How religion widens the partisan divide

[jayem]

thanks, good read and his bio is very interesting also.

however what I was referring to was not a specific person, but the issues most of the Christian Right find important and a determine factor.

Abortion - which he supports

among others.

That's fine. If you oppose a candidate, it should be because of his/her positions on issues. Not simply because of the party. I'm sure you know there are a number of pro-choice Republicans, like Sens. Collins and Murkowski, and Congressman Charlie Dent. And there are anti-abortion Democrats. Like Congressman Lipinski from Ill.

 

[carp614]

But we still don't know how he, personally, regards it. As for the theology, it was not all that long ago that the Christian position was that abortion was allowed until "quickening" about 15-20 weeks along.

Your assertion that we don't know his position makes no sense. These are his publicly stated positions. It is pointless to dwell on the possibility that this isn't what he believes. Don't feel obligated, but maybe you can explain your reticence if you want to.

I don't know where your ideas about "the Christian position" are coming from. That doesn't exist; a consensus opinion shared by everyone who thinks of themselves as Christian.

But your point about the Christian position is interesting and goes back to the OP's assertion, that religion is widening the partisan divide. It seems to me that politics have changed a great deal more than scripture has in the last 30 years. If you'll forgive me for using a simple example, Exodus 20 still contains the 10 commandments. #6 still says Thou Shalt Not Kill. In contrast, have a look at the Democratic Party platform from 30 years ago compared to today. Things there have changed a great deal.

 

[jayem]

Only the most rigorous theological gymnastics allow for Christianity and abortion to coexist.

I won't argue with that. That's your opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to it.

I might ask if Christianity can coexist with monumental pride. Which was considered the worst of the 7 deadly sins. It opens the door through which other sins can enter. That's a church, not a Bible doctrine. But scripture has much to say about pride. (And you know to whom I'm referring):

For the Lord of hosts will have a day of reckoning
Against everyone who is proud and lofty
And against everyone who is lifted up,
That he may be abased.
Isaiah 2:12

Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord;
Assuredly, he will not be unpunished.
Proverbs 16:5

Pride goes before destruction,
And a haughty spirit before stumbling.
Proverbs 16:18

For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.
Romans 12:3

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
1 Corinthians 13:4

But the brother of humble circumstances is to glory in his high position; and the rich man is to glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away.
James 1:9

If you're a Christian, then you know that we live in a fallen world where all men are imperfect and sinful. It comes down to which sin you can more easily tolerate.

 

[carp614]

I might ask if Christianity can coexist with monumental pride. Which was considered the worst of the 7 deadly sins. It opens the door through which other sins can enter. That's a church, not a Bible doctrine. But scripture has much to say about pride. (And you know to whom I'm referring):

If you're a Christian, then you know that we live in a fallen world where all men are imperfect and sinful. It comes down to which sin you can more easily tolerate.

Is this (the if Christianity can coexist with pride thing) a serious question? Christianity and sin have coexisted from the beginning.

It seems like you are saying Trump is a sinner and his sin is pride. Um...ok. I don't see how that has anything to do with the OP's assertion that religion is responsible for widening the partisan divide.

Please help me understand what you're trying to get across.

 

[jayem]

Is this (the if Christianity can coexist with pride thing) a serious question? Christianity and sin have coexisted from the beginning.

It seems like you are saying Trump is a sinner and his sin is pride. Um...ok. I don't see how that has anything to do with the OP's assertion that religion is responsible for widening the partisan divide.

Please help me understand what you're trying to get across.

I was responding to your earlier post that I quoted. Specifically, your assertion that for Christianity and abortion to coexist requires theological gymnastics. Perhaps my point wasn't clear. My intention was to point out that many Christian believers seem to have no difficulty allowing their faith to coexist with the sin of pride on a colossal scale. And you admitted that a "narcissistic buffoon" must be tolerated to achieve political goals which you apparently feel are important. So wouldn't this also require an equal degree of theological gymnastics?

 

[carp614]

I was responding to your earlier post that I quoted. Specifically, your assertion that for Christianity and abortion to coexist requires theological gymnastics. Perhaps my point wasn't clear. My intention was to point out that many Christian believers seem to have no difficulty allowing their faith to coexist with the sin of pride on a colossal scale. And you admitted that a "narcissistic buffoon" must be tolerated to achieve political goals which you apparently feel are important. So wouldn't this also require an equal degree of theological gymnastics?

I think I see now. Thank you for the clarification.

Here is a strictly no gymnastics example of what I'm saying is true:

• The fact that there are believers who accept abortion does not change the fact that abortion is sin.
• The fact that there are believers who accept sinful pride does not change the fact that pride is sin.

I'm developing a sense that your looking to point to some sort of hypocrisy involved in voting for Trump. I'm not sure how that relates to the OP's assertion that Religion has widened the partisan divide. Maybe you are suggesting the religious person's hypocrisy is the cause of the partisan divide?

 

[jayem]

I'm developing a sense that your looking to point to some sort of hypocrisy involved in voting for Trump. I'm not sure how that relates to the OP's assertion that Religion has widened the partisan divide. Maybe you are suggesting the religious person's hypocrisy is the cause of the partisan divide?

Not at all. Humans evolved as a tribalistic species. Religion didn't cause tribal hostility. But it reinforces it. I'm sure you're aware that religion has historically been used to put a veneer of godliness on what are really non-religious conflicts over political power. I believe that the divisive hyper-partisanship we see today is fundamentally another aspect of our tribal impulses. My point is that religious believers should not allow self-aggrandizing politicians to manipulate their tribalistic instincts. Pridefulness and ambitions for political power are every bit as sinful as what they want Christians to think they oppose.

 

[carp614]

My point is that religious believers should not allow self-aggrandizing politicians to manipulate their tribalistic instincts. Pridefulness and ambitions for political power are every bit as sinful as what they want Christians to think they oppose.

I think we basically agree on the point that religious believers should not allow politicians to manipulate them.

Do you believe religion, Christianity specifically, is nothing more than a tribalistic instinct? Do you think that Christians believe what they believe because politicians want them to?

 

[jayem]

I think we basically agree on the point that religious believers should not allow politicians to manipulate them.

Do you believe religion, Christianity specifically, is nothing more than a tribalistic instinct?

Not exactly. I believe tribalism is a result of how Homo sapiens evolved. Which was as a social species living in smallish clans or tribes. All religions--not just Christianity--came later. Religions exist because they reinforce tribal bonds. Common beliefs and rituals promote tribal cohesion. That's the upside. The downside is that other tribes, with differing beliefs and rituals, are seen as sinful, inimical, or adversarial.

Do you think that Christians believe what they believe because politicians want them to?

Again, not exactly. I think unscrupulous politicians exploit the beliefs of Christians as a way to achieve their ambitions for political power.

 

[rjs330]

Here is the link to the article:

The religious roots of today's partisan divide - CNNPolitics

There are lots and lots of stats in the article. The take-away as I see it, is that American Christianity has largely hitched its wagon to the Republican party and its agenda. And it appears that the Republican agenda is losing favor with Americans. And as the Republican agenda is losing favor in America, so is Christianity.

I suppose it isn't surprising that when a religion chooses to become closely aligned with a particular political agenda the religion's popularity will rise or fall with the popularity of the political agenda it supports.

I think it's more that the Democrats are moving further and further left. The Christians dont see another option if you are conservative. It's not Christianity itself that's causing the divide. It's the political agenda and Christians tend to lean more conservative so they are naturally going to support a party that is more conservative. I do think that more and more Christians are really getting fed up with both parties. Like me. I pretty sick of them both. But because I am conservative there just isn't anywhere else for me to really go.

 

[rjs330]

It is unfortunate that Dominionism has seeped through the fabric of the Body of Christ. Christians should equip themselves by researching this franchise in order to understand that it is a deception. Dominion theology is a Christian political ideology that seeks to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their understandings of biblical law. This is NOT what Jesus Christ of Nazareth commanded us to do. Pray for these people for they are on the wide road at the moment.
Blessings

Dominion theology is just bad. There is only one time where there will be a Godly Governmwnt on Earth. It's when Jesus returns and sets up his 1000 year reign. Until then it ought to be left alone.

 

[rjs330]

Simply...trump is the leader of the "republican" party...actually the trumplican party but they seem to have merged, so that "by their fruit you will know them" speaks volumes as to the hypocrisy of character and virtue contained within the party.

What's the opposite of that? You are not a hypocrite if you support an ungodly Democrat?
It seems that if you are a Christian and support an ungodly Republican and you are a hypocrite, then you are one if you support and ungodly Democrat.

 

[rjs330]

It's not an easy question for you, I imagine, to decide how much immorality you will tolerate in a leader who has promised to help you make Christian sins illegal for all the citizens of a secular state.

What are Christian sins?

 

[hedrick]

Do you believe religion, Christianity specifically, is nothing more than a tribalistic instinct? Do you think that Christians believe what they believe because politicians want them to?

It's not either/or. Obviously Christianity isn't a creation of politics. But there can certainly be influences. There's pretty clear evidence that current Protestant anti-abortion activism was in part created as a political strategy.

'Throughline' Traces Evangelicals' History On The Abortion Issue

 

[Jamsie]

What's the opposite of that? You are not a hypocrite if you support an ungodly Democrat?
It seems that if you are a Christian and support an ungodly Republican and you are a hypocrite, then you are one if you support and ungodly Democrat.

There at present does not exist an opposite... but why would I support a democrat whose character mirrors trump's, I wouldn't! As I noted "It means that I won't vote (Being a committed political/cultural pessimist it serves little purpose to "write in".) ...though I would have voted for Kasich." This is why I could neither vote for trump nor Clinton, You seem to be arguing with yourself...

 

[rjs330]

There at present does not exist an opposite... but why would I support a democrat whose character mirrors trump's, I wouldn't! As I noted "It means that I won't vote (Being a committed political/cultural pessimist it serves little purpose to "write in".) ...though I would have voted for Kasich." This is why I could neither vote for trump nor Clinton, You seem to be arguing with yourself...

Not really cause I didn't vote for Trump either. But it disturbs me greatly when the left wants to disparage those for voting for Trump then turn around and vote for a bad person on their side. If they were honest with themselves Clinton wouldn't have won the popular vote. If people stood up and said they were not going to accept bad character then, there would have been a write in winner.

But people are so afraid of the "other side" that they will accept bad character just to keep the other side from winning.

 

[rjs330]

It's not either/or. Obviously Christianity isn't a creation of politics. But there can certainly be influences. There's pretty clear evidence that current Protestant anti-abortion activism was in part created as a political strategy.

'Throughline' Traces Evangelicals' History On The Abortion Issue

On the abortion issue I agree. But if you honestly believe abortion is murder, then why wouldn't you stand against it? Murder is abhorrent to all of us, and we demand it be outlawed. So it makes perfect sense that if you believe abortion is the deliberate killing if a human being you would want it stopped.

 

[Jamsie]

Not really cause I didn't vote for Trump either. But it disturbs me greatly when the left wants to disparage those for voting for Trump then turn around and vote for a bad person on their side. If they were honest with themselves Clinton wouldn't have won the popular vote. If people stood up and said they were not going to accept bad character then, there would have been a write in winner.

But people are so afraid of the "other side" that they will accept bad character just to keep the other side from winning.

I would suggest that if people were "honest with themselves" they wouldn't have voted for trump! People had the opportunity to not vote for bad character in the primaries... obviously we've come to a point in time where Character is of little value. I tend to agree with your last sentence....