• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Do you consider yourself part of..

Apollo Celestio

Deal with it.
Jul 11, 2007
20,734
1,429
38
Ohio
✟51,579.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
This "Religious right" I hear about so much? A group that is guilty for so many sins and often I get compared to? I know in the end, the only thing I would consider myself a "part" of is HIS church, but could someone fill me in on what this group is? And does being theologically conservative automatically put myself in?
 

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Its a new thing. Start really with the Democratic Convention of 1972. The party found a quarter to a third of the delegates self-identified as "secularists". Until then, there were, of course, Christians with very different political views but on the need for faith in the public square and on general principles, both parties were in pretty much agreement. When evangelicals started leaving the Democratic party because of Roe (which also drove out Catholics) and disappointment with Jimmy Carter, the secularists in the party started to play up the "religious right" as a threat to American values. Norman Lear founded People for the American Way for the express purpose of denying those who left his party political office. He and Ralph Neas have toned down the rhetoric in recent years but the early pamphlets on "How to defeat the religious right" were incendiary.

If you go back to the great populist and three time Democratic party candidate for president, William Jennings Bryan, much of what he wrote (check out "In his Image") would today be considered from the "religious right".

There does seem to be a reaction to the secular drift within the Democratic party. The old pluralism seems to be coming back a little bit and they claim that a opinion formed because of ones faith has no business in politics receeding. This is a good thing. I hope liberal Christianity does make a comeback in the party.
 
Upvote 0

KarrieTex

HOOK EM HORNS
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2006
11,880
788
54
Houston, Texas
✟83,214.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Criada

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 6, 2007
67,838
4,093
59
✟160,528.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Don't think that I would fit into this, but the crossover between Christianity and politics is more or less non-existent in the UK.
However, whilst I am conservative in my Christian beliefs, my politics are not right wing. I can also see a danger in trying to impose Christian principles and values on a largely secular society. We should be preaching the gospel to the non-Christians, rather than trying to impose Christian values and behaviours on unregenerate humans.
 
Upvote 0

Izdaari Eristikon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2007
6,174
448
71
Post Falls, Idaho
✟47,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
This "Religious right" I hear about so much? A group that is guilty for so many sins and often I get compared to? I know in the end, the only thing I would consider myself a "part" of is HIS church, but could someone fill me in on what this group is? And does being theologically conservative automatically put myself in?
Mmm, no. I'm theologically conservative, but socially moderate and politically neolibertarian. I can ally with the "Religious Right" on certain issues (i.e., on electing a Republican rather than a Democrat) but I'm not one of them.

I'm Christian, and I'm on the Right, but not the "Christian Right".

I can also see a danger in trying to impose Christian principles and values on a largely secular society. We should be preaching the gospel to the non-Christians, rather than trying to impose Christian values and behaviours on unregenerate humans.
:amen::amen::amen:
 
Upvote 0
B

BrBob

Guest
Nope! The Christian Right is too much into imposition of moral priciples onto everyone. That involves legislating morality and as far as I'm concerned morality should come from society itself, not its politicians! To legislate morality is doing things upside down.

In addition, I do NOT want more legislation in this country. We have too many laws as it is and there is no freedom left.

I am very conservative socially but don't want it to come from the top down.

Bob
Spearfish, SD
 
Upvote 0

Lady Bug

Thankful For My Confirmation
Site Supporter
Aug 23, 2007
23,292
11,813
✟1,067,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
This "Religious right" I hear about so much? A group that is guilty for so many sins and often I get compared to? I know in the end, the only thing I would consider myself a "part" of is HIS church, but could someone fill me in on what this group is? And does being theologically conservative automatically put myself in?
No, not at all. I am very conservative, but I am by no means a Fundamentalist.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,919
Vancouver
✟162,516.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
To the extent that freedom to choose is too important to be left to government choice, it is less government interference that most conservatives are asking for. On most issues, this is what the Christian right stands for. From the economy and ownership rights, through educational choice, and through many other freedoms in which the government need not interfere, I am a part of the Christian right that does not want liberal morality imposed on citizens.

I would support those elements of the Christian right that place value on life from conception to death. This will no doubt be seen as imposing morality, but more positively is involves bringing one's own moral ideals into the public domain.
For once it is seen that one's humanity is indivisible at all stages of life, it becomes a duty to fight for the rights of the most vulnerable.
So I agree with the Christian right that one should not abandon one's own moral sense once entering the public sphere.

I would not support legislation that would make one's own sexual choices illegal. To the extent that the Christian right would make mutually agreeed upon sexual choices illegal, I would not find myself in support.
This is not an absolute of course. To the extent that one's sexual choices have an effect on other people, on one's family and one's spouse, and on the vulnerable who are subject to sexual exploitation, there is a morality that is required to be imposed.

There is in short a minimal standard of behavior that a society has a right to expect from its citizens. This is always a balancing act. Neither individual rights nor family values can negate each other, but both must be struggled with in the public domain.
and as I find myself getting older, I tend to be more conservative in this regard, more likely to strees an individual obligations as much as individual rights.

To the extent that government would impose a morality on citizens though, through hate speech laws, or requiring that private institutions not be able to make choices for who they will associate based on lifestyle choices, then I am back on the side of the Christian Right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voegelin
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,548
658
Ohio
✟43,633.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
I am conservative and a Christian whatever that makes me.


As for politicians I have only met two that I might trust to park my car.The rest, and there have been at least a few more, I wouldn't trust to clean out a septic tank.
 
Upvote 0

TexasSky

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
7,265
1,014
Texas
✟12,139.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Oh yes, the "Christian" right.

I was an individual who was very politically active. To the point of being elected to serve the party several times in public elections, and as delegate to various conventions, and to serve as an officer of the convention.

I am also a outspoken Christian.

So the "Christian Coalition" who most consider the "leadership" of the religious right, approached me. Eager to have me push their cause and their candidates.

That was a very eye opening experience for me.

I discovered that:
1) The local spearheaded of the Christian Coalition who was rallying all the troops every day - was in fact - not a professing Christian.

Once she felt confident around me she freely confessed to me that she didn't think it mattered if you called yourself a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim or a Christian, that as long as you worshipped something you were fine.

She had no church home.

She knew almost no scripture.

Yet, Christians were FLOCKING to her beck and call to do whatever she told them God would want them to do.

2) That this group believed it was perfectly justifiable to spread lies about others. Not just gossip they thought was true, but things they KNEW were flat out lies, if it would "elect the right man."

3) That a "moderate Christian minister who personally would never have an abortion, marry a gay, or sleep with someone out of marriage" was "a bad man" if he said, "We need to focus less on Roe vs Wade and more on the current economic situation of our nation", but a man who freely admits, "I am not a Christian. I am, in fact, a Shaman for the Apache indian tribe, but it doesn't matter because I agree with the Christians," was a "good man".

4) That it was okay to "twist" democracy and democractic procedure if "your cause was just."
For instance. If the rules of debate were: 3 people in support, 3 opposing, each person gets 3 minutes." It was perfectly ethical and Christian, according to them, to hold a meeting and say, "Okay, we need three people to pretend to support the opposing view who can make it to their microphone before their top speakers do and use up their time. You don't really have to support their view, you just have to hem and haw until the Chair calls that your time is up. Just don't let them get to their mic."

5) That the biggest "anti-abortion" leaders both had daughters who had abortions, at their urgings. This coming from the daughter in one case, the father himself in the other case. And no, they had not had a change of heart, no there were no lives or health or rape issues involved. They simply did not want the world to know their daughters got pregnant out of wedlock so they paid for abortions, but they felt they could never elect their candidates if the world knew that, so they lied.

So, my last great Christian political endeavor, I reminded them that God's word says, "Thou shalt not bear false wittness against thy neighbor," and that there is no "unless it fits your cause" clause. I also reminded them that when they get to heaven, they will have to face Christ and explain to Him why they think electing a non-Christian in the name of Christ is better than electing a Christian in the name of Christ.

And I've done nothing but vote since then.
 
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,548
658
Ohio
✟43,633.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
5) That the biggest "anti-abortion" leaders both had daughters who had abortions, at their urgings. This coming from the daughter in one case, the father himself in the other case. And no, they had not had a change of heart, no there were no lives or health or rape issues involved. They simply did not want the world to know their daughters got pregnant out of wedlock so they paid for abortions, but they felt they could never elect their candidates if the world knew that, so they lied.

My distrust of politicians if fairly well known but I must ask do you have documentation of this particular accusation?
 
Upvote 0

TexasSky

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
7,265
1,014
Texas
✟12,139.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
My distrust of politicians if fairly well known but I must ask do you have documentation of this particular accusation?
Documentation that the Local Republican Executive Committe Chairman in 1980, and that the regional campaign manager for Ronald Reagan both had daughter's who had abortions?

I suppose if I tried hard enough I could find it, but given that both men, and one of the daughters, is deceased I see no reason to. In the case of one of them, the daughter died at a very young age, in what they think was suicide. So what purpose would it serve? When the information came directly from the daughter and directly from the man in question, I saw no reason to ask them to prove it to me.

I did not, as others in the coalition were doing, tell others in the local area the secrets these family members had shared with me. I simply stopped supporting them politically, and when asked, told people the truth in so far as saying, "I have a lot of trouble with a lot of things going on." Some of it was blatant enough, like the meetings to steal the opposing speakers time, that I didn't have to say much more.
 
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟256,121.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
there really is no "religious right" in the fact that the political group inside the republican party

there are a lot of republicans who are christian and some of them are promenant politicians or pastors, there are libertaians and an over estemated neo-conservitave parts to the republican party.
The "religous right" is not a group and does not have any single goals, it would be like saying "African american left" like all black democrats were working together for the same end, now since they are democrats and african americans they might have many of the same goals and interests but it is not a hierarchical group that is pulling the strings of the democratic party, the "religious right" can be seen in a simerlar way, we might have a bit in common but it is not really structured.
I often joke that I am not part of the religous right because I am catholic and they won't let me join, lol like there is a place to sign up to be part of the religious right.
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Celestio

Deal with it.
Jul 11, 2007
20,734
1,429
38
Ohio
✟51,579.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
really if there was a "religous right" and it had even half of the power liberals like to imagine it does the abortion would be illegal in the midwest and southern states
You're right..
 
Upvote 0