Why do so many Christians support political positions which protect selfishness?

[grasping the after wind]

Fair enough -- the selfish person knows; he just doesn't care.

Yep she just doesn't care.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Maybe if the poor would stop doing drugs, or, sending money 'home', they would be better off. That's $100Billion each year easy.

???

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

You have advocated 'redistributing' the nations money, from the rich to the poor. If or when this should happen where would the capital come from to buy or do things that require a lot of money?
Also, where would the money come from if all wealth (not money itself but 'stuff') were sold and the money redistributed, considering that there isn't enough money to buy all the stuff the wealthy possess.
Also without fractional reserve banking where would new money come from for an expanding economy?

OK, I think I understand, but I refer back to my earlier response. You seem to be jumping all the way to "communism," and I am not doing that. The whole thing of attacking Democrats as "crazy socialists" is a symptom of that mindset, that if we allow any movement at all toward higher taxes, then it's a slippery slope that ends at Marxism.

No, it really isn't. Life will continue pretty much the way it is today when America adopts universal healthcare and a guaranteed annual income, except with less poverty and greater personal freedom.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK, I think I understand, but I refer back to my earlier response. You seem to be jumping all the way to "communism," and I am not doing that. The whole thing of attacking Democrats as "crazy socialists" is a symptom of that mindset, that if we allow any movement at all toward higher taxes, then it's a slippery slope that ends at Marxism.

No, it really isn't. Life will continue pretty much the way it is today when America adopts universal healthcare and a guaranteed annual income, except with less poverty and greater personal freedom.

We have all the mechanisms to solve those problems without upsetting the whole applecart. For example the cure for the healthcare problem is...better health, not more expensive insurance. If people stopped committing crimes more money would be available for education, etc. The Congress can pass laws that solve the drug problem, like expanding the racketeering laws (R.I.C.O) to include drug gangs (drug gangs are the main distributors for the drug cartels.) Lots of effective solutions right in front of us without impinging on the lives of honest citizens.

 

[pitabread]

...

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

This reads like someone is of the impression that theft and the police state are somehow virtuous--so long as "the intentions are good," that is.

So I would like to ask which authoritarian governments do NOT claim that what they do to the people is "good for the people" or the nation or the world and/or upholds some highminded ethic?

I note that rather than making an argument that what I am advocating could lead to a thieving police state, you simply assert that it is such a state.

I disagree.

Any civil government that is not personally and bodily headed by Christ Himself is going to be flawed, and any government that is avowedly secular is going to be very deeply flawed. You will get no argument from me on that. However, I believe that God is in control even when He is not openly acknowledged, and I also believe in “common grace,” which can be thought of as God’s goodness impacting both the just and the unjust.

You are perfectly free to believe that all taxation is theft (it has to be all taxation; there is no logical basis for saying that this tax is legitimate but that tax is theft, except personal preference, which doesn’t count; it’s all or nothing). But I am equally free to disagree with you, which I do. “Who is right?” cannot be decided by an exchange of brief posts, but I am content to allow the other readers to come to their own conclusions.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

You lost a great opportunity by making it political. But maybe edification wasn’t the point.
~Bella

You are right; it wasn’t. This is the American Politics forum, and I am specifically addressing a political question regarding how conservative Christians tend to vote.

When I am discussing voting in terms of Christian edification, I approach it differently. I talk about how we Christians are citizens of heaven and are just sojourners on earth, so our most important work is to grow in Christ and encourage others to either come to Him or grow in Him. Politics is never the thing that defines our Christian faith. I would never say to another Christian that failing to vote Democratic means that one is not a genuine Christian, but I know of some Christians who do seem to believe that voting Democratic is a strong clue that one is not a Christian. . .or at least not a very good one.

Consider this: one of the Apostles—Simon the Zealot—belonged to a group that was dedicated to the overthrow of Roman rule over Judea. Simon must have loathed everything Roman. But Jesus also called a man named Matthew, who earned his living by collecting taxes for those hated Roman overlords. You would think that if ever two men would have hated or feared each other, it would have been Simon and Matthew. And yet there is not a shred of evidence that their feelings toward each other were anything less than love for each other. Their love of the Master outweighed the differences they had before Jesus called them. Following their example, I can never allow political difference, no matter how sharp, to come between me and a brother or sister in Christ.

Now, if I were still a pastor or a Christian school principal, I would not be active in politics, because such activity would interfere with my primary ministry. But since I no longer serve in either capacity but have the freedom of a private citizen, I have the luxury of indulging in political discussions without it appearing that my church or my school officially supports my views. I also inquired, before joining my new church after I moved here, whether the pastor thought that my advocating Democratic preferences (outside the church) would cause trouble in the church. He assured me that it wouldn’t; there were people on both sides of the political aisle in his church, and politics was never preached from the pulpit.

That is what I want to see in a church. I don’t want my pastor telling me whom I must vote for in order to be a good Christian. I only want him to preach from the Scriptures and allow me and every other church member to make our own decisions. But outside the church, I am free to talk politics if I wish to, but never as a test of one’s Christian orthodoxy.

 

[Albion]

I note that rather than making an argument that what I am advocating could lead to a thieving police state, you simply assert that it is such a state.

I disagree.

You're entitled.

I do not think that authoritarianism, which by definition denies basic human rights, is anything I want any part of, however, even if it might be hiding behind the word Christian.

 

[jacks]

HERE is an interesting site on who gives and percentages if anyone is interested. It certainly doesn't follow that Democrats are more giving or generous than Republicans as the OP suggests. My guess is the policies advocated by the Democrats aren't seen by many Republicans as advantages to the poor, not that they are against helping the poor. From the site: (BTW I'm not a Republican, just pointing out some facts.)

"Democrats and Independents both had many zero-to-very-light givers (less than $100 for the year), and modest numbers of heavier givers. Republicans, in comparison, had comparatively few skinflints, and numerous serious donors—31 percent sharing at least $1,000 with charity, versus 17 percent among Democrats, and 20 percent among Independents."

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

HERE is an interesting site on who gives and percentages if anyone is interested. It certainly doesn't follow that Democrats are more giving or generous than Republicans as the OP suggests. My guess is the policies advocated by the Democrats aren't seen by many Republicans as advantages to the poor, not that they are against helping the poor. From the site: (BTW I'm not a Republican, just pointing out some facts.)

"Democrats and Independents both had many zero-to-very-light givers (less than $100 for the year), and modest numbers of heavier givers. Republicans, in comparison, had comparatively few skinflints, and numerous serious donors—31 percent sharing at least $1,000 with charity, versus 17 percent among Democrats, and 20 percent among Independents."

I am familiar with the studies that seem to show that conservatives are far more generous with their own money than liberals are. However, there is a weakness in those studies that I have not seen adequately addressed: the statistics on conservative giving (the ones I have seen, anyway) do not break down giving into categories. Therefore, there does not seem to be a way to determine what percentage of conservative giving is simply their regular offering to their church, and how much of it goes to organizations like museums and ballet companies, which may be worthy objects of giving but which are quite different from organizations like Goodwill Industries and the Red Cross, which provide support for the poor and for disaster victims. The church thing may be the biggest difference, since conservatives are far more likely to be church members. But we just don't know.

 

[bèlla]

You are right; it wasn’t. This is the American Politics forum, and I am specifically addressing a political question regarding how conservative Christians tend to vote.

Once you entered secular soil you are subject to other truths. This isn’t a theocracy. God doesn’t mandate one party over another. We vote with our conscience. Since you’re attempting to sway opinions it makes practical sense to have factual data to support your position.

You provided none and made generalizations to the audience you were hoping to shift. Those who share your position need little convincing. I don’t imagine you wrote all of that for them.

Following their example, I can never allow political difference, no matter how sharp, to come between me and a brother or sister in Christ.

It shouldn’t. I’ve addressed it more than once in the past on CF. The climate has improved. It was worse.

That is what I want to see in a church. I don’t want my pastor telling me whom I must vote for in order to be a good Christian. I only want him to preach from the Scriptures and allow me and every other church member to make our own decisions.

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. —Galatians 1:10

It would be cumbersome for a pastor to appease everyone’s desires and in opposition to the precept Paul impressed. If the Lord lays the topic on his heart he should address it. Pastors aren’t infallible. Personal interest and bias will find their way into sermons every now and then.

~Bella

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe if the poor would stop doing drugs, or, sending money 'home', they would be better off. That's $100Billion each year easy.

What wicked, vicious stereotyping. So "the poor" are all drug-using blacks or Mexican immigrants?

 

[jacks]

Therefore, there does not seem to be a way to determine what percentage of conservative giving is simply their regular offering to their church, and how much of it goes to organizations like museums and ballet companies...

Ah O.K. I don't want to take the time to look it all up, but do you really think Republicans are disproportionately giving their money to "museums and ballet companies!?"

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Ah O.K. I don't want to take the time to look it all up, but do you really think Republicans are disproportionately giving their money to "museums and ballet companies!?"

I have no way of knowing. And that was the point. The category "charitable donations" is not (as far as I have yet found) broken down into sub-categories like "poor relief." Now, if you could find a source that does do that, I would be grateful if you shared it with me.

 

[bèlla]

Sizable donations are often earmarked for special purposes with the donor’s input. Sometimes they spearhead the effort. Few have a say in how a church spends their money. Some utilize legacy plans which allow some stipulations. But for the most part, once you give them the check they decide how to spend it.

That can be disconcerting for large donors and lead to abuses or mismanagement (like the James MacDonald case). Many establish foundations or charitable trusts to offset the risks of financial misuse.

~Bella

 

[Sparagmos]

HERE is an interesting site on who gives and percentages if anyone is interested. It certainly doesn't follow that Democrats are more giving or generous than Republicans as the OP suggests. My guess is the policies advocated by the Democrats aren't seen by many Republicans as advantages to the poor, not that they are against helping the poor. From the site: (BTW I'm not a Republican, just pointing out some facts.)

"Democrats and Independents both had many zero-to-very-light givers (less than $100 for the year), and modest numbers of heavier givers. Republicans, in comparison, had comparatively few skinflints, and numerous serious donors—31 percent sharing at least $1,000 with charity, versus 17 percent among Democrats, and 20 percent among Independents."

That is attributed to Republicans tithing. There are also many “charities” that do nothing for the poor, the widow, the stranger, the downtrodden, the folks we are called to help. I mean, the National Right to Work Committee, an organization whose sole purpose is to destroy unions, is a charity. And it’s completely funded by very, very wealthy Republicans.

 

[yougottabekidding]

And that is why I now vote Democratic rather than Republican. Neither party is Christian, but the Republican Party is, on balance, further away from Biblical standards than the Democratic Party is, and I am OK with voting for the lesser evil.

Really? how do you justify the sheer chasm between Democratic Party believe and those of Christians?

Case in point - Both Old and New Testament speak very clearly about homosexuality. Yet homosexuality is supported, promoted and openly embraced by the Democratic Party.

How do you pick and choose which Biblical standard to follow?

Not trying to start a debate on homosexuality - but it is an example of what I am addressing.

 

[Speedwell]

supported, promoted and openly embraced...

Which is Conservalingo for "not vilifying or discriminating against."

How do you pick and choose which Biblical standard to follow?

In one's personal life? Or when deciding what would be the best policy for a secular republic which embraces large numbers of non-Christians as fellow citizens??

 

[yougottabekidding]

Which is Conservalingo for "not vilifying or discriminating against."

That is funny - better than the made up words Bush was so famous for. But it is plain and evident that they are celebrated, promoted as is their lifestyle - right down to naming the different genders - all 200 or so of them.

In one's personal life? Or when deciding what would be the best policy for a secular republic which embraces large numbers of non-Christians as fellow citizens??

Since the OP was addressing Christians - that would be who I was addressing also.

 

[jacks]

That is attributed to Republicans tithing. There are also many “charities” that do nothing for the poor, the widow, the stranger, the downtrodden, the folks we are called to help. I mean, the National Right to Work Committee, an organization whose sole purpose is to destroy unions, is a charity. And it’s completely funded by very, very wealthy Republicans.

Interesting. What percentage of Republican giving is through tithes?

BTW personally I do consider tithing a donation and much of it goes (at least at my church) to the local poor. In fact every week we have a special offering called the "Benevolent fund", it is used 100% to help local families. Now I'm sure a portion of tithes (like must charitable contributions) are used for administrative and marketing costs. However, I don't see how that excludes them from being a charitable donation.