Why Christians are poor (political) leaders

[Maynard Keenan]

I think the motives of a TRUE Christian would fit perfectly with the best interests of the country and the world. Love your neighbor as yourself, help the poor and vulnerable, protect the innocent from evil, etc. Those are the things God commands of us, and fit perfectly. However those who distort christianity to mean other things make poor leaders.

 

[Lifesaver]

Indeed, morningstar, liberals and socialists (like Hugo Chavez) hate Columbus, for he had the intention of converting the natives. Nowadays they are treated like museum pieces, kept away from the world in reservations in the jungle (though they are armed and often seize land from farmers).

I admit I don't know too much about him, but I very much suspect that all his "genocide" is a lot of exagerations and lies invented by the socialists of Latin America, who in their turn reverentiate despotic tyrants as Fidel Castro and murderous terrorists like Che Guevara.
Unfortunately, they are very popular among indigenous populations; a fact which Chavez obviously capitalized in when he made the change of the day's name.

What I know is that in Latin America, with all its "genocide", the greatest majority of the population has native ancestrals (90% of Mexicans are predominantly Indian, and their culture, languages, food, architecture, clothing and all are all alive); In USA and Canada, they are very little in numbers.
In Latin America there was a lot of miscigenation; in Anglo-Saxon America, almost none.
The Latin American regions with little or no native-descendant population, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and the southern parts of Brazil, are so because there were very few or no indians there to begin with.

This is not to say the Spanish and Portuguese colonization were mostly good for the natives. On the contrary, they often went against Church teaching and enslaved the indians, neglecting their conversion and teaching (whereas Jesuit priests were always fighting for their rights, to the point that the Company of Jesus was banished from Brazil).

 

[Antoninus Verus]

This is not the case with Hitler, who was, like Churchill described, a Germanic Pagan more than anything else.

I very much doubt that Hitler was a Pagan of ANY sort. He used the term "Pagan" to describe himself, but in a different way. The way Hitler used the term was by the dictionary definition, Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish,

1. Professing no religion; heathen.

Now we have to do a distinction. When I say Christian, I mean Catholic

Next time, if you mean Catholic, SAY Catholic.

Richard The Lionhearted (Richard the First) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England)

"As a result of an incident during Richard's coronation celebrations, religious and political persecution of the Jews took place throughout the country. Richard has been criticised for doing little for England, siphoning the kingdom's resources by appointing Jewish moneylenders to support his tirades away on Crusade in the Holy Land, indeed, he spent only six months of his ten year reign in England, claiming it was "cold and always raining."

Richard was an avid participator in the Crusades. A most un-holy affair if I ever saw one. A letter from a Crusader to his Lord, sent after the taking of Jerusalem, reads in part "If you want to know what was done to the enemies we found within the city, know this. Our men rode through the blood of our enimies up to the knees of thier horses." I dont know how Christian you would label a series of events like that.

Christopher Columbus discovered America totally by accident, trying to find a way to India, he instead stumbled onto America. Thinking he had in fact reached India, he named the peoples he found there Indians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
Columbus remains a controversial figure. Some – including many Native Americans – view him as responsible, directly and indirectly, for the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of indigenous peoples, exploitation of the Americas by Europe, and slavery in the West Indies.


We have a tendency to deify historical figgures, ignoring thier human side and forgetting that even great men have flaws. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and fathered illegitamite children by several of them. Benjamin Franklin was once a member of the Hellfire Club (A club dedicated, quite simply, to drinking and sex). Personally I think there was no greater CHRISTIAN leader than Dr King.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Sure. Boethius, Carolus Magnus, St. Edward, St. Louis, just to name a few.
In fact, ever since the end of the Roman Empire until 1789, all we had were Christian leaders, and many of them were good ones; though not all of them Catholic.
And from 1789 on, we also have had great Christian leaders: Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher.
Not to mention the so many Christian military leaders who have kept the world free from the tyranny of non-Christian despots time and time again.

Are you seriously advancing Reagan as a leader in the class of Churchill?

God is the Supreme Good. He does not want what is not best.

Irrelevant, not at issue, and not in evidence (and not able to be evidenced). Once more, you need to read more carefully. The OP clearly stated that if a Christian believed that god wanted them to do something, not that god actually did so.

And even if we were to ignore that, your argument has just changed:
originally it was: "Christian are poor leaders"; now it is "Christians might, in the event of they thinking God wants what is not best for society, be poor leaders".

Oops! Wrong again. The argument remains the same, as posted in the OP. The fact (if it is a fact) that a Christian may believe that god wants them to do something that is not in the best interests for society and that that Christian would then do so means that Christians as a whole would make poor leaders, because of this possibility.

How irrational, ES. If we realize that non-Christian leaders are always worse for not being Christian, then we conclude that Christian leaders are indeed good compared to them, and that Christianity is essential for the best kind of leader possible.

Oops, wrong yet again. Non-christian leaders are not at issue, and even if they were, you have not even begun to demonstrate that if they are in fact worse leaders than Christians, it is their lack of christianity that makes them worse. Even if you could demonstrate this (which you can't), it would still be irrelevant, because this thread is about Christian leaders.

In short, the most honest thing to do now is just to admit that a Christian can be a very good leader, and that it is when leaders depart from the traditional teachings of Christianity that they do bad things.

Wow, how many times can you be wrong in a single post? Now you're inventing positions I don't hold. Please cite where I have claimed anywhere that a Christian cannot be a very good leader?

Now we have to do a distinction. When I say Christian, I mean Catholic. Christian ideals are those which are upheld by the Catholic Church.

Then you should learn the English language. Christian does not mean Catholic; Catholic does not mean Christian. If you say 'Christian' and mean something other than what most people accept the term to mean, don't be surprised when people repeatedly point out your error.

In short, the most honest thing I can do now is continue to correct your falsehoods, particularly your false claims as to what I have stated.

 

[GreenDragon]

Now we have to do a distinction. When I say Christian, I mean Catholic. Christian ideals are those which are upheld by the Catholic Church.

Wow, I'm not even Christian anymore XD We Protestants are heathens I guess?

all in good humor.

 

[MJ421]

Indeed, morningstar, liberals and socialists (like Hugo Chavez) hate Columbus, for he had the intention of converting the natives. Nowadays they are treated like museum pieces, kept away from the world in reservations in the jungle (though they are armed and often seize land from farmers).

He didn't want to convert them, he wanted to enslave them. Red man, black man, didn't make any difference to the Christian man.

I don't think that all Christians are bad leaders. All a good Christian has to do is remember that they're not the Preacher in Chief. And a good Christian would not follow a God that wants oppression, hatred, and religious totalism. That being said, no extremist of any religion should be elected. Extremists and fundimentalists are more concerned in advancing their oppressive, backwards agenda than with the good of the ppl. The Fred Phelps and Bin Ladens of the world are all just as homoicidal and insane.

 

[Isis-Astoroth]

Just on the point of Hitler...though he mentioned God and Christianity in his book of ideals (Mein Kampf) one of his enemies was the church as some of their ideals did not match his. Hitler attempted to fight this by creating his own 'church' based on German paganism.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Just on the point of Hitler...though he mentioned God and Christianity in his book of ideals (Mein Kampf) one of his enemies was the church as some of their ideals did not match his. Hitler attempted to fight this by creating his own 'church' based on German paganism.

There was a "Cult of Hitler" present, some of the fanatically loyal SS guards worshiped Hitler as a God.

 

[Aimee30]

Some leaders just say God told them to do it--when they probably aren't sure if it was God or not. They should ask themselves the famous WWJD question. Well, I know he wouldn't proclaim war on people anyway.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Some leaders just say God told them to do it--when they probably aren't sure if it was God or not. They should ask themselves the famous WWJD question. Well, I know he wouldn't proclaim war on people anyway.

Jesus was a great man but...he probably wouldnt do so hot as a state leader. His policy of "turn the other cheek" is a good way to get your ass tromped on by someone who holds the philosophy "Kill or be killed." Your idea would work if EVERYONE thought the same way, but we dont.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

Holy baseless generalizations, Batman!

I have, in the past, seen many Christians state that they would not vote for a certain person for a particular political office because that person wasn't a Christian.

As Christians we are to let our votes be guided by God, as He should be our determing factor in all decisions. We still fall short on many occasions, but most Christians could not vote, in good conscience, for a man or woman who was not a believer or at least ascribed to the same moral philosophy.

Certainly, it would be very difficult for a non-Christian to ever become (for example) the President of the United States.

I don't think we've ever had a president who was not a Catholic or Protestant Christian. I don't even think we've had a candidate who was not a Christian.

Leaders are expected to hold, as the most desirable end, the welfare of the group they lead.

True, but if they are a Christian they still serve the Almighty God.

For example, the President's first duty is the welfare of the United States. If a President was to state that his first duty was the welfare of (for example) England, I think it'd be pretty unanimous that he was being a poor leader of the United States.

As president, he also has to make decisions that will not negatively impact our allies. We must maintain alliance with our nations abroad. America has almost always been the pinnacle of free civilization and the decisions and measures that effect this country also effect other nations.

So a leader's actions should, at all times, be directed towards what he thinks (and, of course, others may disagree) is best for the group he leads. Anything that could/would lead him to place other things over the group he leads (for example, business interests, sympathies for other groups, etc.) is rightfully viewed as being detrimental to his leadership.

Well, that is human nature. We all fall prey to sinful, selfish nature and oftentimes our views are swayed by other people and the circumstances around us. Also bear in mind, the president does not make these decisions all by himself.

But Christians, by definition, place something above the welfare of the group they lead - their god.

God should be at the forefront of all decision-making, whether you're a government official or if you're making decisions for your home. If God were taken into consideration in all matters, even before selfish worldly desires, I hasten to say the general welfare of the people would be taken care of in overabundance.

If they believed that their god instructed them to do something that they, themselves, thought was to the detriment of the group they led, then they would (presumably) do it, thus acting against the best interests of the group they lead.

Could you please give some examples as to decisions that are detrimental to society at large that would be guided by God?

Thus, Christians make poor leaders because the group they lead ranks only second in importance to them, when they are elected for the job of acting to the benefit of that group above all.

Ah, I love the smell of baseless assumptions in the morning. How about showing some evidence to back your stance. If you can pinpoint specific incidents in which a Christian leader went with God and steered an entire nation astray and put us in peril and specifically and explicitly cited God's instruction as their motive.

 

[Subordinationist]

I have, in the past, seen many Christians state that they would not vote for a certain person for a particular political office because that person wasn't a Christian. Certainly, it would be very difficult for a non-Christian to ever become (for example) the President of the United States.

However, I would like to put forward the notion that Christians, in fact, make bad leaders, for the following reason:

Leaders are expected to hold, as the most desirable end, the welfare of the group they lead. For example, the President's first duty is the welfare of the United States. If a President was to state that his first duty was the welfare of (for example) England, I think it'd be pretty unanimous that he was being a poor leader of the United States.

So a leader's actions should, at all times, be directed towards what he thinks (and, of course, others may disagree) is best for the group he leads. Anything that could/would lead him to place other things over the group he leads (for example, business interests, sympathies for other groups, etc.) is rightfully viewed as being detrimental to his leadership.

But Christians, by definition, place something above the welfare of the group they lead - their god. If they believed that their god instructed them to do something that they, themselves, thought was to the detriment of the group they led, then they would (presumably) do it, thus acting against the best interests of the group they lead.

Thus, Christians make poor leaders because the group they lead ranks only second in importance to them, when they are elected for the job of acting to the benefit of that group above all.

So, your saying that all political leaders should be either athiests or agnostics? What is the track record for athiest and agnostic leaders? I would like to know.

Leaders of states, 90% of the time, are murderers, thieves, and liars. Whether they are "Christian" or athiest makes no difference. To lead a state you must kill people, you must lie, and you must steal from the people through taxes and wars. This is why I distrust "Christian" statesmen. Currently, my favorite Christian statesmen is Representative Ron Paul from Texas.

Christians make good leaders of Christian groups. What can an athiest or agnostic think but "this man is stupid or insane" when he worships Jesus Christ? How can a Christian be a "good leader" to a group of individuals who view God as evil and or a myth, and who leads them in a direction of Christian doctrine, beliefs, and morality, something they are every bit opposed to?

Surely, Christians wouldn't consider Marx or Dawkins good leaders!!


.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

I don't think we've ever had a president who was not a Catholic or Protestant Christian. I don't even think we've had a candidate who was not a Christian.

We havent. JFK was the only Catholic president, ALL other Presidents have been Christian. They may not have BEHAVED Christian-like, but they were.

As Christians we are to let our votes be guided by God, as He should be our determing factor in all decisions.

Umm...are you really sure thats a wise idea? I dont think God will care if I decide to have Coke instead of my regular Dr Pepper. And what about the people who dont believe in your God? Jews, Muslims, Athiests, etc etc.

Could you please give some examples as to decisions that are detrimental to society at large that would be guided by God?

These have been tried and have failed, Theocracy. The problem is that men become corrupt and mis-use the reigns of religion. Look at the church during the middle ages. Perfect example of why a Theocracy is a bad move.

God should be at the forefront of all decision-making, whether you're a government official or if you're making decisions for your home. If God were taken into consideration in all matters, even before selfish worldly desires, I hasten to say the general welfare of the people would be taken care of in overabundance.

Umm...actually it would be a rather bad thing to let God handle the paperwork. God's atitude towards others is...suspect. Some of the bloodiest wars in history have been fought in his name. I dunno about you, but I dont want to be run by a George Bush that we'll NEVER get rid of. If we were to follow Jesus' ideals, we couldnt defend ourselves "Turn thy other cheek" well...thats a perfect way to get conqured by people who dont play by those rules.

 

[morningstar2651]

I know of people that voted for Bush for the sole reason that "He's a Christian."

I'd rather not have the Bible dictate the laws that I have to follow.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

I know of people that voted for Bush for the sole reason that "He's a Christian."

I'd rather not have the Bible dictate the laws that I have to follow.

Alot of this country is crazy about Christianity, and the person who can play that card well will win ANYTHING. I personally think Bush is certifiably crazy, I mean he claims that God told him to strike at Al Queda, thats...a little pushing it. Many people voted for Bush even though they didnt like him. My aunt voted for Bush because shes been voting Republican ever since she turned 18 and shes faithful to the republican party. Even though she really doesnt like Bush, she voted for him.

 

[ErnestoChe]

Sure. Boethius, Carolus Magnus, St. Edward, St. Louis, just to name a few.
In fact, ever since the end of the Roman Empire until 1789, all we had were Christian leaders, and many of them were good ones; though not all of them Catholic.
And from 1789 on, we also have had great Christian leaders: Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher.
Not to mention the so many Christian military leaders who have kept the world free from the tyranny of non-Christian despots time and time again.

How irrational, ES. If we realize that non-Christian leaders are always worse for not being Christian, then we conclude that Christian leaders are indeed good compared to them, and that Christianity is essential for the best kind of leader possible.

In short, the most honest thing to do now is just to admit that a Christian can be a very good leader, and that it is when leaders depart from the traditional teachings of Christianity that they do bad things.

Im just gonna have to shoot you down one point at a time. The last post on the first page lists non-Christian leaders, now may I tell you that I wouldnt ever condone the kind of things they did to their people but the fact is that Hitler, Lenin, Mao, and Che are some of the best leaders in the history of the world, you have a very skewed view on what is "good" and what is "bad".

Onto Christians being bad leaders, I doubt anyone can say by the placing someone into one group can determine a good or bad political leader. The fact of the matter is the current leader of the US is a very steadfast "Christian" no matter how odd his points of views happen to be. He takes a very narrow minded almost regressive/reactionary stance on many issues. He is enforcing his views on what is supposed to be a secular nation, and whats worse is he refuses to admit hes wrong.

And if you can criticize someone for not being Christian, and say that their worth as a political leader is possibly the most abhorrent statement Ive ever seen. Bill Clinton didnt share the morals of most of our country, nor did JFK however they are two of the best Presidents in recent history.

And as for the "traditional teachings of Christianity" Ill be making another thread shortly....

 

[twister-55]

Here is the oath(job) of the President:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ​

The President is not the leader. The people are. It doesn't matter what religious affiliation the President is, he or she is still limited to their oath(the Constitution).

Other political leaders such as Senators and Reps have pretty much the same oath. So what it boils down to, politically speaking, is the misnomer of equating leaders with Presidents, Senators and Reps, at least in America.

Now would we call Matthew and John bad leaders, of course not.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

In christian belief, a person's capacity to serve his/her fellow human beings is contingent upon and magnified by his/her devotion to God. Therefore, while it may appear that the group is getting help secondarily where at all, this is not the expectation. Your point is that christians have an obligation to something, in this case God, which may conflict with the good of the group. Christians would like to say, whether or not it is true, that there will never be a conflict because wherever serving God leads ultimately WILL produce good for the group. In fact, it could be said that christians are uniquely qualified in the sense of willing to sacrifice the self and self interest for the sake of others. You may say although this is the ideal that it is nevertheless not the reality. That is, of course, regretable.

Personally, I find it very disturbing that certain people may vote based on a candidate's self proclaimed religion and that religion may be used as a pretext with which to conduct all sorts of evils.

I do think that it is a bit extreme, however, to disqualify any and all christian presidents because they somehow are, or thought to be, intrinsically incapable of serving the group. Just a bit.

 

[Lifesaver]

Jesus was a great man but...he probably wouldnt do so hot as a state leader. His policy of "turn the other cheek" is a good way to get your ass tromped on by someone who holds the philosophy "Kill or be killed." Your idea would work if EVERYONE thought the same way, but we dont.

You have a wrong notion of Jesus. He is not the sugar-coated pink-cheeked effeminated figure that is so often passed on by sentimentalists.
I wonder what they think of Jesus whipping the sellers out of the temple, or telling his followers to buy a sword.

 

[Lifesaver]

Oops! Wrong again. The argument remains the same, as posted in the OP. The fact (if it is a fact) that a Christian may believe that god wants them to do something that is not in the best interests for society and that that Christian would then do so means that Christians as a whole would make poor leaders, because of this possibility.

The argument, even though it was changed (from the fact that Christian are bad leaders to the mere possibility), remains weak; for a Christian already knows what God wants, and he also knows that it is the best for society.

And even if we were to accept your possibility, it would still be a weak argument.
Because a possibility that a Christian will be a poor leader does not make it true that Christians are in general poor leaders. That is an error in logic.
If the possibility happens often, then the conclusion follows; if the possibility happens rarely, then the conclusion does not follow.
And thus it is up to you to prove that it is a common thing for a Christian leader to believe that God is ordering them to do something contrary to the common good of the people they rule.

Until that, we are in firm grounds defending that Christian morality is essential for a good leadership, and that the best leadership is only possible to be exercized by a Christian leader.

Oops, wrong yet again. Non-christian leaders are not at issue, and even if they were, you have not even begun to demonstrate that if they are in fact worse leaders than Christians, it is their lack of christianity that makes them worse. Even if you could demonstrate this (which you can't), it would still be irrelevant, because this thread is about Christian leaders.

If we estabilish that it is Christian ideals that make a leader better or worse, we estabilish that the truly Christian leader is the best one, and the truly unChristian leader is the worst one.
And when such is proved, it will be demonstrated that Christians make better leaders than non-Christians.
Therefore, to prove that non-Christians (or more specifically, people who do not rule based on Christian principles, ideals and morals) are worse leaders than Christians is to prove that Christians are the best leaders.

Wow, how many times can you be wrong in a single post? Now you're inventing positions I don't hold. Please cite where I have claimed anywhere that a Christian cannot be a very good leader?

Thread title: "why Christians are poor (political) leaders"

"I would like to put forward the notion that Christians, in fact, make bad leaders"

"Thus, Christians make poor leaders"

"He is a poor leader" and "he is a very good leader" are contradictory statements.

Then you should learn the English language. Christian does not mean Catholic; Catholic does not mean Christian. If you say 'Christian' and mean something other than what most people accept the term to mean, don't be surprised when people repeatedly point out your error.

The error is in the heretical mentality that associates Christianity with something else than the Catholic Church.
THis is not to say that non-Catholics are not Christian, but that the more they diverge from Catholic teaching, the less the name Christian is suitable to define them.

I'm sorry to realize that even an un-Christian (anti-Christian?) person like you adheres to those errors, and doesn't even know what true, orthodox and traditional Christianity is.

In short, the most honest thing I can do now is continue to correct your falsehoods, particularly your false claims as to what I have stated.

There is nothing wrong in admitting one's opinion is wrong, you know. And really, instead of becoming enraged and resorting to personal attacks, you should perhaps consider that your position that Christians make poor leaders is false, and move on. There is nothing shameful in it.