Someone should really address the term "evangelicals" and decide more precisely what it means. Not all "evangelicals" are on the street pushing tracts and saying "do you want to live forever?" Some think of evangelism as something more akin to hospitality like "would you like to have a drink with us? No? Alright, well we will be here if you change your mind."
Another more aggressive breed of evangelic will come to your doorstep, accost you on the street, or otherwise try and force themselves upon you. I live in Texas and have dealt with this from time to time and what grabs me about this approach is the underlying is the sort of salespitch it comes off as rather than someone trying to offer salvation. Suddenly it seems to transform into a business transaction more than anything else.
"Try our product!!! NOW!!!!"
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
I believe it was the Reagan era that Republican's went after the Evangelical vote. Unfortunately most them aren't interested in fiscal conservatism, the Bill of Rights or the right of the individuals to be left a lone. "Conservatism" to them mean's conserving the Christian tradition in the public arena (including the Government). As such, the Christian Coalition part of the Republican Party is a special interest group that wants something from Government (namely for Christianity to remain prominent in our Government).
It was indeed Reagan who most successfully tapped that voter base for the Republicans, but things were swinging in Republican favor since around the '50's. Before that, the Christian base that we frequently associate with the right-wing was loyal to the Democrats. After the Civil War Republicans were often seen as the yankee interlopers, while the Democrats were the conservative natives.
Actually, just wiki Dixiecrat and Southern Strategy, it's a pretty good read and gives a nice idea at how the parties have changed over the years. Alot of the most fervant right-wing Republican politicians of the past few decades were at one time part of the Democrat party, before the Democrat's vision of politics started to change and they jumped ship. Strom Thurman is perhaps the most notable.
Huckabee is not a evangelical he is a baptist pastor big differance,and no president has ever won an election in this country without wining the Christian White male vote.And if a democrate was to adopt the conservative agenda then he would get the evanglelical vote.Conservative is more than just a belief is a way of life.We live in a time when common sence is mistaken for Conservatism,thats why their is not common sence in the goverment .
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
I think his point was moreso, what does religion have to do with the government.
I can understand why those who are religious vote for others of the same religion (or mostly. But the OP has to understand a few things before I get into that topic. However bringing this all together, when devout christians see other christians in office, I would think they could look at ideals in a basic sense of them being "christian" ideals. So, when you see a president that says "I'm a christian." You figure that they have the same christian values as you do. Well if he's a christian he stands for what I stand for, and therefore we're after the same things. Thats not always the case, and people that aren't too political and don't get into depth with it, vote for the choice that they would feel best resembles themselves, I would suppose.
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
I think his point was moreso, what does religion have to do with the government.
I can understand why those who are religious vote for others of the same religion (or mostly. But the OP has to understand a few things before I get into that topic. However bringing this all together, when devout christians see other christians in office, I would think they could look at ideals in a basic sense of them being "christian" ideals. So, when you see a president that says "I'm a christian." You figure that they have the same christian values as you do. Well if he's a christian he stands for what I stand for, and therefore we're after the same things. Thats not always the case, and people that aren't too political and don't get into depth with it, vote for the choice that they would feel best resembles themselves, I would suppose.
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
I think his point was moreso, what does religion have to do with the government.
I can understand why those who are religious vote for others of the same religion (or mostly. But the OP has to understand a few things before I get into that topic. However bringing this all together, when devout christians see other christians in office, I would think they could look at ideals in a basic sense of them being "christian" ideals. So, when you see a president that says "I'm a christian." You figure that they have the same christian values as you do. Well if he's a christian he stands for what I stand for, and therefore we're after the same things. Thats not always the case, and people that aren't too political and don't get into depth with it, vote for the choice that they would feel best resembles themselves, I would suppose.
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
wtf.
its all about the killing of babies or if you prefer the unborn- and the most nastiest, partial birth abortion.
like it or not, societies do need legislation for its populace.
the government does have its purposes- be it state or federal.
so yes, vote democrat if you are ok with minors getting abortions without parental consent.
I think his point was moreso, what does religion have to do with the government.
I can understand why those who are religious vote for others of the same religion (or mostly. But the OP has to understand a few things before I get into that topic. However bringing this all together, when devout christians see other christians in office, I would think they could look at ideals in a basic sense of them being "christian" ideals. So, when you see a president that says "I'm a christian." You figure that they have the same christian values as you do. Well if he's a christian he stands for what I stand for, and therefore we're after the same things. Thats not always the case, and people that aren't too political and don't get into depth with it, vote for the choice that they would feel best resembles themselves, I would suppose.
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
wtf.
its all about the killing of babies or if you prefer the unborn- and the most nastiest, partial birth abortion.
like it or not, societies do need legislation for its populace.
the government does have its purposes- be it state or federal.
so yes, vote democrat if you are ok with minors getting abortions without parental consent.
vote republican if you have common sense.
This country was setup for a weak federal government meant to have very little influence in our life and for legislation outside of what's given to that federal government to be given to the states to decide.
State rights are meant to cause competitiveness and choice. I'm sorry you feel that it's necessary to make a decision for someone and not give them options in America. But we weren't setup that way. So take your religious beliefs and practice them on your own. In the meantime, quit stealing my income and using it to force your agenda onto others.
There are religions that are recognized in America that do not consider abortion murder. Judaism is one. Judaism does not believe that the soul enters a person until birth. Not at conception. So, a Jewish person might decide to move to a state that allows abortions if that were a big enough issue for them.
Not everyone believes as you do. That's just the way it goes. And sorry again, but this is not a democracy, so mob rules does not float in this country as well. So just because you have the most people on your side does not give you the right to take away others freedoms.
State rights is where this abortion issue should lie. But you made this bed with your belief in big federal government, now lay in it. You neo-conservatives are just as much for big federal government growth as the Dems are.
I think his point was moreso, what does religion have to do with the government.
I can understand why those who are religious vote for others of the same religion (or mostly. But the OP has to understand a few things before I get into that topic. However bringing this all together, when devout christians see other christians in office, I would think they could look at ideals in a basic sense of them being "christian" ideals. So, when you see a president that says "I'm a christian." You figure that they have the same christian values as you do. Well if he's a christian he stands for what I stand for, and therefore we're after the same things. Thats not always the case, and people that aren't too political and don't get into depth with it, vote for the choice that they would feel best resembles themselves, I would suppose.
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
wtf.
its all about the killing of babies or if you prefer the unborn- and the most nastiest, partial birth abortion.
like it or not, societies do need legislation for its populace.
the government does have its purposes- be it state or federal.
so yes, vote democrat if you are ok with minors getting abortions without parental consent.
vote republican if you have common sense.
This country was setup for a weak federal government meant to have very little influence in our life and for legislation outside of what's given to that federal government to be given to the states to decide.
State rights are meant to cause competitiveness and choice. I'm sorry you feel that it's necessary to make a decision for someone and not give them options in America. But we weren't setup that way. So take your religious beliefs and practice them on your own. In the meantime, quit stealing my income and using it to force your agenda onto others.
There are religions that are recognized in America that do not consider abortion murder. Judaism is one. Judaism does not believe that the soul enters a person until birth. Not at conception. So, a Jewish person might decide to move to a state that allows abortions if that were a big enough issue for them.
Not everyone believes as you do. That's just the way it goes. And sorry again, but this is not a democracy, so mob rules does not float in this country as well. So just because you have the most people on your side does not give you the right to take away others freedoms.
State rights is where this abortion issue should lie. But you made this bed with your belief in big federal government, now lay in it. You neo-conservatives are just as much for big federal government growth as the Dems are.
yea. it takes alot of tax dollars to say no abortions allowed after second and third trimester.
im not asking for your tax dollars. im just asking my government to excercise leadership in common sense initiatives.
I think his point was moreso, what does religion have to do with the government.
I can understand why those who are religious vote for others of the same religion (or mostly. But the OP has to understand a few things before I get into that topic. However bringing this all together, when devout christians see other christians in office, I would think they could look at ideals in a basic sense of them being "christian" ideals. So, when you see a president that says "I'm a christian." You figure that they have the same christian values as you do. Well if he's a christian he stands for what I stand for, and therefore we're after the same things. Thats not always the case, and people that aren't too political and don't get into depth with it, vote for the choice that they would feel best resembles themselves, I would suppose.
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
wtf.
its all about the killing of babies or if you prefer the unborn- and the most nastiest, partial birth abortion.
like it or not, societies do need legislation for its populace.
the government does have its purposes- be it state or federal.
so yes, vote democrat if you are ok with minors getting abortions without parental consent.
vote republican if you have common sense.
This country was setup for a weak federal government meant to have very little influence in our life and for legislation outside of what's given to that federal government to be given to the states to decide.
State rights are meant to cause competitiveness and choice. I'm sorry you feel that it's necessary to make a decision for someone and not give them options in America. But we weren't setup that way. So take your religious beliefs and practice them on your own. In the meantime, quit stealing my income and using it to force your agenda onto others.
There are religions that are recognized in America that do not consider abortion murder. Judaism is one. Judaism does not believe that the soul enters a person until birth. Not at conception. So, a Jewish person might decide to move to a state that allows abortions if that were a big enough issue for them.
Not everyone believes as you do. That's just the way it goes. And sorry again, but this is not a democracy, so mob rules does not float in this country as well. So just because you have the most people on your side does not give you the right to take away others freedoms.
State rights is where this abortion issue should lie. But you made this bed with your belief in big federal government, now lay in it. You neo-conservatives are just as much for big federal government growth as the Dems are.
yea. it takes alot of tax dollars to say no abortions allowed after second and third trimester.
im not asking for your tax dollars. im just asking my government to excercise leadership in common sense initiatives.
You're asking for the federal government to overstep its bounds and use the money it stole from me to buy the guns it will use to turn on me if I do not obey its orders. The orders that you as a majority used the government to impose upon me. It's not just about abortion. That's only one issue. Once it oversteps its bounds on one issue then the next one and the next one are even easier.
Careful, someday you might end up in that minority and have something that you find morally questionable imposed upon you. You seem like a good 'ol follow the line neo-con. How would you like it if the federal government said that it was going to force you to cough up tax dollars for newly recognized gay marriage rights? Would that make you a bit angry? Or maybe you'd like it better if that matter were left up to the states like it should be so you can pick which state you live in and avoid that if it bothers you?
We pull together as a country to defend our freedoms. Not to take them away from one another. If those rights to freedom are threatened, then that's what the federal government is for is to defend them. Not to act as our nanny and manipulate our behavior.
I don't like your religion. I think it sucks. Don't force it down my throat. I don't like abortion either, but I don't like taking choice away from a person. In the matter of rape or incest, I think a woman should completely have the option there. So, to me your religion means squat. Does that burn? Then you know how I feel when you try to force something you believe down my throat.
I think his point was moreso, what does religion have to do with the government.
I can understand why those who are religious vote for others of the same religion (or mostly. But the OP has to understand a few things before I get into that topic. However bringing this all together, when devout christians see other christians in office, I would think they could look at ideals in a basic sense of them being "christian" ideals. So, when you see a president that says "I'm a christian." You figure that they have the same christian values as you do. Well if he's a christian he stands for what I stand for, and therefore we're after the same things. Thats not always the case, and people that aren't too political and don't get into depth with it, vote for the choice that they would feel best resembles themselves, I would suppose.
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
wtf.
its all about the killing of babies or if you prefer the unborn- and the most nastiest, partial birth abortion.
like it or not, societies do need legislation for its populace.
the government does have its purposes- be it state or federal.
so yes, vote democrat if you are ok with minors getting abortions without parental consent.
vote republican if you have common sense.
This country was setup for a weak federal government meant to have very little influence in our life and for legislation outside of what's given to that federal government to be given to the states to decide.
State rights are meant to cause competitiveness and choice. I'm sorry you feel that it's necessary to make a decision for someone and not give them options in America. But we weren't setup that way. So take your religious beliefs and practice them on your own. In the meantime, quit stealing my income and using it to force your agenda onto others.
There are religions that are recognized in America that do not consider abortion murder. Judaism is one. Judaism does not believe that the soul enters a person until birth. Not at conception. So, a Jewish person might decide to move to a state that allows abortions if that were a big enough issue for them.
Not everyone believes as you do. That's just the way it goes. And sorry again, but this is not a democracy, so mob rules does not float in this country as well. So just because you have the most people on your side does not give you the right to take away others freedoms.
State rights is where this abortion issue should lie. But you made this bed with your belief in big federal government, now lay in it. You neo-conservatives are just as much for big federal government growth as the Dems are.
yea. it takes alot of tax dollars to say no abortions allowed after second and third trimester.
im not asking for your tax dollars. im just asking my government to excercise leadership in common sense initiatives.
Since you seem so hung up on the abortion issue, maybe some words from the late great Harry Browne might bring some refreshing thoughts about lessened government involvement in our lives and this issue to your mind...
The Libertarian stand on abortion
by Harry Browne
December 21, 1998
The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" should be eliminated from any Libertarian's vocabulary. They give the wrong impression of what Libertarians believe.
When you say you're "pro-choice," half the population is likely to assume you're a liberal who likes Affirmative Action, big government, and a whole range of other liberal stands.
When you say you're "pro-life," the other half of the population probably assumes you're a conservative who likes to legislate morality, wants to put prayer in government schools, and has all sorts of other dandy ideas to run their lives.
Abortion is a sensitive issue on which reasonable people can differ. We achieve nothing when we use a sloganized term to assert a position — acting as though any different position were unreasonable.
Some people believe a fetus is a human being who is entitled to the same right to life that will apply after he's born. Other people see the fetus differently, and believe that women have a right to decide for themselves whether to carry it to birth.
We aren't going to change either group by spouting contrary slogans at them. This will only identify us as opponents to be disregarded on all issues.
In my view, an uncompromising Libertarian position on abortion doesn't have to offend anyone. Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.
This position allows us to offer hope to either side of the debate.
To one side we say: we will not let the government impose its way upon you.
To the other side we say: if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you. Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion — such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws, encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, repealing the income tax so that parents can afford to spend time teaching their children the values that will minimize teenage pregnancies. Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.
We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives — nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution.
You're asking for the federal government to overstep its bounds and use the money it stole from me to buy the guns it will use to turn on me if I do not obey its orders. The orders that you as a majority used the government to impose upon me. It's not just about abortion. That's only one issue. Once it oversteps its bounds on one issue then the next one and the next one are even easier.
Careful, someday you might end up in that minority and have something that you find morally questionable imposed upon you. You seem like a good 'ol follow the line neo-con. How would you like it if the federal government said that it was going to force you to cough up tax dollars for newly recognized gay marriage rights? Would that make you a bit angry? Or maybe you'd like it better if that matter were left up to the states like it should be so you can pick which state you live in and avoid that if it bothers you?
We pull together as a country to defend our freedoms. Not to take them away from one another. If those rights to freedom are threatened, then that's what the federal government is for is to defend them. Not to act as our nanny and manipulate our behavior.
I don't like your religion. I think it sucks. Don't force it down my throat. I don't like abortion either, but I don't like taking choice away from a person. In the matter of rape or incest, I think a woman should completely have the option there. So, to me your religion means squat. Does that burn? Then you know how I feel when you try to force something you believe down my throat.
i assume you are a constitutionalist?
i love the constitution as well.
show me where it says, it is the states rights to allow a woman to choose to kill her fetus or not.
godlessness in a society is where we differ, my non-neo conservative friend.
Since you seem so hung up on the abortion issue, maybe some words from the late great Harry Browne might bring some refreshing thoughts about lessened government involvement in our lives and this issue to your mind...
The Libertarian stand on abortion
by Harry Browne
December 21, 1998
The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" should be eliminated from any Libertarian's vocabulary. They give the wrong impression of what Libertarians believe.
When you say you're "pro-choice," half the population is likely to assume you're a liberal who likes Affirmative Action, big government, and a whole range of other liberal stands.
When you say you're "pro-life," the other half of the population probably assumes you're a conservative who likes to legislate morality, wants to put prayer in government schools, and has all sorts of other dandy ideas to run their lives.
Abortion is a sensitive issue on which reasonable people can differ. We achieve nothing when we use a sloganized term to assert a position — acting as though any different position were unreasonable.
Some people believe a fetus is a human being who is entitled to the same right to life that will apply after he's born. Other people see the fetus differently, and believe that women have a right to decide for themselves whether to carry it to birth.
We aren't going to change either group by spouting contrary slogans at them. This will only identify us as opponents to be disregarded on all issues.
In my view, an uncompromising Libertarian position on abortion doesn't have to offend anyone. Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.
This position allows us to offer hope to either side of the debate.
To one side we say: we will not let the government impose its way upon you.
To the other side we say: if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you. Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion — such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws, encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, repealing the income tax so that parents can afford to spend time teaching their children the values that will minimize teenage pregnancies. Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.
We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives — nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution.
the issue is
democrats are for abortions and late term murders,
republicans are not.
regardless of state or federal. a government is a government. it governs your lives.
I am a Christian and I consider my vote extremely important. Therefore, I look at all the candidates and see which ones line up the most with the Bible. If its a democrat, I'll vote democrat. Independent? I'll vote that. Republican? I'll vote republican. It has nothing to do with party association, but rather values and beliefs.
You're asking for the federal government to overstep its bounds and use the money it stole from me to buy the guns it will use to turn on me if I do not obey its orders. The orders that you as a majority used the government to impose upon me. It's not just about abortion. That's only one issue. Once it oversteps its bounds on one issue then the next one and the next one are even easier.
Careful, someday you might end up in that minority and have something that you find morally questionable imposed upon you. You seem like a good 'ol follow the line neo-con. How would you like it if the federal government said that it was going to force you to cough up tax dollars for newly recognized gay marriage rights? Would that make you a bit angry? Or maybe you'd like it better if that matter were left up to the states like it should be so you can pick which state you live in and avoid that if it bothers you?
We pull together as a country to defend our freedoms. Not to take them away from one another. If those rights to freedom are threatened, then that's what the federal government is for is to defend them. Not to act as our nanny and manipulate our behavior.
I don't like your religion. I think it sucks. Don't force it down my throat. I don't like abortion either, but I don't like taking choice away from a person. In the matter of rape or incest, I think a woman should completely have the option there. So, to me your religion means squat. Does that burn? Then you know how I feel when you try to force something you believe down my throat.
i assume you are a constitutionalist?
i love the constitution as well.
show me where it says, it is the states rights to allow a woman to choose to kill her fetus or not.
godlessness in a society is where we differ, my non-neo conservative friend.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I don't believe abortion is a federal issue. It never should have been. It was the federal government overstepping its authority. You want Roe v. Wade overturned, right? Well, if it is, do you seriously think it is then going to become anything other than a state issue? Once Roe v. Wade is overturned it's going to go right back to the states to decide, as it should have.
Since you seem so hung up on the abortion issue, maybe some words from the late great Harry Browne might bring some refreshing thoughts about lessened government involvement in our lives and this issue to your mind...
The Libertarian stand on abortion
by Harry Browne
December 21, 1998
The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" should be eliminated from any Libertarian's vocabulary. They give the wrong impression of what Libertarians believe.
When you say you're "pro-choice," half the population is likely to assume you're a liberal who likes Affirmative Action, big government, and a whole range of other liberal stands.
When you say you're "pro-life," the other half of the population probably assumes you're a conservative who likes to legislate morality, wants to put prayer in government schools, and has all sorts of other dandy ideas to run their lives.
Abortion is a sensitive issue on which reasonable people can differ. We achieve nothing when we use a sloganized term to assert a position — acting as though any different position were unreasonable.
Some people believe a fetus is a human being who is entitled to the same right to life that will apply after he's born. Other people see the fetus differently, and believe that women have a right to decide for themselves whether to carry it to birth.
We aren't going to change either group by spouting contrary slogans at them. This will only identify us as opponents to be disregarded on all issues.
In my view, an uncompromising Libertarian position on abortion doesn't have to offend anyone. Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.
This position allows us to offer hope to either side of the debate.
To one side we say: we will not let the government impose its way upon you.
To the other side we say: if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you. Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion — such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws, encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, repealing the income tax so that parents can afford to spend time teaching their children the values that will minimize teenage pregnancies. Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.
We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives — nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution.
the issue is
democrats are for abortions and late term murders,
republicans are not.
regardless of state or federal. a government is a government. it governs your lives.
morality is the question.
vote your conscience if it matters much to you.
that is all.
I govern my life.
I expect the government to do nothing more than protect my freedoms when they are threatened.
I am a Christian and I consider my vote extremely important. Therefore, I look at all the candidates and see which ones line up the most with the Bible. If its a democrat, I'll vote democrat. Independent? I'll vote that. Republican? I'll vote republican. It has nothing to do with party association, but rather values and beliefs. Blessings,
Thank you for that public message in support of a democracy style of government.
So, uhhhmmmmm, what happens if I think your religion is a load of crap? You're going to force it down my throat too?
Since you seem so hung up on the abortion issue, maybe some words from the late great Harry Browne might bring some refreshing thoughts about lessened government involvement in our lives and this issue to your mind...
The Libertarian stand on abortion
by Harry Browne
December 21, 1998
The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" should be eliminated from any Libertarian's vocabulary. They give the wrong impression of what Libertarians believe.
When you say you're "pro-choice," half the population is likely to assume you're a liberal who likes Affirmative Action, big government, and a whole range of other liberal stands.
When you say you're "pro-life," the other half of the population probably assumes you're a conservative who likes to legislate morality, wants to put prayer in government schools, and has all sorts of other dandy ideas to run their lives.
Abortion is a sensitive issue on which reasonable people can differ. We achieve nothing when we use a sloganized term to assert a position — acting as though any different position were unreasonable.
Some people believe a fetus is a human being who is entitled to the same right to life that will apply after he's born. Other people see the fetus differently, and believe that women have a right to decide for themselves whether to carry it to birth.
We aren't going to change either group by spouting contrary slogans at them. This will only identify us as opponents to be disregarded on all issues.
In my view, an uncompromising Libertarian position on abortion doesn't have to offend anyone. Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.
This position allows us to offer hope to either side of the debate.
To one side we say: we will not let the government impose its way upon you.
To the other side we say: if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you. Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion — such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws, encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, repealing the income tax so that parents can afford to spend time teaching their children the values that will minimize teenage pregnancies. Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.
We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives — nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution.
the issue is
democrats are for abortions and late term murders,
republicans are not.
regardless of state or federal. a government is a government. it governs your lives.
morality is the question.
vote your conscience if it matters much to you.
that is all.
I govern my life.
I expect the government to do nothing more than protect my freedoms when they are threatened.
except of course, states rights for abortions.
isnt that a contradiction.
im proud of my point!
federal govt. state govt.
tell me the difference.
the states have the right to choose what laws it adopts.
please.
the answer is and always will be morality of the party.god or godlessness.
so yes. vote party lines. unless of course your the highly coveted, ultra vaunted independent (:rollfuckineyes)
if you happen to find a pro life democrat, whom is appealing, by all means excercise your right to have him govern your life, in your state of choosing.
I am a Christian and I consider my vote extremely important. Therefore, I look at all the candidates and see which ones line up the most with the Bible. If its a democrat, I'll vote democrat. Independent? I'll vote that. Republican? I'll vote republican. It has nothing to do with party association, but rather values and beliefs. Blessings,
Thank you for that public message in support of a democracy style of government.
So, uhhhmmmmm, what happens if I think your religion is a load of crap? You're going to force it down my throat too?
noone forces anything down your throat in regards to the bible. america is the land where americans tolerate varying worships. you do not need to worship the bible or kuran to recieve welfare checks or eat free lunches.
guess what? the bible is forever gone from the public school system.
guess what? the pledge of allegiance is next.
some can argue the downward spiral of americas education the further it moves from god.
Ask a cop about 1964. In regards to this country and crime.
Then do a little homework and find out what else happened in 1964.
Regarding Evangelicals.. I laugh at how the left thinks they want to take over and control their lives when liberals are EXACTLY about doing just that. They want to regulate EVERYTHING from cradle to grave, making this country a nation of averages.
The reason it's important to an evangelical to have one in politics is because at least evangelicals believe in morality, justice, and the rule of law. Every chance the left gets they knock a little more of that away in the form of banned prayer, the ten commandments, the freaking manger scene at christmas for crying out loud.
Even Dawkins said he hoped churches would some day be removed from society... so ya, freedom is being attacked and it matters for that reason more than ever.
The individual is the wellspring of conservatism. The purpose of conservative politics is to defend the liberty of the individual and-lest individualism run riot-insist upon individual responsibility.
The great religions (and conservatives are known for approving of God) teach salvation as an individual matter. There are no group discounts in the Ten Commandments, Christ was not a committee, and Allah does not welcome believers into Paradise saying, "You weren't much good yourself, but you were standing near some good people." That we are individuals-unique, disparate and willful-is something we understand instinctively from an early age. No child ever wrote to Santa: "Bring me-and a bunch of kids I've never met-a pony, and we'll share."
Virtue is famously lonely. Also vice, as anyone can testify who ever told his mother, "All the other guys were doing it." We experience pleasure separately; Ethan Hawke may go out on any number of wild dates, but I'm able to sleep through them. And, although we may be sorry for people who suffer, we only "feel their pain" when we're full of baloney and running for office.
Huckabee gets individual votes.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Thank you for that public message in support of a democracy style of government. So, uhhhmmmmm, what happens if I think your religion is a load of crap? You're going to force it down my throat too?
You have the right to believe what you want and I respect your right. Also, I said nothing about forcing anything down anyone's throat.
I think what we're kind of tip-toeing around here is the question of why an evangelical would be more qualified to perform secular politics than anyone else. Especially considering that a person cannot be given any kind of religious test before taking any government office. The founding fathers were very adamant about that.
To answer your original question, it would be best to look at what Christians believe in order to understand why people do the things people do.
As a Christian, I believe that through my faith in Jesus the Messiah, I have been grafted into the promises of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). I believe my citizenship is in Heaven (New Jerusalem), not on this planet. I'm believe I'm an alien in a foreign land. I believe I am an ambassador of another Kingdom. Since I believe those things, I live accordingly. If I live apart of a Kingdom of life, then I want to see life honored and upheld in this temoporay 'citizenship'. Although I was born in the USA and I am a USA citizen, I do not partisipate in the pledge of alliegence. That is for another time, though.
That gives context to why Christians may seem to do seemingly silly things. I ultimately don't care if taxes are raised or lowered. Money is money - you enter the world with nothing and you leave with nothing. What I care about are issues that are touchy and moral based, such as life, righteousness, establishment and security of marriage between a man and a women only, etc etc.
Therefore, I will vote according to those beliefs. I hope that makes sense. This is a very 'on the go' post and is in no way comprehensive.
To answer your original question, it would be best to look at what Christians believe in order to understand why people do the things people do. As a Christian, I believe that through my faith in Jesus the Messiah, I have been grafted into the promises of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). I believe my citizenship is in Heaven (New Jerusalem), not on this planet. I'm believe I'm an alien in a foreign land. I believe I am an ambassador of another Kingdom. Since I believe those things, I live accordingly. If I live apart of a Kingdom of life, then I want to see life honored and upheld in this temoporay 'citizenship'. Although I was born in the USA and I am a USA citizen, I do not partisipate in the pledge of alliegence. That is for another time, though. That gives context to why Christians may seem to do seemingly silly things. I ultimately don't care if taxes are raised or lowered. Money is money - you enter the world with nothing and you leave with nothing. What I care about are issues that are touchy and moral based, such as life, righteousness, establishment and security of marriage between a man and a women only, etc etc. Therefore, I will vote according to those beliefs. I hope that makes sense. This is a very 'on the go' post and is in no way comprehensive. Blessings,
don't mind me, im about to bludgeon your post and lend it nothing. it is very clear and concise and unarguable- kudos
so you see, what the author is trying to say here is that God see's through democrats and respectfully requests that you dont vote them in to office.
God endorses McCain
he shall bestow upon the 7.4% the light.
ZOGBY WEDNESDAY: OBAMA 48.2%, MCCAIN 44.4%... NOT SURE 7.4%... DEVELOPING...
What I care about are issues that are touchy and moral based, such as life, righteousness, establishment and security of marriage between a man and a women only, etc etc.
Well then, you'd love both candidates, as they are both devout Christians. Both parties have stated they want to preserve marriage as a man and a woman, while recognizing the LEGAL RIGHTS of same-sex couples. Then it's just between McCain being pro-life, and Obama being a totally righteous dude.
ill agree that obama is cool. i'd get jiggy with him in da club or something. watch a football game, high fives and pigs in blanket fun(with lipstick)
but, he is bought and paid for by a silly moveon.org and other nefarious regimes. he'll owe them and the likes of acorn props and favors- these people would love nothing more than to subvert our individual liberties and weaken our national defense.
mccain on the other hand, well, he's not obama. (and no romney or thompson) but he's got that sexy conservative who is youthful and energetic with founded principles. she doesnt want to force religion down peoples throats, but im sure she'd want to do something about christian holocausts that are currently active today in parts of the world. with great power, comes great responsibility peter.moral clarity.
besides look here, canada is moving towards conservatism more and more these days. they know ultimately that liberal policies, socialism- just cant work. and make no mistake, obama is a liberal.
words from hillary, mccain will be ready on day one.
lets just hope acorn doesnt subvert democracy. another questionable connection to obama.
Comments
Someone should really address the term "evangelicals" and decide more precisely what it means. Not all "evangelicals" are on the street pushing tracts and saying "do you want to live forever?" Some think of evangelism as something more akin to hospitality like "would you like to have a drink with us? No? Alright, well we will be here if you change your mind."
Another more aggressive breed of evangelic will come to your doorstep, accost you on the street, or otherwise try and force themselves upon you. I live in Texas and have dealt with this from time to time and what grabs me about this approach is the underlying is the sort of salespitch it comes off as rather than someone trying to offer salvation. Suddenly it seems to transform into a business transaction more than anything else.
"Try our product!!! NOW!!!!"
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
It was indeed Reagan who most successfully tapped that voter base for the Republicans, but things were swinging in Republican favor since around the '50's. Before that, the Christian base that we frequently associate with the right-wing was loyal to the Democrats. After the Civil War Republicans were often seen as the yankee interlopers, while the Democrats were the conservative natives.
Actually, just wiki Dixiecrat and Southern Strategy, it's a pretty good read and gives a nice idea at how the parties have changed over the years. Alot of the most fervant right-wing Republican politicians of the past few decades were at one time part of the Democrat party, before the Democrat's vision of politics started to change and they jumped ship. Strom Thurman is perhaps the most notable.
Huckabee is not a evangelical he is a baptist pastor big differance,and no president has ever won an election in this country without wining the Christian White male vote.And if a democrate was to adopt the conservative agenda then he would get the evanglelical vote.Conservative is more than just a belief is a way of life.We live in a time when common sence is mistaken for Conservatism,thats why their is not common sence in the goverment .
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
http://www.allaboutgod.com/
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
===============================
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
wtf.
its all about the killing of babies or if you prefer the unborn- and the most nastiest, partial birth abortion.
like it or not, societies do need legislation for its populace.
the government does have its purposes- be it state or federal.
so yes, vote democrat if you are ok with minors getting abortions without parental consent.
vote republican if you have common sense.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
wtf.
its all about the killing of babies or if you prefer the unborn- and the most nastiest, partial birth abortion.
like it or not, societies do need legislation for its populace.
the government does have its purposes- be it state or federal.
so yes, vote democrat if you are ok with minors getting abortions without parental consent.
vote republican if you have common sense.
This country was setup for a weak federal government meant to have very little influence in our life and for legislation outside of what's given to that federal government to be given to the states to decide.
State rights are meant to cause competitiveness and choice. I'm sorry you feel that it's necessary to make a decision for someone and not give them options in America. But we weren't setup that way. So take your religious beliefs and practice them on your own. In the meantime, quit stealing my income and using it to force your agenda onto others.
There are religions that are recognized in America that do not consider abortion murder. Judaism is one. Judaism does not believe that the soul enters a person until birth. Not at conception. So, a Jewish person might decide to move to a state that allows abortions if that were a big enough issue for them.
Not everyone believes as you do. That's just the way it goes. And sorry again, but this is not a democracy, so mob rules does not float in this country as well. So just because you have the most people on your side does not give you the right to take away others freedoms.
State rights is where this abortion issue should lie. But you made this bed with your belief in big federal government, now lay in it. You neo-conservatives are just as much for big federal government growth as the Dems are.
===============================
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
wtf.
its all about the killing of babies or if you prefer the unborn- and the most nastiest, partial birth abortion.
like it or not, societies do need legislation for its populace.
the government does have its purposes- be it state or federal.
so yes, vote democrat if you are ok with minors getting abortions without parental consent.
vote republican if you have common sense.
This country was setup for a weak federal government meant to have very little influence in our life and for legislation outside of what's given to that federal government to be given to the states to decide.
State rights are meant to cause competitiveness and choice. I'm sorry you feel that it's necessary to make a decision for someone and not give them options in America. But we weren't setup that way. So take your religious beliefs and practice them on your own. In the meantime, quit stealing my income and using it to force your agenda onto others.
There are religions that are recognized in America that do not consider abortion murder. Judaism is one. Judaism does not believe that the soul enters a person until birth. Not at conception. So, a Jewish person might decide to move to a state that allows abortions if that were a big enough issue for them.
Not everyone believes as you do. That's just the way it goes. And sorry again, but this is not a democracy, so mob rules does not float in this country as well. So just because you have the most people on your side does not give you the right to take away others freedoms.
State rights is where this abortion issue should lie. But you made this bed with your belief in big federal government, now lay in it. You neo-conservatives are just as much for big federal government growth as the Dems are.
yea. it takes alot of tax dollars to say no abortions allowed after second and third trimester.
im not asking for your tax dollars. im just asking my government to excercise leadership in common sense initiatives.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
wtf.
its all about the killing of babies or if you prefer the unborn- and the most nastiest, partial birth abortion.
like it or not, societies do need legislation for its populace.
the government does have its purposes- be it state or federal.
so yes, vote democrat if you are ok with minors getting abortions without parental consent.
vote republican if you have common sense.
This country was setup for a weak federal government meant to have very little influence in our life and for legislation outside of what's given to that federal government to be given to the states to decide.
State rights are meant to cause competitiveness and choice. I'm sorry you feel that it's necessary to make a decision for someone and not give them options in America. But we weren't setup that way. So take your religious beliefs and practice them on your own. In the meantime, quit stealing my income and using it to force your agenda onto others.
There are religions that are recognized in America that do not consider abortion murder. Judaism is one. Judaism does not believe that the soul enters a person until birth. Not at conception. So, a Jewish person might decide to move to a state that allows abortions if that were a big enough issue for them.
Not everyone believes as you do. That's just the way it goes. And sorry again, but this is not a democracy, so mob rules does not float in this country as well. So just because you have the most people on your side does not give you the right to take away others freedoms.
State rights is where this abortion issue should lie. But you made this bed with your belief in big federal government, now lay in it. You neo-conservatives are just as much for big federal government growth as the Dems are.
yea. it takes alot of tax dollars to say no abortions allowed after second and third trimester.
im not asking for your tax dollars. im just asking my government to excercise leadership in common sense initiatives.
You're asking for the federal government to overstep its bounds and use the money it stole from me to buy the guns it will use to turn on me if I do not obey its orders. The orders that you as a majority used the government to impose upon me. It's not just about abortion. That's only one issue. Once it oversteps its bounds on one issue then the next one and the next one are even easier.
Careful, someday you might end up in that minority and have something that you find morally questionable imposed upon you. You seem like a good 'ol follow the line neo-con. How would you like it if the federal government said that it was going to force you to cough up tax dollars for newly recognized gay marriage rights? Would that make you a bit angry? Or maybe you'd like it better if that matter were left up to the states like it should be so you can pick which state you live in and avoid that if it bothers you?
We pull together as a country to defend our freedoms. Not to take them away from one another. If those rights to freedom are threatened, then that's what the federal government is for is to defend them. Not to act as our nanny and manipulate our behavior.
I don't like your religion. I think it sucks. Don't force it down my throat. I don't like abortion either, but I don't like taking choice away from a person. In the matter of rape or incest, I think a woman should completely have the option there. So, to me your religion means squat. Does that burn? Then you know how I feel when you try to force something you believe down my throat.
===============================
For me I'm about the bottom line. As a voting Christian my question is, "What issues do you stand for?". I've heard many candidates call themselves Christian and yet support things that are anti-biblical. If they say they're Christian, I see it more or less as a chance that they may have a similar stance on many issues, but it's certainly no guarentee. I don't know anyone who votes on a person simply because of their profession of faith, but it may happen in the same way a person would vote for a candidate because of their race, gender, where they grew up, and other cursory factors. Debates and speeches mean very little compared to information found here: www.ontheissues.org/default.htm . I want someone to walk the walk, not talk the talk, which is the source of my dismay in government.
As a voting Christian????
Why would you call yourself that? You're a voting American. You're a worshiping Christian. Your religion and your politics are two different things. Unless of course you'd like to use the government to push your religious views on people. That's what people are doing right now.
You cannot use the government to push your religious views on someone and still say you live in a free country. Think about that. So why would you even consider your religion when voting? What's more important is to consider whether or not you think people should be allowed to live their own lives free from the influence of government.
If you want to convince someone to live a certain way, then go out in the streets and preach to them. But don't go using my tax dollars to force what you consider right or wrong on myself or other people.
wtf.
its all about the killing of babies or if you prefer the unborn- and the most nastiest, partial birth abortion.
like it or not, societies do need legislation for its populace.
the government does have its purposes- be it state or federal.
so yes, vote democrat if you are ok with minors getting abortions without parental consent.
vote republican if you have common sense.
This country was setup for a weak federal government meant to have very little influence in our life and for legislation outside of what's given to that federal government to be given to the states to decide.
State rights are meant to cause competitiveness and choice. I'm sorry you feel that it's necessary to make a decision for someone and not give them options in America. But we weren't setup that way. So take your religious beliefs and practice them on your own. In the meantime, quit stealing my income and using it to force your agenda onto others.
There are religions that are recognized in America that do not consider abortion murder. Judaism is one. Judaism does not believe that the soul enters a person until birth. Not at conception. So, a Jewish person might decide to move to a state that allows abortions if that were a big enough issue for them.
Not everyone believes as you do. That's just the way it goes. And sorry again, but this is not a democracy, so mob rules does not float in this country as well. So just because you have the most people on your side does not give you the right to take away others freedoms.
State rights is where this abortion issue should lie. But you made this bed with your belief in big federal government, now lay in it. You neo-conservatives are just as much for big federal government growth as the Dems are.
yea. it takes alot of tax dollars to say no abortions allowed after second and third trimester.
im not asking for your tax dollars. im just asking my government to excercise leadership in common sense initiatives.
Since you seem so hung up on the abortion issue, maybe some words from the late great Harry Browne might bring some refreshing thoughts about lessened government involvement in our lives and this issue to your mind...
The Libertarian stand on abortion
by Harry Browne
December 21, 1998
The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" should be eliminated from any Libertarian's vocabulary. They give the wrong impression of what Libertarians believe.
When you say you're "pro-choice," half the population is likely to assume you're a liberal who likes Affirmative Action, big government, and a whole range of other liberal stands.
When you say you're "pro-life," the other half of the population probably assumes you're a conservative who likes to legislate morality, wants to put prayer in government schools, and has all sorts of other dandy ideas to run their lives.
Abortion is a sensitive issue on which reasonable people can differ. We achieve nothing when we use a sloganized term to assert a position — acting as though any different position were unreasonable.
Some people believe a fetus is a human being who is entitled to the same right to life that will apply after he's born. Other people see the fetus differently, and believe that women have a right to decide for themselves whether to carry it to birth.
We aren't going to change either group by spouting contrary slogans at them. This will only identify us as opponents to be disregarded on all issues.
In my view, an uncompromising Libertarian position on abortion doesn't have to offend anyone. Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.
This position allows us to offer hope to either side of the debate.
To one side we say: we will not let the government impose its way upon you.
To the other side we say: if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you. Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion — such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws, encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, repealing the income tax so that parents can afford to spend time teaching their children the values that will minimize teenage pregnancies. Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.
We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives — nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution.
===============================
Careful, someday you might end up in that minority and have something that you find morally questionable imposed upon you. You seem like a good 'ol follow the line neo-con. How would you like it if the federal government said that it was going to force you to cough up tax dollars for newly recognized gay marriage rights? Would that make you a bit angry? Or maybe you'd like it better if that matter were left up to the states like it should be so you can pick which state you live in and avoid that if it bothers you?
We pull together as a country to defend our freedoms. Not to take them away from one another. If those rights to freedom are threatened, then that's what the federal government is for is to defend them. Not to act as our nanny and manipulate our behavior.
I don't like your religion. I think it sucks. Don't force it down my throat. I don't like abortion either, but I don't like taking choice away from a person. In the matter of rape or incest, I think a woman should completely have the option there. So, to me your religion means squat. Does that burn? Then you know how I feel when you try to force something you believe down my throat.
i assume you are a constitutionalist?
i love the constitution as well.
show me where it says, it is the states rights to allow a woman to choose to kill her fetus or not.
godlessness in a society is where we differ, my non-neo conservative friend.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
Since you seem so hung up on the abortion issue, maybe some words from the late great Harry Browne might bring some refreshing thoughts about lessened government involvement in our lives and this issue to your mind...
The Libertarian stand on abortion
by Harry Browne
December 21, 1998
The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" should be eliminated from any Libertarian's vocabulary. They give the wrong impression of what Libertarians believe.
When you say you're "pro-choice," half the population is likely to assume you're a liberal who likes Affirmative Action, big government, and a whole range of other liberal stands.
When you say you're "pro-life," the other half of the population probably assumes you're a conservative who likes to legislate morality, wants to put prayer in government schools, and has all sorts of other dandy ideas to run their lives.
Abortion is a sensitive issue on which reasonable people can differ. We achieve nothing when we use a sloganized term to assert a position — acting as though any different position were unreasonable.
Some people believe a fetus is a human being who is entitled to the same right to life that will apply after he's born. Other people see the fetus differently, and believe that women have a right to decide for themselves whether to carry it to birth.
We aren't going to change either group by spouting contrary slogans at them. This will only identify us as opponents to be disregarded on all issues.
In my view, an uncompromising Libertarian position on abortion doesn't have to offend anyone. Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.
This position allows us to offer hope to either side of the debate.
To one side we say: we will not let the government impose its way upon you.
To the other side we say: if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you. Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion — such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws, encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, repealing the income tax so that parents can afford to spend time teaching their children the values that will minimize teenage pregnancies. Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.
We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives — nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution.
the issue is
democrats are for abortions and late term murders,
republicans are not.
regardless of state or federal. a government is a government. it governs your lives.
morality is the question.
vote your conscience if it matters much to you.
that is all.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
I am a Christian and I consider my vote extremely important. Therefore, I look at all the candidates and see which ones line up the most with the Bible. If its a democrat, I'll vote democrat. Independent? I'll vote that. Republican? I'll vote republican. It has nothing to do with party association, but rather values and beliefs.
Blessings,
MMO migrant.
Careful, someday you might end up in that minority and have something that you find morally questionable imposed upon you. You seem like a good 'ol follow the line neo-con. How would you like it if the federal government said that it was going to force you to cough up tax dollars for newly recognized gay marriage rights? Would that make you a bit angry? Or maybe you'd like it better if that matter were left up to the states like it should be so you can pick which state you live in and avoid that if it bothers you?
We pull together as a country to defend our freedoms. Not to take them away from one another. If those rights to freedom are threatened, then that's what the federal government is for is to defend them. Not to act as our nanny and manipulate our behavior.
I don't like your religion. I think it sucks. Don't force it down my throat. I don't like abortion either, but I don't like taking choice away from a person. In the matter of rape or incest, I think a woman should completely have the option there. So, to me your religion means squat. Does that burn? Then you know how I feel when you try to force something you believe down my throat.
i assume you are a constitutionalist?
i love the constitution as well.
show me where it says, it is the states rights to allow a woman to choose to kill her fetus or not.
godlessness in a society is where we differ, my non-neo conservative friend.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I don't believe abortion is a federal issue. It never should have been. It was the federal government overstepping its authority. You want Roe v. Wade overturned, right? Well, if it is, do you seriously think it is then going to become anything other than a state issue? Once Roe v. Wade is overturned it's going to go right back to the states to decide, as it should have.
===============================
Since you seem so hung up on the abortion issue, maybe some words from the late great Harry Browne might bring some refreshing thoughts about lessened government involvement in our lives and this issue to your mind...
The Libertarian stand on abortion
by Harry Browne
December 21, 1998
The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" should be eliminated from any Libertarian's vocabulary. They give the wrong impression of what Libertarians believe.
When you say you're "pro-choice," half the population is likely to assume you're a liberal who likes Affirmative Action, big government, and a whole range of other liberal stands.
When you say you're "pro-life," the other half of the population probably assumes you're a conservative who likes to legislate morality, wants to put prayer in government schools, and has all sorts of other dandy ideas to run their lives.
Abortion is a sensitive issue on which reasonable people can differ. We achieve nothing when we use a sloganized term to assert a position — acting as though any different position were unreasonable.
Some people believe a fetus is a human being who is entitled to the same right to life that will apply after he's born. Other people see the fetus differently, and believe that women have a right to decide for themselves whether to carry it to birth.
We aren't going to change either group by spouting contrary slogans at them. This will only identify us as opponents to be disregarded on all issues.
In my view, an uncompromising Libertarian position on abortion doesn't have to offend anyone. Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.
This position allows us to offer hope to either side of the debate.
To one side we say: we will not let the government impose its way upon you.
To the other side we say: if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you. Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion — such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws, encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, repealing the income tax so that parents can afford to spend time teaching their children the values that will minimize teenage pregnancies. Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.
We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives — nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution.
the issue is
democrats are for abortions and late term murders,
republicans are not.
regardless of state or federal. a government is a government. it governs your lives.
morality is the question.
vote your conscience if it matters much to you.
that is all.
I govern my life.
I expect the government to do nothing more than protect my freedoms when they are threatened.
===============================
Thank you for that public message in support of a democracy style of government.
So, uhhhmmmmm, what happens if I think your religion is a load of crap? You're going to force it down my throat too?
===============================
Since you seem so hung up on the abortion issue, maybe some words from the late great Harry Browne might bring some refreshing thoughts about lessened government involvement in our lives and this issue to your mind...
The Libertarian stand on abortion
by Harry Browne
December 21, 1998
The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" should be eliminated from any Libertarian's vocabulary. They give the wrong impression of what Libertarians believe.
When you say you're "pro-choice," half the population is likely to assume you're a liberal who likes Affirmative Action, big government, and a whole range of other liberal stands.
When you say you're "pro-life," the other half of the population probably assumes you're a conservative who likes to legislate morality, wants to put prayer in government schools, and has all sorts of other dandy ideas to run their lives.
Abortion is a sensitive issue on which reasonable people can differ. We achieve nothing when we use a sloganized term to assert a position — acting as though any different position were unreasonable.
Some people believe a fetus is a human being who is entitled to the same right to life that will apply after he's born. Other people see the fetus differently, and believe that women have a right to decide for themselves whether to carry it to birth.
We aren't going to change either group by spouting contrary slogans at them. This will only identify us as opponents to be disregarded on all issues.
In my view, an uncompromising Libertarian position on abortion doesn't have to offend anyone. Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.
This position allows us to offer hope to either side of the debate.
To one side we say: we will not let the government impose its way upon you.
To the other side we say: if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you. Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion — such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws, encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, repealing the income tax so that parents can afford to spend time teaching their children the values that will minimize teenage pregnancies. Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.
We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives — nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution.
the issue is
democrats are for abortions and late term murders,
republicans are not.
regardless of state or federal. a government is a government. it governs your lives.
morality is the question.
vote your conscience if it matters much to you.
that is all.
I govern my life.
I expect the government to do nothing more than protect my freedoms when they are threatened.
except of course, states rights for abortions.
isnt that a contradiction.
im proud of my point!
federal govt. state govt.
tell me the difference.
the states have the right to choose what laws it adopts.
please.
the answer is and always will be morality of the party.god or godlessness.
so yes. vote party lines. unless of course your the highly coveted, ultra vaunted independent (:rollfuckineyes)
if you happen to find a pro life democrat, whom is appealing, by all means excercise your right to have him govern your life, in your state of choosing.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
Thank you for that public message in support of a democracy style of government.
So, uhhhmmmmm, what happens if I think your religion is a load of crap? You're going to force it down my throat too?
noone forces anything down your throat in regards to the bible. america is the land where americans tolerate varying worships. you do not need to worship the bible or kuran to recieve welfare checks or eat free lunches.
guess what? the bible is forever gone from the public school system.
guess what? the pledge of allegiance is next.
some can argue the downward spiral of americas education the further it moves from god.
but im public school educated, so it wont be me.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
1964.
Ask a cop about 1964. In regards to this country and crime.
Then do a little homework and find out what else happened in 1964.
Regarding Evangelicals.. I laugh at how the left thinks they want to take over and control their lives when liberals are EXACTLY about doing just that. They want to regulate EVERYTHING from cradle to grave, making this country a nation of averages.
The reason it's important to an evangelical to have one in politics is because at least evangelicals believe in morality, justice, and the rule of law. Every chance the left gets they knock a little more of that away in the form of banned prayer, the ten commandments, the freaking manger scene at christmas for crying out loud.
Even Dawkins said he hoped churches would some day be removed from society... so ya, freedom is being attacked and it matters for that reason more than ever.
The individual is the wellspring of conservatism. The purpose of conservative politics is to defend the liberty of the individual and-lest individualism run riot-insist upon individual responsibility.
The great religions (and conservatives are known for approving of God) teach salvation as an individual matter. There are no group discounts in the Ten Commandments, Christ was not a committee, and Allah does not welcome believers into Paradise saying, "You weren't much good yourself, but you were standing near some good people." That we are individuals-unique, disparate and willful-is something we understand instinctively from an early age. No child ever wrote to Santa: "Bring me-and a bunch of kids I've never met-a pony, and we'll share."
Virtue is famously lonely. Also vice, as anyone can testify who ever told his mother, "All the other guys were doing it." We experience pleasure separately; Ethan Hawke may go out on any number of wild dates, but I'm able to sleep through them. And, although we may be sorry for people who suffer, we only "feel their pain" when we're full of baloney and running for office.
Huckabee gets individual votes.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
You have the right to believe what you want and I respect your right. Also, I said nothing about forcing anything down anyone's throat.
Blessings,
MMO migrant.
I think what we're kind of tip-toeing around here is the question of why an evangelical would be more qualified to perform secular politics than anyone else. Especially considering that a person cannot be given any kind of religious test before taking any government office. The founding fathers were very adamant about that.
To answer your original question, it would be best to look at what Christians believe in order to understand why people do the things people do.
As a Christian, I believe that through my faith in Jesus the Messiah, I have been grafted into the promises of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). I believe my citizenship is in Heaven (New Jerusalem), not on this planet. I'm believe I'm an alien in a foreign land. I believe I am an ambassador of another Kingdom. Since I believe those things, I live accordingly. If I live apart of a Kingdom of life, then I want to see life honored and upheld in this temoporay 'citizenship'. Although I was born in the USA and I am a USA citizen, I do not partisipate in the pledge of alliegence. That is for another time, though.
That gives context to why Christians may seem to do seemingly silly things. I ultimately don't care if taxes are raised or lowered. Money is money - you enter the world with nothing and you leave with nothing. What I care about are issues that are touchy and moral based, such as life, righteousness, establishment and security of marriage between a man and a women only, etc etc.
Therefore, I will vote according to those beliefs. I hope that makes sense. This is a very 'on the go' post and is in no way comprehensive.
Blessings,
MMO migrant.
don't mind me, im about to bludgeon your post and lend it nothing. it is very clear and concise and unarguable- kudos
so you see, what the author is trying to say here is that God see's through democrats and respectfully requests that you dont vote them in to office.
God endorses McCain
he shall bestow upon the 7.4% the light.
ZOGBY WEDNESDAY: OBAMA 48.2%, MCCAIN 44.4%... NOT SURE 7.4%... DEVELOPING...
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
ill agree that obama is cool. i'd get jiggy with him in da club or something. watch a football game, high fives and pigs in blanket fun(with lipstick)
but, he is bought and paid for by a silly moveon.org and other nefarious regimes. he'll owe them and the likes of acorn props and favors- these people would love nothing more than to subvert our individual liberties and weaken our national defense.
mccain on the other hand, well, he's not obama. (and no romney or thompson) but he's got that sexy conservative who is youthful and energetic with founded principles. she doesnt want to force religion down peoples throats, but im sure she'd want to do something about christian holocausts that are currently active today in parts of the world. with great power, comes great responsibility peter.moral clarity.
besides look here, canada is moving towards conservatism more and more these days. they know ultimately that liberal policies, socialism- just cant work. and make no mistake, obama is a liberal.
words from hillary, mccain will be ready on day one.
lets just hope acorn doesnt subvert democracy. another questionable connection to obama.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-