Do christians have to be republicans?

[mhess13]

Because he's a marxist at heart

 

[mhess13]

KLINTON

 

[xMinionX]

Because he's a marxist at heart

Uhm.... ok...

 

[Cherub8]

Republicans have no claim on Christians, though, in recent years, they have done a far better job of pandering to them and getting them to vote for their candidates.

So you are not a Born-Again Christian? You always speak of Christians as a third party, indicating that you do not share our beliefs.

People seem to ignore that the majority of the Supreme Court justices that upheld Roe v. Wade had been named by Republican presidents. George Bush I and Ronald Reagen had 12 years as presidents, and abortion is still with us. (Frankly, I think the Republicans will never act to end abortion becasue then they will lose their best campaign topic!)

O'Connor wasn't Reagan's fault, but I agree with you on the rest. My philosophy is, we need to put the Court in its proper place via legislation. The Court has far more power than the founders ever intended. An example of this is Roe v Wade, in which the Supreme Court invented a "right" that does not exist anywhere in the Constitution.

 

[TheBear]

KLINTON

Oh, good grief!!!

Was that really necessary? Is this the level of dignity you strive for in these forums?

Goodness sake!

 

[TheBear]

Thanks.

 

[Sycophant]

So you are not a Born-Again Christian? You always speak of Christians as a third party, indicating that you do not share our beliefs.

I'd suggest that using terms like "us" and "our" tend to cause problems, as it turns out not all Christians do in fact share the same belief.

In the passage you quoted, it seems only fitting to refer to Christians as a third party, as they are group being discussed.

Also, I hardly see how referring to a group as a third party provides any indication of your lack of inclusion. It is necessary for understanding. If I say "we" or "our" or "us", who am I referring to? Atheists? New Zealanders? Males? People with brown hair?

 

[eroica]

Hello Nikoel.

So...I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You oppose abortion and "gay marriage," but you want abortion to be legal and "gay marriages" to be sanctioned? Okay. IF you want abortion to be legal, then what point should be the limit, in your personal view? Should it 3 months? 8 months? 1 year? Where should we draw the line? Just wondering. I've tried to ask this to others, but they ignore the question.

Awaiting your response,
Cherub

just wondering, what is your position on banning divorce, adultery, lying and lusting?

Awaiting your response,
eroica

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Republicans have no claim on Christians, though, in recent years, they have done a far better job of pandering to them and getting them to vote for their candidates.

People seem to ignore that the majority of the Supreme Court justices that upheld Roe v. Wade had been named by Republican presidents. George Bush I and Ronald Reagen had 12 years as presidents, and abortion is still with us. (Frankly, I think the Republicans will never act to end abortion becasue then they will lose their best campaign topic!)

Yes, Virginia, there is a Christian Left! You can be a Democrat, Libertarian, Communist or whatever you please and be a Christian.

The way Congressional Republicans handle abortion definitely shows a lack of real concern. They will propose a bill that they know will either not pass or will be struck down by the courts. After it fails, they go back to their pro-life supporters and say they tried but they need more support. In the meantime, they don't bother to look for ways to reduce abortion that are both Constitutionally sound and supportable by both parties.

 

[TheBear]

So how could you vote for the party that despises the poor?

Actually, it's the Democratic party who exploits the poor in order to stay in power. Also, for people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, poverty is a lucrative industry. They make tons of money by exploiting the poor.


One more thing....

The Republican party does not despise the poor. Quite the contrary, they have the same level of compassion for the poor as the Democratic party. Both sides want to erradicate poverty. They just have two different approaches to the same end.

Over 8 trillion dollars has been spent on the 'War on Poverty' to date. What are the results? Are these programs working? Are we getting our money's worth? Is this the right approach?

 

[praying]

Also, for people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, poverty is a lucrative industry. They make tons of money by exploiting the poor.

How so?

 

[TheBear]

How so?

Ask yourself this....

Other than issues based on poverty and racism, what other talking points does Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton bring to the podium at their paid speaking engagements?

 

[praying]

Ask yourself this....

Other than issues based on poverty and racism, what other talking points does Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton bring to the podium at their paid speaking engagements?

How is that exploiting the poor though?

 

[TheBear]

How is that exploiting the poor though?

Let me clarify.

Poverty is exploited when money or power is gained from the issue.

 

[praying]

Let me clarify.

Poverty is exploited when money or power is gained from the issue.

So if they did not accept money for their speaking engagements then it would not be a problem? That would hold true for any issue then, correct?


You specifically noted that all they bring to the table in their discussions is poverty and racism, is the problem with their message or the fact they get paid to speak at events?

 

[TheBear]

So if they did not accept money for their speaking engagements then it would not be a problem? That would hold true for any issue then, correct?


You specifically noted that all they bring to the table in their discussions is poverty and racism, is the problem with their message or the fact they get paid to speak at events?

I would love to get into this in great detail, but we're straying quite off-topic in this thread.

So, I'll start another discussion thread.

I'll come back to this post and update it with the new thread link, once the other thread is created.

 

[praying]

I would love to get into this in great detail, but we're straying quite off-topic in this thread.

So, I'll start another discussion thread.

I'll come back to this post and update it with the new thread link, once the other thread is created.

I am about to create the thread and I am including the last few posts of this thread for backround.

 

[TheBear]

I am about to create the thread and I am including the last few posts of this thread for backround.

Okay.

(Actually, I got sidetracked with other projects and hadn't even started it yet. )

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Do Christians have to be Republicans?

No, but I'm not going to tell you that Christians should avoid political involvement, either. Christ is Lord of the voting booth and of the public halls, or he is not Lord at all. That being said, a Christian should never support a party or candidate that does not stand for righteousness.

 

[xMinionX]

That being said, a Christian should never support a party or candidate that does not stand for righteousness.

Ahh, and therein lies the conflict. I'm fairly certain that every Christian (indeed, ever person) supports the part that they believe stands for righteousness and goodness. I highly doubt there are people or candidates out there saying "Bwa ha ha, my party is evil and I love it!"