Democrat Christians

[Trinity alum]

Let me explain my view. First, I believe that if you're (the candidate) ok with killing unborn children, how can I expect you to get anything else right? And as you said, I don't vote strictly pro-choice, but look at many issues. However, abortion stance is weighted heavily. I give Pro-Life the most weight, Pro-Choice much less, and the guy/gal who says "I'm not for abortion, but I don't want to restrict a woman's choice" is obviously a waffler and gets no credit at all.

 

Abortion for me is very dificult from a voting perspective. I am pro life. I believe that a fetus is a person at conception. That makes abortion wrong. If you believe that a fetus is a person, I don't understand how you can support abortion. What about the person that says they are against abortion, but would make an exception for rape or incest? Where is the logic in that position? There are people that believe that an early fetus is not a person, but rather, is a lump of tissue that could become a person someday. If you believe that, why should there be any restrictions on abortion? I think you would be hard pressed to come up with scientific "proof" that an early fetus is or is not a person. It ends up as belief and opinion.

 

My problem as a voter is that most of the polititians that are pro choice are also the people that I agree with on most other issues. Most of the people that are pro life, are people that I disagree with on most issues, and in fact are people that I believe are bad for the future of the country. I tell myself that politicians have very little to do with whether or not abortion remains legal, but they have a very profound affect on the other issues. I respect the views of others that are faced with a choice and come down on the other side.

[spindoc]

I know that the way it was asked maybe got it removed, but I would like to answer spindocs question. Do I think that homosexuality is wrong? No.

 

Do you not believe the rich are our oppressors? I have just as much New Testament support for that view as you do for your views on homosexuality. And if you're going to quote the Old Testament at me, you'd better be prepared to deal with the other rules and prohibitions of the Hebrew Bible. There are a few I think you'd balk at.

 

If on the other hand you are concerned with what Jesus actually said, then I hope you're more concerned about divorce than you are about homosexuality. Where is the national drive to outlaw divorce, to put judges on the court to combat it? Maybe it doesn't exist because so many straight Christians don't want their options limited. The fact of the matter is, homosexuals are a much easier target, regardless of scriptual basis. Its so easy for conservatives to make a rallying cry on so few people, and ignore the 50% divorce rate- the real threat to marriage.

You're right, I should have worded different, no intent was meant by the question however. With regards to quoting old testament on you, well, I haven't yet cut my bible in half after Malachi. In fact, Paul writes in 1Cor 10:6-8 "Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry." We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did---and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. If homosexuality is not included here under sexual immorality than I am wrong. the Lord will judge that. If the democrat agenda promotes homosexuality, I cannot support that in any form. Your point of marital issues is not unfounded. But without the "loophole" HHS pointed out and stated by Jesus with regards to marital unfaithfulness, divorce is no less right and no less wrong. Both are wrong. It doesn't have to be "this is a bigger problem". That isn't the issue, both are problems IMO.

[Guest Bluto]

Do you not believe "the rich" are our oppressors?

If you, Ram, suddenly inherited wealth, would you immediately become an oppressor by definition? Is Ted Kennedy an oppressor? Are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates oppressors? Is Barbara Streisand an oppressor? Are other Hollywood actors and actresses (who are wealthy) oppressors?

 

I totally reject the premise of your argument. What I WILL accept is that there are bad people in ALL stratas of the economic spectrum, just as there are good people.

 

"The Rich" are simply more visible, and are able to do more according to their individual natures: the good are able to do MORE good, and the bad are able to do MORE bad.

[Frances Bavier]

For those that equate Republicans with piety, and view it as the party that will eradicate abortion, I would ask this -

 

Why has the last six years not resulted in the prohibition of abortion, or at the very least, a piece of legislation that would force the issue?

 

I could understand it if there were an amendment to the Constitution that had to be ratified by 38 states, but that isn't even out there.

 

5Wide has captured the essence of the use of religious beliefs in the pursuit of political office. The truth is, the Republican party has mastered this (and I'll give the credit to Karl Rove, even though the idea predates him), and the Democrats have not.

 

 

Frances

[Frances Bavier]

If you, Ram, suddenly inherited wealth, would you immediately become an oppressor by definition? Is Ted Kennedy an oppressor? Are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates oppressors? Is Barbara Streisand an oppressor? Are other Hollywood actors and actresses (who are wealthy) oppressors?

 

I totally reject the premise of your argument. What I WILL accept is that there are bad people in ALL stratas of the economic spectrum, just as there are good people.

 

"The Rich" are simply more visible, and are able to do more according to their individual natures: the good are able to do MORE good, and the bad are able to do MORE bad.

 

Not to speak for him, but I don't think 02Ram is saying that the rich are our oppressors. Rather, I think he is saying that he can find passages in the Bible that would support that position, if he so chose.

 

 

Frances

[02Ram54]

If you, Ram, suddenly inherited wealth, would you immediately become an oppressor by definition? Is Ted Kennedy an oppressor? Are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates oppressors? Is Barbara Streisand an oppressor? Are other Hollywood actors and actresses (who are wealthy) oppressors?

 

I totally reject the premise of your argument. What I WILL accept is that there are bad people in ALL stratas of the economic spectrum, just as there are good people.

 

"The Rich" are simply more visible, and are able to do more according to their individual natures: the good are able to do MORE good, and the bad are able to do MORE bad.

It's not my argument. It's the argument of James.

[spindoc]

Sadly, I would guess that most voters are selecting "the lesser of 2 evils". As a matter of fact, I personally would vote for a Dem if he held a record of voting against abortion and homosexuality for instance. But if he/she did, they most likely would not be a Dem.. Therein lies the issue for me atleast.

[02Ram54]

Not to speak for him, but I don't think 02Ram is saying that the rich are our oppressors. Rather, I think he is saying that he can find passages in the Bible that would support that position, if he so chose.

 

 

Frances

:thumb:

[02Ram54]

For those that equate Republicans with piety, and view it as the party that will eradicate abortion, I would ask this -

 

Why has the last six years not resulted in the prohibition of abortion, or at the very least, a piece of legislation that would force the issue?

 

I could understand it if there were an amendment to the Constitution that had to be ratified by 38 states, but that isn't even out there.

 

5Wide has captured the essence of the use of religious beliefs in the pursuit of political office. The truth is, the Republican party has mastered this (and I'll give the credit to Karl Rove, even though the idea predates him), and the Democrats have not.

 

 

Frances

Not to mention placing two justices on the court, replacing the swing voter. Republicans use this issue to capture the evangelical vote and spur them to the polls; its too good of an issue for them to do such a silly thing as RESOLVE IT.

[Jim Schue]

Not to mention placing two justices on the court, replacing the swing voter. Republicans use this issue to capture the evangelical vote and spur them to the polls; its too good of an issue for them to do such a silly thing as RESOLVE IT.

 

Exactly. The GOP leadership no more wants abortion legal than they want the sun to fall from the sky. As has been borne out by many comments in this thread, abortion is the only issue that keeps some people voting a certain way, and, in many cases, against their financial and personal well-being.

[spindoc]

Exactly. The GOP leadership no more wants abortion legal than they want the sun to fall from the sky. As has been borne out by many comments in this thread, abortion is the only issue that keeps some people voting a certain way, and, in many cases, against their financial and personal well-being.

You're right Jim, but I place my financial well being in the hands of the one who owns it all. He's also capable of keeping my person in tact. I would vote for you Jim if you could somehow be a conservative Democrat. That would be ideal IMO. Jim Schue for President/Bill Cowher for VP. Perhaps that's the reason Bill hasn't reupped his contract!

[Jim Schue]

You're right Jim, but I place my financial well being in the hands of the one who owns it all. He's also capable of keeping my person in tact. I would vote for you Jim if you could somehow be a conservative Democrat. That would be ideal IMO. Jim Schue for President/Bill Cowher for VP. Perhaps that's the reason Bill hasn't reupped his contract!

:thumb: :ylsuper: :lol:

[Rickyp]

Like I said earlier I am a 50's Democrat at heart.

 

I will admit I am now depressed. I didn't know I was being oppressed. Hey, maybe I'm rich. Because you are either rich or oppressed. I feel better now.

 

FWIW, it is a real stretch to compare divorce to homosexuality. Does anyone know the divorce rate were both the husband and the wife are practicing Christians?

[Jim Schue]

Like I said earlier I am a 50's Democrat at heart.

 

I will admit I am now depressed. I didn't know I was being oppressed. Hey, maybe I'm rich. Because you are either rich or oppressed. I feel better now.

 

FWIW, it is a real stretch to compare divorce to homosexuality. Does anyone know the divorce rate were both the husband and the wife are practicing Christians?

 

If a sin is a sin is a sin, is it really a stretch to compare the two?

[spindoc]

If a sin is a sin is a sin, is it really a stretch to compare the two?

I think that Richard is referring to comparing one to another with regards to political policy. Never heard a platform of proDivorce. I'd guess most politicians would be proDivorce, just a hunch.