how does devout christians justify voting Democrat?

[Arcangl86]

Neither party is perfect. It's up for Christians to vote for a party that they think better embodies those values. One of those is the radical freedom that comes from being Christian.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

*sigh* some of you need to decide if you want religious freedom or not. the only way to achieve that is through a secular government that will ensure no one religion/sect is making all the rules.

Somebody's religion is having a say. Secular is not neutral. It is anti-God. Everyone has a worldview filled with unprovable presuppositions. Secular humanists are no different.

 

[imind]

Somebody's religion is having a say. Secular is not neutral. It is anti-God. Everyone has a worldview filled with unprovable presuppositions. Secular humanists are no different.

secular is not "anti-god"...we don't need anyone one religions god to make societies rules for us.

 

[mindlight]

*sigh* some of you need to decide if you want religious freedom or not. the only way to achieve that is through a secular government that will ensure no one religion/sect is making all the rules.

Secularism only works when the dominant culture is Unquestioned and has mainly thrived in a Christian context. In an Islamic context secularism was a disaster. The Turks for example killed 2 million Greeks, 6 million Armenians and continue to kill Kurds under secularism. Sadams Husseins wars cost nearly 2 million lives. Gadaffi sponsored the IRA... Etc etc

You cannot replace religion with secular emptiness without killing a culture ( as with Communism or Liberalism ) or merely repressing or harnessing its ugliest passions as with charismatic dictatorships

 

[jimmyjimmy]

secular is not "anti-god"...we don't need anyone one religions god to make societies rules for us.

You are wrong on both counts.

First, secular: "attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis." There is no middle ground. There are those moved by Christ, and they are those moved by Satan. Last time I checked, he's anti-God.

Second, without God's laws as a basis, there is no law. There are only preferences, and whomever has the power chooses the preferences.

 

[katerinah1947]

Since dems are ok with several things that are against bible

Hi,

Have you noticed yet, that most people in power, like Politicians and CEO's match what the research on leadership found as the only certain indicator of leadership in any person is?

Their research showed only one characteristic is needed for leadership.

It is to be able to believably lie.

They noticed those signs can be seen as early a preschool.

In fifteen years of testing their work, I have not seen that to be untrue.

And, if it that is actually true, then both party's have issues.

LOVE,

 

[tulc]

But God will hold us accountable for how we vote. If someone votes for a candidate who is in favor of homosexuality then I can't see God being too happy about that. Neither party is perfect but there are some things the Democrats support that outright defy what Scripture says. I think the OP is curious how you can reconcile that.

I have to be honest, I don't usually ask myself: "Who do I think Thunder Peel would like me to vote for?" I generally just consider which candidates seem most interested in supporting the things I want supported and vote accordingly.
tulc(doesn't see a problem so sees no reason to reconcile anything)

 

[tulc]

Secularism only works when the dominant culture is Unquestioned and has mainly thrived in a Christian context. In an Islamic context secularism was a disaster. The Turks for example killed 2 million Greeks, 6 million Armenians and continue to kill Kurds under secularism. Sadams Husseins wars cost nearly 2 million lives. Gadaffi sponsored the IRA... Etc etc

You cannot replace religion with secular emptiness without killing a culture ( as with Communism or Liberalism ) or merely repressing or harnessing its ugliest passions as with charismatic dictatorships

Wait...are you suggesting no "Christian Nation" in all of history has engaged in genocide?
tulc(because that would be wrong)

 

[greenguzzi]

Interesting discussion. I'm not in the US and I'm not a US citizen, so I can't answer the specific question. However I do tend to vote on the left (but not always). Here's a few of my thoughts, hopefully they will help answer the OP's question.

• I don't care about the motivations or "values" of politicians, all I care about is what their policies are, and what likely affects and outcomes these policies will have. We can never know their true motivations or values. They might decide to tell us, but even then they are probably lying.
• I then look at these policies and potential outcomes, and decide how they measure up with my understanding of God's principles.
  
• There will always be a balancing act. There will be policies on both sides that I am not happy with, and there will be policies on both sides that I am happy with. So I weigh them up, and then decide.
• When weighing up one has to put a "weight" on each issue/policy. Some things are clearly more important than others. This is extremely difficult and very personal. Even though you and I may have very similar beliefs, I don't expect you to assign the same weights as I do. The weighting is done carefully and prayerfully, and I will justify them to no one except God.

OK, as an example I'll attempt to address some of the issues:

Abortion: The issue here is not who "supports" abortion and who doesn't. The issue is will abortions occur, and what will be the result of these abortions? If abortions are outright banned, they will still occur. But they will occur in secret. Those who are wealthy enough will pay too much to a corrupt but skilled medical professional. The rest will get botched procedures resulting in unnecessary suffering and death. So although I am opposed to abortion, I will not support a party who proposes an outright ban on abortion. I will also not be keen to support a party who proposes abortion-on-demand, no-questions-asked. I am keen to minimise abortion, but I am just as keen to ensure that any abortions that occur are as safe for the woman as possible.

Trans / Gay: I don't believe that anyone should be discriminated against. So I will not support any party who tries to take rights away from anyone, even if I don't agree with their lifestyle. I don't include SSM in this. Not because I don't think it's a rights issue, it is. But because it's way too complex for this discussion. In short I would not support SSM, but the reasons are complex and irrelevant to this discussion.

Child out of wedlock: I don't believe that anyone with a child out of wedlock should be disadvantaged. In fact I would say that we should support them if the father is not around to help. Women are already disadvantaged in our society, discriminating against single mothers will not help. You can't legislate morality, especially if it's a morality that not everyone shares.

Foreign policy: The US supported by her allies have been the aggressors in too many wars, often for the wrong reasons. I will tend to support those parties who support more peaceful methods of diplomacy.

Economic justice: This is a moral issue just as much as the others. The USA has a middle-class which is shrinking. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I visited your great country last month (WA) and I was shocked by the poverty I saw. Now maybe poverty is unavoidable, but even so we should do all we can to reduce poverty and its effects. This issue rates very important when measured against God's principles. I will vote with this in mind. Universal healthcare and minimum wage are moral issues. In my assessment they are more important than, for example, gay moral issues. So when deciding my vote I would place more weight on reducing poverty (as a moral issue) than I would opposing a gay (moral) issues that I disagree with. Unfortunately there will always be a compromise, unless one refuses to vote at all.

Stewardship: Pollution and climate change. God has given us this planet and all that is in it for us to care for. He expects us to look after it, and we are not doing a good job. So I am extremely reluctant to offer my support to a party who doesn't strongly support ways to reduce carbon and other pollutants in the atmosphere. This one is a double whammy because it's not just a stewardship issue. The effects of climate change will impact the poorest first and more severely. God has a heart for the poor, and He expects us to be the same.

It's these last two issues that tend to push me towards voting left. The Republicans and their equvalents across the globe tend to rate very poor on these two. Make no mistake these issues are moral issues close to the heart of God, just as much as abortion and LGBTI are. No political party is a good fit for Christians. There is no "correct" party for Christians to vote for. We just have to assess the policies of each, and vote for which one measures up to God's standards the best. It's hard work, but I believe that God expects us to use our brains and prayerfully decide.

One last thought for now: Secularism is a good thing for Christianity. Without it you would not be free to explore and discover God. You would be told what to believe, and punished if you are not seen to agree. Even if what you were told to believe were true, there would be no joy or conviction in it. Secularism protects us as believers. Yes it also protects false religions, but that is the price we pay for freedom. I'm pretty sure God wants us to work out our salvation for ourselves. Secularism is not an emptiness, it is a separation of responsibilities. It's no more an emptiness than different rolls for wife and husband is an emptiness.

 

[2win]

OH, BUT LYING IS OK!

 

[AionPhanes]

The state can be run based on a thin view of the good that people of various religious and non religious perspectives will be able to give a thumbs up to. A more thick and detailed view of the good is for the specific religious communities and individuals to develop for themselves but not impose on others via government force. That's all I mean when I say we have a "secular" government.

Simply noting that "the Bible says so" isn't going to convince non-Christians and isn't enough for legislation. We have to speak and legislate in a manner understandable across religious and non-religious perspectives among civilized people. Provide empirical evidence and justification that isn't predicated on having a specific religious faith in order to accept and understand. Say, for example, why allowing action "x" wouldn't be in the countries interests and then show that outlawing it would be feasible, wouldn't produce too many negative side effects, and would produce specific results that people would be likly to view as positive don't just say "Bible/Quran/Gita says 'x' is a sin" Remember that there are a variety of different interests and outlooks.

 

[miamited]

Since dems are ok with several things that are against bible

hi ml5363,

Seems to me that neither party has a lock on following godly principles.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[HannahT]

Economic justice: This is a moral issue just as much as the others. The USA has a middle-class which is shrinking. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I visited your great country last month (WA) and I was shocked by the poverty I saw. Now maybe poverty is unavoidable, but even so we should do all we can to reduce poverty and its effects. This issue rates very important when measured against God's principles. I will vote with this in mind. Universal healthcare and minimum wage are moral issues. In my assessment they are more important than, for example, gay moral issues. So when deciding my vote I would place more weight on reducing poverty (as a moral issue) than I would opposing a gay (moral) issues that I disagree with. Unfortunately there will always be a compromise, unless one refuses to vote at all.

Stewardship: Pollution and climate change. God has given us this planet and all that is in it for us to care for. He expects us to look after it, and we are not doing a good job. So I am extremely reluctant to offer my support to a party who doesn't strongly support ways to reduce carbon and other pollutants in the atmosphere. This one is a double whammy because it's not just a stewardship issue. The effects of climate change will impact the poorest first and more severely. God has a heart for the poor, and He expects us to be the same.

I really don't have a problem with any of what you said. I tend to vote for whom I feel is best, and I have voted on both sides at one time or another. I also don't agree that the above is more 'left' issues. Although you would never know it here the way people act...both sides.

When I sit back and look at politics - to me its the extremes from both sides, and it seems like a contest on WHOM can twist the issue more out of whack that wins. Problem I see? It makes it so no one wins. It just encourages warring lines to be drawn. It's tearing the fabric of the country apart just so they can test which side can be the bigger idiot.

Today, if you can't agree with someone's opinion on how things need to be done...you are to assume the worse, twist what they said, call them names, and do your darnest to make them into the enemy we will all fear. There is no room for debate, compromise, and finding some middle ground. The battles lines are draw instead, and nothing gets accomplished. You bring in people with power, money and influence? Those can come from a range of areas, and they do more harm than good.

I do believe both sides - minus the nutters - want to help grow the country, the middle class, bring people up from poverty, and slap some sense into healthcare - and have a clean environment. I remember as a child pollution was much worse, and people didn't have a problem with cleaning it up. They didn't have a problem with finding ways to stretch the amount energy by different means, and lower the pollutants. We all live on the same earth, and can be impacted by these no matter what you wealth status is. I feel many of the moral issues - homosexuality, etc - will be worked out with time and history. Humans have done that with other issues, and the culture changed. It will happen again too. More things will surface - and it will happen once more, etc. Today - if you can't agree? See the above about assuming the worse, etc. I'm not sure which side acts like the bigger baby.

What I see is different groups having different approaches to solving these issues, and no one listens to the other side. One side says let's fix it this way - the other sides says NO fix it is this way...then the war begins. One accuses the other that they don't CARE about the issue, and tells their audience what they 'really' meant by their stand. Then the name calling starts, and the accusations ...and how they secretly 'hate' stuff. I'm not sure which side has the bigger preschool class personally.

I'm honestly not sure which side frustrates me more as they do their darnest to tear the country apart. They both are doing a pretty good job of it. I don't see GOP as more Christian then the Democrats. I see both sides wanting to approach all the issues, but with different ways of solving them. I think the bigger issue is to find grown humans from both sides that won't hold their breath until they turn blue to get their way - while the other side has a major meltdown temper tantrum until they get their way.

Hating - and both sides are guilty of encouraging that - does nothing. It just makes it harder to approach issues that should be important to all of us.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

As a Christian I strongly believe in equal rights and free will. God gave us free will for a reason so that we think for our selves and not be a slave to this idea cause we are 'Christians' we should only vote for one way

 

[BenTheBeliever]

They value their political positions more than their faith.

That is not true. I am both. I just don't believe in shoving our Faith down everyone throats.

 

[greenguzzi]

I really don't have a problem with any of what you said. I tend to vote for whom I feel is best, and I have voted on both sides at one time or another. I also don't agree that the above is more 'left' issues. Although you would never know it here the way people act...both sides.

I likewise don't have any real problem with what you said. However the right are less likely to limit the excesses of capitalism that causes poverty. (Strictly speaking it's the US libertarians that cause this problem in the USA, but this is because your libertarians are all right wing. This isn't the case in other countries.) Also the right are more likely to ignore - and deny - global warming, for ideological reasons rather then scientific ones. When ideologies come before common sense there are going to be some big problems looming. Although in general this is more likely to be an extremist problem.

The problem today is that we don't really have left and right parties to choose from; we have right and more right. This means that right wing extremism is more likely to come to the fore, as the less right wing party pushes the somewhat more right wing party to the extreme. I'd like to agree that the problem is also on the extreme left, but it's hard to tell in today's political environment because we don't have anyone on the left to be extreme. Some people think that Bernie is extreme left. He's not, he's a moderate. But we've been living in an right wing environment for so long now that some people have forgotten what moderate looks like.

I think the most extreme left we have ever seen in my country (Australia) is Gough Whitlam, and probably the most extreme left in the USA would be FDR. Both leaders did great things. If that's what our version of extreme left-wing looks like, then I say bring it on. Whereas the extreme right-wing looks like Tea Party movement, which does deny global warming and supports unfettered capitalism with all its problems including poverty, inequality, and ruining the planet. Today right-wing extremism is a real menace and needs to be urgently addressed, whereas left-wing extremism doesn't even exist as a viable force.

One accuses the other that they don't CARE about the issue, and tells their audience what they 'really' meant by their stand. Then the name calling starts, and the accusations ...and how they secretly 'hate' stuff. I'm not sure which side has the bigger preschool class personally.

This is more to do with the quality of the candidates and the system and style of the democracy. The way the USA "does" democracy is a mess, and needs to be overhauled. As for the quality of candidates - that's a really big problem. I have no idea why the quality has dropped so much these days. Maybe it hasn't, and I've just become a grumpy-old-man.

 

[HannahT]

This is more to do with the quality of the candidates and the system and style of the democracy. The way the USA "does" democracy is a mess, and needs to be overhauled. As for the quality of candidates - that's a really big problem. I have no idea why the quality has dropped so much these days. Maybe it hasn't, and I've just become a grumpy-old-man.

It has. It really has. Big money on both sides are pulling the strings, and each side accuses the other of doing it more. As if that makes it any better. The people get the short end of the stick, and the supporters - or string pullers - get what they need. To many candidates come in lower middle class, and leave their office with cash stuffed in every pocket. Yes, they are now very well off.

If you don't want your own life, your spouses, your kids, and the rest of your relatives to be on full display? Don't run for office. You have to be capable of never misspeaking, and you need an army of staff to investigate your every noun so you have the 'pat' answer as to why that isn't offensive. Even then it still will be. The media needs their juice after all. I've seen decent people on both sides of the aisle see their own career, reputation, etc taken out over one small mistake said verbally.

You have a handful of people that go into this with the right motives, but most of them are power hungry. They learn to play the corrupt system to their own benefit, and learn how to play the crowds to manipulate them into thinking it was truly THEM that were the winners in the end.

There really isn't any incentive for quality people to run. The risks are to high, and it mostly is over nothing.

 

[greenguzzi]

It has. It really has. Big money on both sides are pulling the strings

Yep, I have to agree there. And so many voters get conned by the resultant spin. We need smarter voters.

 

[imind]

You are wrong on both counts.

First, secular: "attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis." There is no middle ground. There are those moved by Christ, and they are those moved by Satan. Last time I checked, he's anti-God.

Second, without God's laws as a basis, there is no law. There are only preferences, and whomever has the power chooses the preferences.

no, i am not wrong...you trying to replace religious belief with reality.
as proven by the US constitution, god is not necessary for the formulation of laws. the very first amendment is in fact "un-christian" in that it allows for belief in any god (or none). god has killed people for their lack of belief and the belief in other gods.

Secularism only works when the dominant culture is Unquestioned and has mainly thrived in a Christian context.

lol, no...the "success" of the US for instance, happened in spite of christianity, not as a result of it. it still makes me giggle when some christians claim the enlightenment as a product of christianity.

 

[Thunder Peel]

I have to be honest, I don't usually ask myself: "Who do I think Thunder Peel would like me to vote for?" I generally just consider which candidates seem most interested in supporting the things I want supported and vote accordingly.
tulc(doesn't see a problem so sees no reason to reconcile anything)

I never said you should be concerned with who I like. I did that we should be concerned with how God feels about our vote and which candidates line up with biblical values. Most Demcrats support abortion and gay marriage, two things the Bible is in strict opposition against.