who looks past appearances at the very heart of man, we should then look at the very heart of the policies being put forward by the candidates, not the candidates outward appearances.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I do not find it odd that this philosophy results in no Christians running for office. Also, Christians should never vote. Essentially, the government should only have the nonreligious in office and, in fact, at every level. Who do you suppose would advocate this philosophy? Who would want an amoral/immoral government making the laws, enforcing the laws, and facilitating the culture of a nation? Who would want us to cease our efforts to be the salt of the earth? Who would hide our lamp under a bushel? Who would want us to subject our families, churches, and culture at large to, well, what we see today? Who would want believers to hide away in their homes and churches? Who would want them to "drop out" and abdicate their rightful place in the world?
I might suggest we look at nations that have rejected religion, such as communist nations. What happens to such nations? What happens to the religious peoples in these nations?
History is the best teacher.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is from the original post. Does Australia have a conservative supreme court?

Australia has a HIGH COURT which is the highest court in the land, and it interprets the Australian constitution. It is neither conservative nor progressive.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Does Australia?

The Australian Democrats are a defunct political party.

 

[Tuur]

True. The Republican Party in the US consists of a mix between Establishment Republicans and more Conservative Republicans. The Democrat Party consists of Progressives and Moderates. But the more activist group in each party, the Conservative Republicans and the Progressive Democrats, seem to be dominant.

Yes, Christianity is not dominant although it is more prominent in the Republican Party--I'm speaking of the more orthodox brand of Christianity, conservative Christianity. The dominance of the Left in the Democrat Party is either antireligious or antichristian. It moves with the social trend towards a "Brave New World," and believes in religious pluralism as opposed to a single Christian ethic.

The Democrats are actually moving in a direction against the Constitution, which is not really "theocratic" at its core. And so, they use the Constitution as a "Living Document" to justify greater and greater freedoms to the extent they want freedom *from the Constitution!* I suggest reading Mark Levin or listening to him somewhere. He is a Jew with a profound ability to make the political issues clear in this regard.

I'm reluctant to call one party more "Christian" than the other. The Republicans tend to have the support of what's usually identified as fundamentalist and evangelical, but the Democrats have, for several decades, had the support of other Christians who technically are also fundamentalist and evangelical, but usually aren't identified that way. The divide over the years has been on social issues, with different Christians having strong views on the best way to deal with them. It's like a church business meeting where the congregation knows they need a new heating system, but the congregation is split on how to deal with it. Both know its a problem but disagree on the solution.

This division isn't set in stone, and I know of some pastors who had some disagreement with the party they previously supported. My point is that if some Christians are baffled by a particular political choice, there are Christians across the aisle who are equally baffled by the choice of Christians with an opposing political view.

The main thing to keep in mind that both parties are in it only for themselves. The question faced by Christians is which party is more in line with Christian values and will at least leave Christians alone.

 

[Tuur]

Australia has a HIGH COURT which is the highest court in the land, and it interprets the Australian constitution. It is neither conservative nor progressive.

In theory the same can be said of the US Supreme Court. The question comes down to interpretation of each country's constitution, and odds are that factions in Australia are just as keen as placing judges they think will be sympathetic on the bench as factions in the US are.

 

[hislegacy]

Australia has a HIGH COURT which is the highest court in the land, and it interprets the Australian constitution. It is neither conservative nor progressive.

The Australian Democrats are a defunct political party.

Then what Supreme Court and Democratic Party are you referencing?

 

[RandyPNW]

If anyone has been "gaslighted" it is by Trump's own well documents words and actions. No need for media.

You're obviously a Liberal or a Moderate Republican. You're free to choose.

 

[RandyPNW]

I'm reluctant to call one party more "Christian" than the other. The Republicans tend to have the support of what's usually identified as fundamentalist and evangelical, but the Democrats have, for several decades, had the support of other Christians who technically are also fundamentalist and evangelical, but usually aren't identified that way. The divide over the years has been on social issues, with different Christians having strong views on the best way to deal with them. It's like a church business meeting where the congregation knows they need a new heating system, but the congregation is split on how to deal with it. Both know its a problem but disagree on the solution.

Don't agree in the least. Differences on biblical truth and interpretation are not matters of deciding what kind of carpet to put in the sanctuary! They determine what kind of Christian you really are!

I agree the divisions in Christianity are very blurred right now. I have Black friends who because they are Black were 100% Obama and Biden, although the African American community is starting to have 2nd thoughts about Biden.

Deciding on Gay liberties is really a black and white issue. So is abortion. Yes, there are traditionally-evangelical Christians in the Democrat Party. But that Party is controlled by the far Left, and they are virtually atheists--that or radical Muslims.

The definition of "Evangelical" is changing in our day. Traditional "evangelical" goes back as far as the original Lutherans. But Lutherans today are largely of the liberal mindset, tolerating gay living, and advocating for tolerance for all religions. The same could be said for all of the historic churches. (Of course, there are exceptions.)

I always say that if a denomination remains static, it will die and become fossilized in tradition. Denominations, in history, reform and experience revival--otherwise, they lose their spirituality and compromise their beliefs and doctrines.

This division isn't set in stone, and I know of some pastors who had some disagreement with the party they previously supported. My point is that if some Christians are baffled by a particular political choice, there are Christians across the aisle who are equally baffled by the choice of Christians with an opposing political view.

The main thing to keep in mind that both parties are in it only for themselves. The question faced by Christians is which party is more in line with Christian values and will at least leave Christians alone.

I do agree with your last statement. But I do not agree that both political sides have the same problems. There are different problems with each political party. The Democrats have many more problems with respect to true Christian belief and practice, in my opinion. Thanks for yours.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In theory the same can be said of the US Supreme Court. The question comes down to interpretation of each country's constitution, and odds are that factions in Australia are just as keen as placing judges they think will be sympathetic on the bench as factions in the US are.

High court judges are appointed by a judicial commission rather than by a government.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Then what Supreme Court and Democratic Party are you referencing?

I referenced the USA supreme court in the OP. I did not reference specific parties in the OP.

 

[hislegacy]

Did some religious people want a conservative supreme court so much that they were willing to vote for a deeply immoral political leader?

There is only one party that is conservative.

So, is it okay to vote for a Democratic party person?

You were the one who brought up the other American Party

PS: let's not get into current USA politics, it is a rabbit hole that leads nowhere I want to go. Let's stick with the topic outlined in the original post.

You should not have made it about USA politics then

I referenced the USA supreme court in the OP. I did not reference specific parties in the OP.

And then followed it with other posts.

Here in the US we have two choices politically. Conservative and Liberal - Republican and Democratic. I don't know of anyone who voted for Mr. Trump expressly to get a conservative on the bench. We sure didn't know there would be three openings in 2015.

As for the comment "deeply immoral political leader" - Mr. Trump was elected because his opponent was viewed and the worst case scenario. IOW Trump was deemed the best person for the position. IMHO - the current 'deeply immoral political leaders" we are currently saddled with is 100 times worse for us that Trump ever was.

It's not that people wanted a conservative justice so much - it is because the alternative was worse.