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.
If Americans are saddled with Biden vs Trump again, it may be difficult to motivate us to vote at all. Mr Trump inspires much anger in people on both sides of the political spectrum tho. I can merely speculate because I am not convinced voting is even worth my time. Maybe another Trump debacle will illustrate to Americans just how awful that guy was for our government and society. After we pick up the pieces...again.
That's not the constitution.As Jefferson once said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Constitution says no such thing. Not about equality, not about men and women, and definitely not about god.I guess it does depend on what you mean by equality but most of those who phrased the Constitution believed that all men and women were created in God's image,
Constitution definitely doesn't mention "salvation" or "Christ"offered an equal chance of salvation by Christ,
The Constitution speaks of "our posterity" (that is descendants) and says nothing of eternity as a domain of time or a place.and have the same eschatological potential in eternity.
Is this some sort of non-sequitor?So there is nothing unAmerican or unChristian in affirming equality.
Did you have an point about the election, or did you just want to mis-characterize the Constitution?There have always been disparities between rich and poor but for much of its history the American dream has been that anyone could make it and that there was the same equality of opportunity shared by all. Since social mobility is no longer working the reality of that dream has faded. But there is nothing to stop extra taxes on the rich, infrastructure projects that favor everybody in the long run rather than just the portfolios of the fabulously rich, and better education investment to increase the skills of the next generation and their earning potential regardless of where they have come from. Nor would such investments jeopardize America's place in the world. The major hurdle here is an ideological one and a matter of exchanging greed for generosity.
Barring a medical issue with one or both of the candidates (and they are *both* old), it is almost inevitable that it will be Biden v. Trump again.
Trump is making it very clear of late how he wants to rule. Take him seriously. We don't need to experience it just for "proof" of how bad it could be.
As a non-citizen, you have some interesting observations about the American political system and some of the myriad of problems in our current situation. Since you don't mention if your relatives for whom you inquire are Christian, I'll assume since you are asking in this Christian forum that they are. With that said, I'll give you the readers version of my thoughts on Christians and politics in general and try to address your specific issues separately. First, as to how Christians should view politics and political matters in today's highly charged partisan and confrontational environment, we should always look first at what Christ said on the matter. When it comes to politics, it's relative simple. I can find only one reference where Christ even addressed the subject. It was when He was asked about whether Jewish people should pay tribute (or taxes) to Caesar. We read that Christ knew it was a trap but He answered in Mark 12:17 with the oft quoted “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” So, Christ Himself refused to get into political debate and instead pointed out that we should leave political matters (such as taxes) to the politicians and that His mission (and presumably ours) is those things which are Gods. Christ never got Himself embroiled in political controversy. I think as Christians, we should follow Christ's lead and not let ourselves get involved in partisan political matters unless they directly affect our ability to worship God and do His will. Think of it this way. As a Christian, our main objective should be to do God's will and to share God's word with others. In today's hyper-partisan political arena, where the country is pretty evenly split between opposing views on just about everything, if we as Christians openly espouse views on either side, we risk damaging our Christian testimony with those of opposite beliefs. So, what is more important, stating some controversial political opinion or keeping our reputation clear of such things in order that no one can refuse to hear our Christian testimony because of them? That said, I will nonetheless attempt to give my personal opinion to your specific concerns. First, when you ask about partisanship and which candidate can best unite the country and reconcile the parties. I wish I had the answer to that one! I don't think that's feasible in the current environment, so might I suggest an alternate way of looking at the question. Since no matter who wins, the other side is still going to be overly dramatically adversarial, i would suggest listening to the candidates and choose the ones who are least likely to fan the flames any further. As for putting into proper perspective things such as lies, obsessions with certain issues and personality politics, I believe their proper prospective for a Christian is that they are all distractions from the real issues facing our daily lives and I would suggest voting for those candidates who are least involved in propagating them. As for wealth inequality, that's just a natural evolution of the greed that has plagued mankind from the very start and no politician will ever be able to address it. Our capitalistic economic system encourages personal wealth accumulation and those who have the wealth have the influence, so as Christians, I believe we should simply use what resources we are given with thanks to God and if someday things do change so that we have more, we should remember that Christ said, "To whom much is given, much will be required." As to the budget and the debt, under the last administration the national debt increased around $7 to $8 Trillion (depending on whose numbers you read) for an increase of around 33% and the current administration has added around $2.5 Trillion to date or around 8.8%. So, while the increase has slowed considerably, it's still a major issue that we must address. I would personally suggest, on this issue alone, if the Presidential candidates are the past two Presidents, then I would rely on past performance. I hope this has been some help or at least provided another perspective for you.
Oh, I take the idol seriously. I simply don't think it matters if Donald is meant as our punishment. He is certainly punishing America. While the obvious masochists cheer. Those Hebrews wandered for years after disobeying God. Americans are not better than they were. Regardless of however spoiled we've become.
I am encouraged when folks are forced to learn lessons. However difficult the lesson may be. It reaffirms my faith rather than diminishes it. Even if God wasn't real, people would need to learn lessons the hardest way possible it seems. The problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. God's will be done and I am fine.
(The hill of beans reference is from the end of Casablanca. It refers to Biden, Trump and our next president.)
I believe that if the leftist Democratic party remains in power in the White House after January 2025, then America will never ever be the same again. .... and not in a good way, either.
As for the first post in this thread, the OP did make more than a couple very valid, interesting, and informed points.
From what I gather the border, the economy and issues related to the middle east.
The only plan that is going to work out is God's plan and we know part of that is global economic collapse (it will indeed happen) .... to a certain degree it don't matter who we vote for. One can only vote for who they think who will best lead the country. We have historically had peaks and valleys in the political realm .... the world is progressing into deep valleys it seems.
Smaller government is better ... provides for more freedom ... but seems to me neither side is serious about cutting the size of government down. One can only vote for those that mostly represent their values ... even so .... it is Gods plan that will ultimately play out.
In a way .... voting is kind of futile, I've considered not doing it at all.
That's not the constitution.
The Constitution says no such thing. Not about equality, not about men and women, and definitely not about god.
Constitution definitely doesn't mention "salvation" or "Christ"
The Constitution speaks of "our posterity" (that is descendants) and says nothing of eternity as a domain of time or a place.
Is this some sort of non-sequitor?
Did you have an point about the election, or did you just want to mis-characterize the Constitution?
Trump as a deserved chastisement for American greed, individualism, and willingness to believe lies - might be true. But what about the rest of the world? This man is a nightmare waiting to happen. How did we earn Trump?
Line-breaks are our friends.
EDIT: You make good points but duck the main issue of injecting religion into the political sphere.
In my view, mixing religion & politics is fraught with dangers because by doing so, because both domains are lessened and harmed; politicians are stymied at actually governing by clerics who hold the power of the electorate over the pols heads and the internal power struggles get in the way of crafting and implementing public policy that fulfills the Constitutionally mandated norms.
Immigration reform/border control. A bipartisan reform of immigration is much needed and may not be impossible. Biden has shown some flexibility in adding border control funding to the Ukraine/Israel funds. That's a long way from the overhaul we need, but it's something. Trump has no interest in a bipartisan solution.
Isolationism vs. Protecting our Allies
Election Security and Trust based on Best Practices
Managing a Modernizing Economy
I don't disagree about the importance, but no candidate running can provide that. Possibly Chris Christie (blue state Republican governor) would have the best shot of those left.
I agree that no one has a viable plan to reduce spending enough to make any significant difference. The GOP has had control of the House for a year, and have been able to do nothing more than kick the can down the road, despite all of them giving lip service to debt/deficit reduction. Whether it's vital services or pork ... it's popular and not going away. A real solution almost certainly requires addressing the revenue side of the equation. A more progressive tax structure could help solve #2 and #3.
Luckily the Conservative Supreme Court gave us a gift which seems to be doing wonders for turnout in the elections since.
There is a gap between my first and second paragraphs, I never said that came from the Constitution.
The rest is the standard atheist misreading of the motivations of those who phrased the Constitution.
There is a place for equality in American politics and it has never been a dirty word is the main political point here. The American dream assumes anyone can make it (equality of opportunity).
I am not going to respond to your mild personal attack. Instead, may I ask you what sources of news do you use and also consider newsworthy?I guess a vague bad feeling backed up by nothing but far right infotainment sources is just as good as actually understanding policy when deciding who to vote for. What could go wrong?
Oh. "Atheist misrepresentations" (of the many deists involved in drafting?). Not that that old canard. There are no references to god in the US Constitution and it only refers to religion in the negative (no religious tests for office). (This is the 17 Sept 1787 original draft, pre-amendment. I don't even need the 1st amendment's establishment clause.)
It's really weird. I specifically said the first amendment wasn't even needed to demonstrate my points. None of this is relevant to the purpose of the US Constitution or its originsThe main point of the First Amendment is that the government has no say over the choice to worship or otherwise and no particular interpretation should prevail over any other particular interpretation when it comes to high office. No government can prevent God's worship anyway so the point was rather academic but perhaps culturally significant. Governments had failed at the task of implementing true religion in Europe on so many occasions and in so many ways that the founding fathers wanted to guard America against the same mistakes. They expected that true worship could flourish where the government did not interfere not that the government would become a force opposed to the exercise of religion.
There are no references to God in the bible book of Esther but it is all about God. The Constitution was written by Christians. Deism in the late 18th Century Rationalist context was in practical terms a subset of Christianity. Being a Deist did not prevent Christian convictions on the worth of each person and their relative equality before God when it comes to salvation, inherent dignity, or future potential. It is more relevant to the doctrine of Creation or more specifically how God intervenes after having created and also Christology of course.
You seem to have these on standby.Jefferson's words, which I quoted earlier, indicate for example that though a Deist he believed in equality of worth. He also said he was a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. Though he did not have a correct Christology as he did not know Jesus as God
George Washington might or might not have been a Deist. He was intensely private about his faith though he was a regular Anglican and churchwarden, saying the traditional creeds and singing the traditional hymns, and his belief in God's action in the world seems to preclude traditional deism
Ben Franklin was a Deist who saw Jesus as more of an ethical Teacher than God but regarding equality, it would be hard not to find that in the way that Jesus treated great and small.
It wasn't about "beliefs", it was about a form of government. There were many ideas about how the failing government should be reformed and many of the oddest features of the Constitution come from some of those compromises. Some delegates didn't like the direction of things, walked out, and eventually argued against ratification. Slavery was definitely one of issues that stalked the convention.That said the Constitution was phrased by men and many of them with slaves, so it is clear they had not yet worked out their beliefs into a practical format that honored what they stood for.
How nice for them. They started earlier, so they have a leg up. Even if all of these failed tomorrow, you and I would never know the answer to your question.All merely human documents fail in the end, I wonder if the Constitution will outlast the Anglican church (500 years old this century and in continuity with the older Catholic church), Russian Orthodoxy( 1000 years plus), or the achievement of Byzantine Christianity which controlled an Empire for a millennia. Or indeed the faith of the Catholic church which married church and state in the Vatican and dates back to 380 AD Edict of Thessalonica (1750 years).
Has GOP leadership been able to pass a budget through the House yet? Seems premature to worry about how they're financing stuff if they're too incompetent to finance it in the first place.On the economy, Republicans look likely to deficit finance their promises at a time when public debt is an issue though.
Voters seem to disagree, given both the turnout in general helping the side which turned it over to the states and the results from cases where it has been directly put on ballots.From my perspective this was a good solution to America's divide on abortion, to give the decision to the states. The attempt to impose one law to fit all can only be divisive in an already partisan culture. A better approach is to focus on more important issues now.
You could, but it would just look like an inability to provide any sort of specifics on the vague handwaving in the post I replied to.I am not going to respond to your mild personal attack. Instead, may I ask you what sources of news do you use and also consider newsworthy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?