I think to answer that a few other questions need to be answered first. What is the purpose of our lives according to God? Can this purpose be fulfilled through the forced compulsion of laws?

 

As I read scripture, the purpose of our lives is to "honor God with all of our heart, all of our soul, and all of our mind," and to "go into the world and proclaim the Good News to all men, that He is Risen."

 

No, scripture tells me that this purpose can only be a voluntary act of contrition and surrender.

You bring up some good points that I completely overlooked. The question I have about that though is, if many of these voters that Obama brought out to the polls for the first time were voting on this issue, did they really know what it was? I say this because I know my first time voting, I was energetic and glad to be able to do my part, but outside of the President, I really didn't have a clue what I was voting for.

 

Yes, with the money spent and overwhelming attention given to Prop 8, I am fully confident that the California electorate was aware of what they were voting on.

Good stuff, Getslow.

 

Your response to Question #1 brings out my intended sub-plot question:

 

Knowing that black and Hispanic voters (as evidenced by that vote on Prop 8) are a church-going segment of our culture and are NOT necessarily in lockstep with Democratic social agendas, what can the Republican Party do to cultivate its relationship with the black and Hispanic communities and break the stranglehold the Democratic party seems to have on those communities?

 

I'll state first off I am a Democrat.

 

It simple has to get back to its roots.

 

I am 30, but my entire life up until 4 years ago I thought the Dems. were all about the working man - middle - lower class WORKING families - West Virginia/Kentucky coal miners, Detroit auto worker, small business owners.

 

They simple are not for that anymore.

 

How they get back to the roots is something I will have to think about tonight.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thougth that hispanic voters tended to vote republican. Weren't they supposed to be a factor in Bush winning Florida? Texas usually goes republican as well. I know California doesn't support this theory.

I'll state first off I am a Democrat.

 

It simple has to get back to its roots.

 

I am 30, but my entire life up until 4 years ago I thought the Dems. were all about the working man - middle - lower class WORKING families - West Virginia/Kentucky coal miners, Detroit auto worker, small business owners.

 

They simple are not for that anymore.

 

How they get back to the roots is something I will have to think about tonight.

 

That would probably make for a good country song. :lol:

I think to answer that a few other questions need to be answered first. What is the purpose of our lives according to God? Can this purpose be fulfilled through the forced compulsion of laws?

 

Good, good question. If I had to hazard a guess...

 

I think our purpose in life is to find Truth. I think that (similar to Aristotle, except my Lord is a personal one) God represents the final Truth. And He could have created us like robots to do His bidding; instead, we have been equipped with free will and a lack of infinite knowledge. Our purpose is to search and help others search for Truth.

 

I guess from there you can draw the parallel with government. Since God did not force us to follow his Word, should we use government as a way to force people to do what is right? But on the other hand, should be politically support things that we find go against the One Truth?

 

Now, of course, I have provided no answers, just more questions, because I don't know what is right myself. It provides me with a conundrum every day that I have touched upon in this forum before. How do I balance libertarianism (in this sense, respect for freedom) and faith?

 

Now, to get to Hearsay's 2nd question. What should those who preach the Word of God instruct us to do on the topic? Of course I don't think that pulpit speech should be regulated by the government. However, is it appropriate for men of God to politically endorse candidates to their congregation? Like Hearsay said, we are "to not be of this world", and I think that places of worship should not be reduced to politics. I think that what they should do is educate on the issues that have an aspect of morality in it.

 

And, FWIW, all churches touch on most issues dealing with morality more than others- like abortion. As acemona has reminded us, the Churches harp on abortion but not on greed. Then again, alms giving is a central tenet of most faiths.

 

So I give my thoughts and provide no answers. I think the Churches should educate on morality and strongly encourage the congregation to inform themselves. Either way, I guess this bottle of Maker's has just made me out to be a rambler.:lol:

Good stuff, Getslow.

 

Your response to Question #1 brings out my intended sub-plot question:

 

Knowing that black and Hispanic voters (as evidenced by that vote on Prop 8) are a church-going segment of our culture and are NOT necessarily in lockstep with Democratic social agendas, what can the Republican Party do to cultivate its relationship with the black and Hispanic communities and break the stranglehold the Democratic party seems to have on those communities?

 

I think the Republican Party has to take the message to the people so to speak. It seems that the Democrats have been much more successful in their "grassroots" campaigns in the recent elections. They've been able to deliver their message directly to the voters rather than them just getting their information from the candidates during stump speeches. The Republican Party needs to appeal to those social issues, while not alienating them from their base. I've found that many voters are very receptive to people going out and interacting with them.

Good stuff, Getslow.

 

Your response to Question #1 brings out my intended sub-plot question:

 

Knowing that black and Hispanic voters (as evidenced by that vote on Prop 8) are a church-going segment of our culture and are NOT necessarily in lockstep with Democratic social agendas, what can the Republican Party do to cultivate its relationship with the black and Hispanic communities and break the stranglehold the Democratic party seems to have on those communities?

 

I feel one problem the R's have had with blacks is that when they think Republican, they think of the rural south, segregation, bigotry etc. and Republicans have had a VERY POWERFUL presence in the south for decades. To counter this, R's need to garner a stronger presence in the Northeast and in the West to get away from the perception that they are a party of the south only. "the south" is a dirty phrase to many blacks and rightfully so.

That would probably make for a good country song. :lol:

 

Country Boy Can Survive .............:lol:

I feel one problem the R's have had with blacks is that when they think Republican, they think of the rural south, segregation, bigotry etc. and Republicans have had a VERY POWERFUL presence in the south for decades. To counter this, R's need to garner a stronger presence in the Northeast and in the West to get away from the perception that they are a party of the south only. "the south" is a dirty phrase to many blacks and rightfully so.

 

You are on all cylinders today. You are on all cylinders most days, but you've got the leather seats to go with it today.:thumb::thumb:

Knowing that black and Hispanic voters (as evidenced by that vote on Prop 8) are a church-going segment of our culture and are NOT necessarily in lockstep with Democratic social agendas, what can the Republican Party do to cultivate its relationship with the black and Hispanic communities and break the stranglehold the Democratic party seems to have on those communities?

 

Let me start by saying that if I had any clue, I'd probably already have a job working for the GOP and making a whole lot more money than I will once I finish school. But anyway... here goes:

 

1) Stop harping on about welfare. Many of us believe that private charities would be much better at distributing such funds, but the government won't let that happen. As such, welfare is here to stay and we should be focused on finding out how to help as many people as possible with the money already allotted for it and how to do so as efficiently as possible. Poor urban communities are dependent on such funds now because the system has the effect of keeping people poor as well as helping them. "Reform" is a tough word to use with welfare programs because of its past, but that's basically what I'm talking about. If not changing the way we as conservatives think about welfare, we have to change the way we talk about welfare.

 

2) As mentioned above, conservatives tend to believe that private charity handles social welfare programs far better than government. President Bush made an excellent step in the right direction through his allotment of fund to faith-based charities to carry on work funded by the government. They need not be faith-based either. The Democrats stand opposed to such reduction of federal power; make it an issue. Urban renewal isn't about building high-rise condos near the river or an entertainment district downtown; it's about starting with well-funded community centers and making people feel a sense of ownership in neighborhoods they may have thought beyond their control anymore. This one is tough, but if someone has a good idea about how to equalize the housing gap in cities across America, I have an address I'd like to send you to.

 

3) With the hispanic vote (at least in the Southwest), I have three words for you: immigration, immigration, immigration. I hate to simplify like this, but if you want this block of voters squarely in your corner, you have to appeal to them on this issue. How to do that without alienating some of the base... good luck.

 

4) Campaign money. Maybe as a party we have to be comfortable throwing some money toward campaigns that are sure losers for a couple election cycles just to see what works for us and what doesn't. It's not very sound finance, but I really and truly believe that there are a lot of people in this country that don't think the Republican Party listens to them and doesn't care about what their needs are. And do you know what? They're probably right.

You are on all cylinders today. You are on all cylinders most days, but you've got the leather seats to go with it today.:thumb::thumb:

 

Thanks Hearsay. That means a ton coming from you. Unfortunately I'm not much help with question #2:irked: because that one is above my pay grade.

Let me start by saying that if I had any clue, I'd probably already have a job working for the GOP and making a whole lot more money than I will once I finish school. But anyway... here goes:

 

1) Stop harping on about welfare. Many of us believe that private charities would be much better at distributing such funds, but the government won't let that happen. As such, welfare is here to stay and we should be focused on finding out how to help as many people as possible with the money already allotted for it and how to do so as efficiently as possible. Poor urban communities are dependent on such funds now because the system has the effect of keeping people poor as well as helping them. "Reform" is a tough word to use with welfare programs because of its past, but that's basically what I'm talking about. If not changing the way we as conservatives think about welfare, we have to change the way we talk about welfare.

 

2) As mentioned above, conservatives tend to believe that private charity handles social welfare programs far better than government. President Bush made an excellent step in the right direction through his allotment of fund to faith-based charities to carry on work funded by the government. They need not be faith-based either. The Democrats stand opposed to such reduction of federal power; make it an issue. Urban renewal isn't about building high-rise condos near the river or an entertainment district downtown; it's about starting with well-funded community centers and making people feel a sense of ownership in neighborhoods they may have thought beyond their control anymore. This one is tough, but if someone has a good idea about how to equalize the housing gap in cities across America, I have an address I'd like to send you to.

 

3) With the hispanic vote (at least in the Southwest), I have three words for you: immigration, immigration, immigration. I hate to simplify like this, but if you want this block of voters squarely in your corner, you have to appeal to them on this issue. How to do that without alienating some of the base... good luck.

 

4) Campaign money. Maybe as a party we have to be comfortable throwing some money toward campaigns that are sure losers for a couple election cycles just to see what works for us and what doesn't. It's not very sound finance, but I really and truly believe that there are a lot of people in this country that don't think the Republican Party listens to them and doesn't care about what their needs are. And do you know what? They're probably right.

 

Nailed that one. I'd say you have plenty "clue".

A very good little read called "Culture Shift", by Albert Mohler addressed God and politics.

In the first four chapters, Mohler lays some important groundwork. He first addresses Christian faith and politics by using the case St. Augustine made in The City of God. Humanity, he says, is confronted by two cities--the City of God and the City of Man. While the City of God is eternal, the City of Man is only fleeting and temporal. However, it's passing nature does not mean that the city is entirely unimportant. Christians are called to responsibility in both cities. "Even as we know that our ultimate citizenship is in heaven, and even as we set our sights on the glory of the City of God, we must work for good, justice, and righteousness in the City of Man."

He also goes on to show how we are to love thy neighbor, and that ultimately brings it into everyday life, by having a Christian World view which brings the connection between God and politics.

Highly recommend the book...comes in almost question form. Such as, Are We Raising a Nation of Wimps?

http://www.albertmohler.com/

Peruse the site.

With the hispanic vote (at least in the Southwest), I have three words for you: immigration, immigration, immigration. I hate to simplify like this, but if you want this block of voters squarely in your corner, you have to appeal to them on this issue. How to do that without alienating some of the base... good luck.

 

That is the long and short of it.

 

Good, good question. If I had to hazard a guess...

 

I think our purpose in life is to find Truth. I think that (similar to Aristotle, except my Lord is a personal one) God represents the final Truth. And He could have created us like robots to do His bidding; instead, we have been equipped with free will and a lack of infinite knowledge. Our purpose is to search and help others search for Truth.

 

I guess from there you can draw the parallel with government. Since God did not force us to follow his Word, should we use government as a way to force people to do what is right? But on the other hand, should be politically support things that we find go against the One Truth?

 

Now, of course, I have provided no answers, just more questions, because I don't know what is right myself. It provides me with a conundrum every day that I have touched upon in this forum before. How do I balance libertarianism (in this sense, respect for freedom) and faith?

 

Now, to get to Hearsay's 2nd question. What should those who preach the Word of God instruct us to do on the topic? Of course I don't think that pulpit speech should be regulated by the government. However, is it appropriate for men of God to politically endorse candidates to their congregation? Like Hearsay said, we are "to not be of this world", and I think that places of worship should not be reduced to politics. I think that what they should do is educate on the issues that have an aspect of morality in it.

 

I think you've raised good points. I've given it a bit of thought, and I simply do not see any evidence that God is concerned with the issues of governance. It is subsidiary to our purpose here. Does that mean we shouldn't participate in government? No. But, it is certainly not part of the faith and it should not come before or as a substitute to it. At any rate, what affirmative reasons exist for a Christian to participate in government?