Republicans and Christianity

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]IF you want to 'make a statement' by your vote, they are certainly an option. But if you want to actually elect someone to govern,  Libertarian or Independents seldom get elected.

Because the two major parties have been around since the founding of the country? But, go ahead...the status quo political powers love that the lemmings are repeating the propaganda.

Can you tell me what year the Republican party was founded? Extra credit: who was the first Republican president?
[/quote]

1860 if I recall. And Abe Lincoln. Thus my point.

 

[BandGuy]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]IF you want to 'make a statement' by your vote, they are certainly an option. But if you want to actually elect someone to govern,  Libertarian or Independents seldom get elected.

Because the two major parties have been around since the founding of the country? But, go ahead...the status quo political powers love that the lemmings are repeating the propaganda.

Can you tell me what year the Republican party was founded? Extra credit: who was the first Republican president?

1860 if I recall. And Abe Lincoln. Thus my point.
[/quote]
Actually, it was March 20,1854.
When was the country founded?

 

[rsc2a]

I just checked on Wiki...it was actually 1854.

Unless you were referring to the Democratic-Republican party which was the party of Jefferson and formed around 1792. Of course, it no longer exists...

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]IF you want to 'make a statement' by your vote, they are certainly an option. But if you want to actually elect someone to govern,  Libertarian or Independents seldom get elected.

Because the two major parties have been around since the founding of the country? But, go ahead...the status quo political powers love that the lemmings are repeating the propaganda.

Can you tell me what year the Republican party was founded? Extra credit: who was the first Republican president?

1860 if I recall. And Abe Lincoln. Thus my point.
[/quote]

1854, but who's counting.
Slavery was the driving issue behind it's founding, but your point is not relevant.
The Federalists no longer offer candidates!

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]IF you want to 'make a statement' by your vote, they are certainly an option. But if you want to actually elect someone to govern,  Libertarian or Independents seldom get elected.

Because the two major parties have been around since the founding of the country? But, go ahead...the status quo political powers love that the lemmings are repeating the propaganda.

Can you tell me what year the Republican party was founded? Extra credit: who was the first Republican president?

1860 if I recall. And Abe Lincoln. Thus my point.

Actually, it was March 20,1854.
When was the country founded?[/quote]

Depends. You could be referring to when we declared independence from Britian (July 3-4, 1776), when Articles of Confederation were approved (1781), or when the Constitution was ratified (1788).

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]1854, but who's counting.
Slavery was the driving issue behind it's founding, but your point is not relevant.
The Federalists no longer offer candidates![/quote]

Strange comments coming from someone who considers a vote for other than Democrats or Republicans a wasted vote...

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]1854, but who's counting.
Slavery was the driving issue behind it's founding, but your point is not relevant.
The Federalists no longer offer candidates!

Strange comments coming from someone who considers a vote for other than Democrats or Republicans a wasted vote...
[/quote]

Your lack of comprehension is often strange, IMO.

If by wasted you mean helping to elect a candidate to govern, then a third party or write in vote is wasted, with very few exceptions.
The problem in the US are the current very restrictive Nomination/Ballot Access rules, which are basically used by the Dems and Reps to limit or hinder the influence of a third party.

 

[Izdaari]

I just forget their are Independent and Libertarian candidates and forget some do actually vote for them. But as long as you don't vote for the liberal Democrat (redundant, I know) I'm good with any Independent or Libertarian vote.
I will continue to vote MY conscience and conviction and you do the same....stick to the Ind and Libertarian and I'm happy for you!

Well, that's what I'm here for: to remind people that Dems and Reps aren't the only options.

But there are some Republican politicians I can support: Ron Paul and Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Justin Amash, etc.

IF you want to 'make a statement' by your vote, they are certainly an option.
But if you want to actually elect someone to govern,  Libertarian or Independents seldom get elected.

True. But by that standard, at least for the presidency, in my state (WA) there's no point in voting for anyone but whoever the Democrats nominate, because they'll always win my state's electoral college votes.

Since I can't affect the outcome, I can't think of a downside to voting for the one I actually agree with.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]1854, but who's counting.
Slavery was the driving issue behind it's founding, but your point is not relevant.
The Federalists no longer offer candidates!

Strange comments coming from someone who considers a vote for other than Democrats or Republicans a wasted vote...

Your lack of comprehension is often strange, IMO.

If by wasted you mean helping to elect a candidate to govern, then a third party or write in vote is wasted, with very few exceptions.
The problem in the US are the current very restrictive Nomination/Ballot Access rules, which are basically used by the Dems and Reps to limit or hinder the influence of a third party.[/quote]

You do your lizard kings well. They're probably very proud.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I just forget their are Independent and Libertarian candidates and forget some do actually vote for them. But as long as you don't vote for the liberal Democrat (redundant, I know) I'm good with any Independent or Libertarian vote.
I will continue to vote MY conscience and conviction and you do the same....stick to the Ind and Libertarian and I'm happy for you!

Well, that's what I'm here for: to remind people that Dems and Reps aren't the only options.

But there are some Republican politicians I can support: Ron Paul and Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Justin Amash, etc.

IF you want to 'make a statement' by your vote, they are certainly an option.
But if you want to actually elect someone to govern,  Libertarian or Independents seldom get elected.

True. But by that standard, at least for the presidency, in my state (WA) there's no point in voting for anyone but whoever the Democrats nominate, because they'll always win my state's electoral college votes.

Since I can't affect the outcome, I can't think of a downside to voting for the one I actually agree with.

And since these days the Democrats are famous for cheating their way into office (and both parties agreed not to pursue voter fraud), there's no point in voting at all in a close presidential election. 

 

[Izdaari]

I just forget their are Independent and Libertarian candidates and forget some do actually vote for them. But as long as you don't vote for the liberal Democrat (redundant, I know) I'm good with any Independent or Libertarian vote.
I will continue to vote MY conscience and conviction and you do the same....stick to the Ind and Libertarian and I'm happy for you!

Well, that's what I'm here for: to remind people that Dems and Reps aren't the only options.

But there are some Republican politicians I can support: Ron Paul and Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Justin Amash, etc.

IF you want to 'make a statement' by your vote, they are certainly an option.
But if you want to actually elect someone to govern,  Libertarian or Independents seldom get elected.

True. But by that standard, at least for the presidency, in my state (WA) there's no point in voting for anyone but whoever the Democrats nominate, because they'll always win my state's electoral college votes.

Since I can't affect the outcome, I can't think of a downside to voting for the one I actually agree with.

And since these days the Democrats are famous for cheating their way into office (and both parties agreed not to pursue voter fraud), there's no point in voting at all in a close presidential election.

Yes, this too can happen. The best defense against it is to make sure the election is not close.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

. . . is not a statement about economics at all.

The thread is about politics and Christianity. The accumulation of wealth without distribution is not a Christian principle.

I would also contend that government restriction of income is wrong as well.

So we're back to the question no one can give me a straight answer for: Why is this discussion even part of a thread about "Republicans and Christians"? If it's not the place of government to restrict income or distribute wealth, it's not the business of the Republican Party either.

Materialism is an ethical issue, not a political one, except insofar as the enemies of Christ have made it political. I will pay my taxes, but I will still scream bloody murder when Big Government introduces more taxes for the sole purpose of giving money to someone else.
[/quote]

Going back to the article in the OP, the writer was separating Republican politics from Christianity. Republicans hide behind "religious morality" in their opposition to gay marriage because homosexuality violates Christian principles. So the thinking is that the government should restrict gay marriage (which would restrict partner benefits against spousal benefits) because it is a moral (religious) issue. Yet Jesus (and Bible writers) mentions many times the avoiding of materialism and greed, specifically at the demise or expense of others in unfair business practices. The Republican party, rather than go out of their way to restrict such, rather promotes it through the idea of "rugged individualism". If the CEO of the bank can make an additional $14 million for a Christmas bonus while he lays off 650 employed salary workers and reduces the wagers of others, it is perfectly fine to do so.

So why should the goverment restrict the rights of gay people but not restrict the earnings of CEOs, athletes, entertainers, etc.? This is the disconnect. I believe it is hypocrisy to use moral grounds to restrict gay marriage and not wage earnings. Both of those things restrict a person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Being of Libertarian nature, I believe the government should restrict NEITHER and leave the morality to the individual and his Maker.

So my point was not to give government the power to restrict income or monitor materialism, but rather my point was to show the hypocrisy of some Christian Republicans who would defend materialism to the teeth while attacking gay marriage at the political level. If they attack from behind the pulpit, then preach what the Bible teaches but don't bring it into politics unless they maintain consistency, even if it opposes their own political party.

I hope that clarifies what I was meaning to say.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Being of Libertarian nature, I believe the government should restrict NEITHER and leave the morality to the individual and his Maker.

So my point was not to give government the power to restrict income or monitor materialism, but rather my point was to show the hypocrisy of some Christian Republicans who would defend materialism to the teeth while attacking gay marriage at the political level. If they attack from behind the pulpit, then preach what the Bible teaches but don't bring it into politics unless they maintain consistency, even if it opposes their own political party.

I hope that clarifies what I was meaning to say.

This my view, as well.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans are libertarian in their views (although constitutional conservatives tend more toward libertarian views than do liberals, IMO). 

This shouldn't be surprising.  Elected officials of both parties make their living through government.  Of course they're not going to cut off the branch upon which they're sitting.  Only people who don't really want to be in government would do that.  And although there are such people elected to office, they're rare.  Very rare. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Being of Libertarian nature, I believe the government should restrict NEITHER and leave the morality to the individual and his Maker.

So my point was not to give government the power to restrict income or monitor materialism, but rather my point was to show the hypocrisy of some Christian Republicans who would defend materialism to the teeth while attacking gay marriage at the political level. If they attack from behind the pulpit, then preach what the Bible teaches but don't bring it into politics unless they maintain consistency, even if it opposes their own political party.

I hope that clarifies what I was meaning to say.

This my view, as well.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans are libertarian in their views (although constitutional conservatives tend more toward libertarian views than do liberals, IMO). 

This shouldn't be surprising.  Elected officials of both parties make their living through government.  Of course they're not going to cut off the branch upon which they're sitting.  Only people who don't really want to be in government would do that.  And although there are such people elected to office, they're rare.  Very rare.

Yep. And Christians shouldn't pull out the "biblical morality" card unless they will be consistent, which means issues with all major parties.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin:
Actually, yes. Your selection of choosing the opposition of gay rights over opposition to materialism, civil rights for everyone and unnecessary accumulation of wealth is evidence of that selection.

Right or wrong, you are selective...as is everybody else who votes with a moral conscience.

Do you believe gay rights are the equivalent of civil rights?

What constitutes materialism?

How much wealth amounts to an unnecessary amount.

To equate what Scripture calls perversion with some 'unnecessary accumulation of wealth' is, to use a theological term, a crock!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

How will I know when I've sinned  by crossing the line from 'accumulating wealth'...to an 'unnecessary accumulation of wealth'?
Should I request the gubmit to come in and control our salary structure?

Will the government protect me from sin in this area by restricting the amount in my bank or retirement accounts? If I'm for gay marriage, does that increase the amount of wealth the liberals allow me to keep?
How much should the government tax us....is 45% enough to prevent excessive wealth?
Is a 90% tax rate too much?
Who decides?
Liberal politicians?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Do you believe gay rights are the equivalent of civil rights?


I believe that gay people should be able to receive the same health/legal benefits as married people. It should be about personhood, you know: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What constitutes materialism?

What constitutes greed? Pride? Critical spirit vs. discerning spirit? Testimony vs. gossip? Gluttony? Drunkenness? Is there a line of demarcation to any of those things?

How much wealth amounts to an unnecessary amount.

That would be relative. The single mom in Southern California with 6 kids, two with medical conditions might need more for her family's well-being than say, a healthy married couple, both employed with no children living in rural Nebraska.

To equate what Scripture calls perversion with some 'unnecessary accumulation of wealth' is, to use a theological term, a crock!

Where does the Bible even mention the idea of a government-endorsed marriage between same-sex partners? Jesus on the other hand, did mention accountability to God for hoarding one's earthly possessions. 

 

[QuestioningIFB]

They way I've heard it preached is that certain sins under Mosaic law that demanded the death penalty i.e. murder, homosexuality, beastiality, are exceedingly great sins and take precedence over sins like drunkenness, greed, materialism, etc.  That is why Christians must support the candidate that opposes abortion (murder) and homosexuality first and foremost.  While Republican values also don't line completely up with Biblical values, Republican sins are usually "lesser" sins than abortion and homosexuality. 

All that is true if you believe Mosaic law still applies today and that America should be a theocracy based on Old Testament law.  I have heard legitimate IFB preachers proclaim that everything that demanded the death penalty in Leviticus should carry the same penalty in America.  If you believe that, outlawing abortion and homosexuality is simply the first step towards the ultimate goal.

If you believe America's laws should not mirror God's law or that we are no longer under the Mosaic law, then its not so simple.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

How will I know when I've sinned  by crossing the line from 'accumulating wealth'...to an 'unnecessary accumulation of wealth'?

How will you know when you've sinned by eating too much during Thanksgiving?

Should I request the gubmit to come in and control our salary structure?

Sure if you want to be consistent. After all, you want the "gubmit" to control someone's benefits when it comes to marriage.

Will the government protect me from sin in this area by restricting the amount in my bank or retirement accounts? If I'm for gay marriage, does that increase the amount of wealth the liberals allow me to keep?


Why is it you wouldn't want the government to protect you from the sin of materialism but do want the government to protect against homosexual sex by not allowing gays to marry?

How much should the government tax us....is 45% enough to prevent excessive wealth?
Is a 90% tax rate too much?
Who decides?
Liberal politicians?

Well, depends on who is in control: liberal politicians or God Himself.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

They way I've heard it preached is that certain sins under Mosaic law that demanded the death penalty i.e. murder, homosexuality, beastiality, are exceedingly great sins and take precedence over sins like drunkenness, greed, materialism, etc.  That is why Christians must support the candidate that opposes abortion (murder) and homosexuality first and foremost.  While Republican values also don't line completely up with Biblical values, Republican sins are usually "lesser" sins than abortion and homosexuality. 

All that is true if you believe Mosaic law still applies today and that America should be a theocracy based on Old Testament law.  I have heard legitimate IFB preachers proclaim that everything that demanded the death penalty in Leviticus should carry the same penalty in America.  If you believe that, outlawing abortion and homosexuality is simply the first step towards the ultimate goal.

If you believe America's laws should not mirror God's law or that we are no longer under the Mosaic law, then its not so simple.

It's the theocracy part that I have trouble with.  Even under the Mosaic law, the Jews were not instructed to impose their laws upon the gentiles.  Translated to present day, I don't see where it is the responsibility of believers to police the behavior of unbelievers.  There are certain "sins" that must be policed (like murder) in order to maintain a civil society.  But that's not the same thing.