Democrat Christians

[the mathemagician]

A Democrat and a Christian, for life...that's me.

[Jim Schue]

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.

 

OK, I'll bite. Those who campaign on a pro-life platform tend to say they are that way because of religious or moral reasons, right? It seems to me the only other reason for an ardent pro-life politician to be that way would be to get votes.

 

So, if they are pro-life/anti-abortion because of religious or moral issues, shouldn't they also be anti-divorce? I mean, you know, if the "moral fiber" of the country is in as much danger as some pose it to be, it should be their moral obligation to try to stamp out divorce, right? Especially given how divorce rips apart families at a roughly 50 percent rate that homosexuality could never dream of achieving, even if the number of homosexuals in this country were tripled.

[Hatz]

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?

 

 

I think the last statistical data I saw was that the divorce rate for church attenders was about the same as the divorce rate for the non-church goers.

 

As for the stretch I think Jim raises a key question. Why is it a stretch?

 

Divorce is the destruction of something holy that God intended and two committed towards.

 

Homosexuality is the destruction of the intent of humanity when God created man and woman.

 

So what am I missing here?

[Hangman]

OK, I'll bite. Those who campaign on a pro-life platform tend to say they are that way because of religious or moral reasons, right? It seems to me the only other reason for an ardent pro-life politician to be that way would be to get votes.

 

So, if they are pro-life/anti-abortion because of religious or moral issues, shouldn't they also be anti-divorce? I mean, you know, if the "moral fiber" of the country is in as much danger as some pose it to be, it should be their moral obligation to try to stamp out divorce, right? Especially given how divorce rips apart families at a roughly 50 percent rate that homosexuality could never dream of achieving, even if the number of homosexuals in this country were tripled.

 

I'm inclined to agree with you on this.

 

But just to dig a little deeper, it's because a great deal of these conservatives come over to the middle ground (or even more to the liberal side) more than some of them may want you to believe, and yes it goes the other way too. Personally, I once considered myself a hardcore liberal. Now, the more I think about things, I still have a great deal of issues that I'm quite liberal over, and then there's also some that I'm conservative on... Too many conservative feelings for me to consider myself a liberal, but hardly enough for me to say I'm conservative.

 

I can imagine that a great deal of politicians fall into that category, but are afraid of the votes that they'll lose by admitting their real feelings on issues, as opposed to embracing the votes that they would gain... And I can understand that in a way.

 

In conclusion to this post I've been writing that probably doesn't even make sense, most (if not all) politicians these days are in favor of divorce, and something we've grown to accept. If one of those guys came out and said "I am 100% against divorce" the majority would think he was a nut and he wouldn't get the vote. It's my opinion that the rare breed that actually are against divorce just don't say anything about it unless they are probed... A "don't ask, don't tell" situation.

 

That post probably made no sense, but I've been up for well over 24 hours so cut some slack.

[Rickyp]

Christians by their very nature are anti-divorce except in the case of adultery. That is one of the vows you take before God.

 

Here is the difference no one has said that being a homosexual is or should be illegal, just immoral as is divorce for the wrong reasons.

 

Plus I don't remember making divorce illegal has ever been a campaign topic.

[Trinity alum]

Christians by their very nature are anti-divorce except in the case of adultery. That is one of the vows you take before God.

 

Here is the difference no one has said that being a homosexual is or should be illegal, just immoral as is divorce for the wrong reasons.

 

Plus I don't remember making divorce illegal has ever been a campaign topic.

Isn't that the point? Why should homosexuality be a campaign issue? Why are the civil benefits of marriage (i.e. civil union) a campaign issue? Should we make remarriage after divorce illegal? Should we deny the civil benefits of marriage to those who have been divorced and remarry?

[Hangman]

Plus I don't remember making divorce illegal has ever been a campaign topic.

 

Which is exactly what my post was getting at... It would be so unheard of for any politician to go with a "make divorce illegal" campaign, that it will never happen... Because it would lose more votes than it would gain.

[Rickyp]

Isn't that the point? Why should homosexuality be a campaign issue? Why are the civil benefits of marriage (i.e. civil union) a campaign issue? Should we make remarriage after divorce illegal? Should we deny the civil benefits of marriage to those who have been divorced and remarry?

 

It is a campaign issue because homosexuals what their marriages recognized and currently they are not therefore, laws would have to be created and the last time I checked that was a role of the government. If someone whats to make remarrying illegal then it becomes a campaign issue and then I guess it could be debated at that point.

 

It's much like comparing legalizing marijuana and saying alcohol should be illegal.

[Hatz]

It is a campaign issue because homosexuals what their marriages recognized and currently they are not therefore, laws would have to be created and the last time I checked that was a role of the government. If someone whats to make remarrying illegal then it becomes a campaign issue and then I guess it could be debated at that point.

 

It's much like comparing legalizing marijuana and saying alcohol should be illegal.

 

 

But it was illegal to sell and have alcohol before (ever heard of prohibition?). In many places in KY it is illegal to sell alcohol.

[Rickyp]

But it was illegal to sell and have alcohol before (ever heard of prohibition?). In many places in KY it is illegal to sell alcohol.

 

Prohibition? Never heard of it.:confused: It was also illegal to tie up your horse on Winchester Ave. in downtown Ashland.

 

It may be illegal to sell alcohol but not illegal to consume it if you are of age.

[Hatz]

Prohibition? Never heard of it.:confused: It was also illegal to tie up your horse on Winchester Ave. in downtown Ashland.

 

It may be illegal to sell alcohol but not illegal to consume it if you are of age.

 

 

Please tell me that you are kidding on this one right?

 

From 1920 to 1933 Liquor was not legally made, sold or distributed in the US. It was the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution that was later turned back by the 21st Amendment.

[spindoc]

Please tell me that you are kidding on this one right?

 

From 1920 to 1933 Liquor was not legally made, sold or distributed in the US. It was the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution that was later turned back by the 21st Amendment.

He's joking!:thumb:

Although it has been rumored that he slept through Civics and American History!

[Hatz]

He's joking!:thumb:

Although it has been rumored that he slept through Civics and American History!

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. :thumb:

[Rickyp]

Please tell me that you are kidding on this one right?

 

From 1920 to 1933 Liquor was not legally made, sold or distributed in the US. It was the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution that was later turned back by the 21st Amendment.

 

Hatz, I was kidding but after claiming that Andrew Jackson was impeeched I can see why you were not sure. :lol: :lol:

[5wide]

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

 

I was beginning to wonder if anyone got that. I wasn't trying to start a huge debate on abortion, or anything else. I was basically just trying to make these points

 

-A true Christian cannot separate themselves from their beliefs at any point, including the voting booth. (This also applies for any religion, but Christianity is the topic here.)

 

-While we may not have a national religion, there are a large, large number of Christians, or professing Christians, in America. If you can get them to vote in your favor, it can swing an election.

 

-Both parties fall well short of Christian principles, IMO, but the Republicans have skillfully managed to assert themselves as the "Christian" party. It is a huge advantage for them in elections, IMO.

 

Is that a good summary of what I was trying to say?