How can one be a committed Democrat and Orthodox?

[Tayla]

However, I think that in Liberalism, while there are some principles that align with Orthodoxy (helping with homelessness, environmentalism) - there are so many principles which go against the goals of Orthodoxy in its ethos, that I personally feel baffled that one could be a committed Democrat but still claim to uphold Orthodox values.

I think there are good and bad policies in both parties. I don't think we should vote based on a party but, rather, on judging what good or bad effects the candidate will have.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I happened to hear a comment the other day that apparently there are 5 (senators/representatives?) who are Orthodox Christians. Three of them apparently align Republican and two Democrat - pretty close to an even split.

It's the 2-party system I don't like. I think one could register as either and still have to choose to agree with/oppose various policies.

 

[FireDragon76]

Traditionally, Orthodox Christians tended to vote Democrat, as did most immigrants or immediate descendants of immigrants.

With the large number of converts in the US, it's probably shifted the politics somewhat. From what I've read, Orthodox are split between Democrats and Republicans, similar to some mainline Protestant groups (my own church is similar in this respect).

 

[~Anastasia~]

And traditionally, Democrats were a much more moderate party than they are at present. I (and I think most of my family) would have aligned democrat. Lately maybe not so much ...

 

[gzt]

And traditionally, Democrats were a much more moderate party than they are at present. I (and I think most of my family) would have aligned democrat. Lately maybe not so much ...

Yeah, historically, American political parties are non-ideological, they're coalitions of various interests. However, they've been undergoing a transformation for a while with a lot more ideological sorting recently.

 

[TheLostCoin]

And traditionally, Democrats were a much more moderate party than they are at present. I (and I think most of my family) would have aligned democrat. Lately maybe not so much ...

Absolutely. My grandparents on my dad's side were committed Democrats until Clinton, from which point they couldn't imagine themselves on the side of Democrats.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Absolutely. My grandparents on my dad's side were committed Democrats until Clinton, from which point they couldn't imagine themselves on the side of Democrats.

Also, my Grandparents were really conservative Evangelical Christians, the so called "Church of Christ."

 

[buzuxi02]

Immigrants tend to vote Democrat. This can be for reasons such as believing they are more dovish on international relations which can affect things back home. Immigrant groups place less value on social issues because they are also a more insular group even though for the most part they tend to hold to conservative social values. Being insular walls you off from the social issues plaguing the natives. For example Muslim immigrants in Detroit will vote democratic but not for the same reason the majority of homosexuals in San Francisco do.
Greek immigrants who vote democratic do so because they recognize the word "democrat or democracy as being greek. They are familiar with what the word Δημοκρατία means but are unsure of the word republican, so they have a loyalty to the word. (No I'm not kidding you).

 

[Markie Boy]

A year or so ago, I came across one of those Pew polls, that claimed Eastern Orthodox (in America) identify socially/politically as conservative or liberal in approximately a 60/40 percent split, conservatives being the slight majority. Whatever, I dunno.

That makes them better than Catholics that run a pretty even 50/50 split.

 

[gzt]

That makes them better than Catholics that run a pretty even 50/50 split.

Well, that depends on what you think is better.

 

[abacabb3]

I think one can be Democrat and Orthodox, simply because being Orthodox does not require an IQ test. It's the same reason we allow for Republicans too.

 

[Lady Donna Marie]

My personal belief is that social issues like the ones discussed in this thread should not be dealt with at the federal level, but taken to the state level and decided there and if someone doesn't like what there state level is agreeing to then move to a state that matches your beliefs if they want too.

For example, Virginia has agreed that killing a baby after birth is okay and Alabama has agreed that abortion of any kind is not okay. So if one doesn't like what their state agrees to then they can move to a state that better fits their beliefs.

By moving all social issues back to the states to decide and not at the, supreme court/federal level, it then takes away a lot of differences between parties when deciding who to vote for at the presidential level. It allows the president to run the country on other issues (like the economy, world issues, military support, helping disasters victims, and so on). Hopefully, it would stop a lot of the social unrest at the national level.

 

[rusmeister]

Orthodoxy is not a political movement. It really shouldn't align with a political party just for the sake of aligning with it.

Each issue needs to be considered on its own merit, regardless of which party embraces or opposes it. We should vote according to those ideals.

Our priest has discussed this with the parish at large. More than once. But he doesn't concern himself with persons or parties. Only issues. I think that's the right approach.

This thread is a year and a half old, but just resurfaced due to recent activity.

I agree with Anastasia in general, but have to point out that whole system of a republic is based on voting for people and NOT on the issues, unlike a democracy. So while it’s right to say that we should vote on the issues, it’s also impossible.

Both controlling parties support policies that are wicked but which they have convinced their supporters are good and right. I’d say none is more thoroughly wicked than abortion, so IF the vote represents genuine political power (which I doubt), then that would be the number one thing to stop, though it is underpinned by the legality of sexual license in the nation and world in general. But if you do vote, younare going to wind up voting for what you think the lesser evil to be.

Persecution of Christians in the US under Trump has ground almost to a complete halt, something that had ramped up hard under Obama and Hilary. We’re not hearing about more Kleins or Philips or all the others punished for their beliefs. Voting Dem will help reverse that and resume and ramp up the persecution. I’d point out that “Orthodox Christians” who surreptitiously support sexual anarchy actually want to see that persecution resume. That would include my Orthodox BIL who sees nothing wrong with children at the school his kids go to having “two moms”.

 

[gzt]

That's not what Virginia has done.

 

[rusmeister]

That's not what Virginia has done.

The Governor of that fine state, Ralph Northam said this, and I quote:
“The consent of obviously the mother, with consent of the physician, multiple physicians by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable.

“So in this particular example (when the child is in the process of being born) if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

So, GZT, what do you think about that? Are you saying that he is NOT suggesting that the infant could be killed by the choice of the mother and family, if THAT is what they desire? What can you say if this is what the head of the state is advocating? Anything you say to attempt to deflect the meaning of those words will look like evasion, as will silence. And evasion would imply dishonesty, something I'm sure you don't intend. Perhaps you could clarify your understanding of those words?

 

[All4Christ]

The Governor of that fine state, Ralph Northam said this, and I quote:
“The consent of obviously the mother, with consent of the physician, multiple physicians by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable.

“So in this particular example (when the child is in the process of being born) if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

So, GZT, what do you think about that? Are you saying that he is NOT suggesting that the infant could be killed by the choice of the mother and family, if THAT is what they desire? What can you say if this is what the head of the state is advocating? Anything you say to attempt to deflect the meaning of those words will look like evasion, as will silence. And evasion would imply dishonesty, something I'm sure you don't intend. Perhaps you could clarify your understanding of those words?

I thought that bill died in committee...I certainly hope it did, as it is an abhorrent bill - and an abhorrent statement from the governor. His comments certainly sound like he advocates the choice of abortion of already born infants. The mental and physical defect qualification is extremely wrong as well imho. All children are made in the image of God - not just mentally or physically sound children.

 

[Euodius]

I thought that bill died in committee...I certainly hope it did, as it is an abhorrent bill - and an abhorrent statement from the governor. His comments certainly sound like he advocates the choice of abortion of already born infants. The mental and physical defect qualification is extremely wrong as well imho. All children are made in the image of God - not just mentally or physically sound children.

Ralph "Child-murderer" Northram is how he's known around my part of Virginia. Remember when he handed out money to everyone to forget about his black face? I do.

Be glad to purge the government of scum like him.

But democracy is a sham.

 

[Lukaris]

To think in Pennsylvania we used to have a genuine pro life Democrat in Robert Casey Sr. Regrettably, his son is US Senator & pretends to be pro life but is a fraud ( for ex. The Apple Falls Far from the Tree ).

While the likes of Bob Casey Sr are extinct:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Casey_Sr.

For some reason the wiki link does not go to the article but it asks, “do you mean Bob Casey Sr?” & it will then take you to his bio.

Lou Bartletta tried to unseat Bob Casey Jr winning like 54 of 67 counties in Pa but the results show a seemingly great majority of like 2.7 million vs 2 million votes. I think the political machines in Philly & Pittsburgh made sure the votes were counted properly as Johnny Rocco explains in the real old movie: Key Largo:

2018 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania - Wikipedia

 

[Moses Medina]

Interesting discussions here.

 

[public hermit]

For example, Virginia has agreed that killing a baby after birth is okay

That's not accurate. All of Virginia has not made such an agreement and no such law has been passed. If you are referring to the recent bill that passed the house, see below. It rolls back certain restrictions, but again doesn't permit killing a baby after birth. I know this is a bit off topic, but the topic is a year and a half old, anyway.

Virginia Legislature Passes Bill Rolling Back Abortion Restrictions | National Review
LIS > Bill Tracking > SB733 > 2020 session