posted
As a Christian I have in the past found it very hard to for the Democrats. I guess the usual two main reasons apply, Abortion and SSM. While I am still against these things I have come to realize there are many, sometimes more important issues to consider.
After reading Bono's “Conversation" book and hearing from some other Christian people I have come to realize we could have done a lot more to create an atmosphere of peace in the Mid. East by going out and helping the poorest people in the world. Just imagine what the world would think about the US if we had spend hundreds of billions on feeding the poorest people in the world or distributing medicine to those struck with AIDS in Africa, instead of going to war with Iraq. If anyone did attack us they would have been torn apart in the media and the collective minds for hurting the country who was doing so much to help the needy. I don't see any calls in the bible for helping the rich, or the government. But I do see alot of calls for helping the poor and needy.
I will have to admit that I got caught up in the 9/11 patriotism wave. I had no problem with the war in Afghanistan, and I had naive hopes that somehow, against common sense, Bush would workout some kind of democracy in Iraq. I still do believe that Saddam needed to be thrown out, but no more than half a dozen other world leaders. Now it seems we are stuck with a much worse Mid. east than before and there is no signs of a happy ending.
The concept of pre-emptive peace instead of pre-emptive war sounds like a beautiful thing to me. I wish there was a way to turn back the clock change things and show everyone what a wonderful world it could be when we turn the other cheek.
So as a Christian I apologize for latching on to the republican party for their support of two issues while looking the other way, many times more important issues. I will try to vote for people on a case by case basis taking in to account all of their views not just one or two.
Not saying I will vote for the Democrats , but I will consider it. I am becoming less and less of a fan of the two party system. It makes so hard to vote when you are strapped into voting for either/or, feeling like if you vote for someone else you are throwing your vote away.
I am still pist that the balanced budget became a Democratic thing. You would think the business savy Republicans would have been all over it.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apology accepted, Carver. I think that what you wrote makes a lot of sense. What's wrong with doing what's right?
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carver, I heard a talk by an Evangelical author (Jim Wallis) who says some very similar things -- what Christianity would REALLY mean if it were to be involved in government.
It was a fascinating talk.
He wasn't fond of either the right or the left-leaning parties in this country. He has some choice words for both of them, and for all of us.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points. The problems I have with the modern Republican party is how they insist on doing illogical things like cutting taxes for people who don't need tax cuts during a time of war! Where is the logic in that? There's other problems I have too, but I don't want to offend Republicans...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Carver, will you apologize again when the Democrats gain power and seem to abuse it, and all their talk about balancing the budget turns out to be lip service?
It has never been the role of the government to turn the other cheek. It's been the responsibility of responsible individuals to turn the other cheek, but if my goverment looked the other way when my rights were violated, or when people were trying to kill me, that would be abominable.
It was the responsiblity of the government, after 9/11, to provide for the common defense. That's in the Constitution. You might disagree with the methods, but to say we should have turned the other cheek as a National policy issue doesn't make sense to me.
It was the responsibility of the government to step in and try to make things safer for Americans. It was the responsibility of you and I, as Christians, to find forgiveness for and ways to express our love for the individual people of the Middle East.
The government should most assuredly not be a Christian institution operating on Christian values.
On the other hand, a great many Christian institutions could be doing more to influence the world--and the perception of the religion around the world--than they currently are.
If Christians truly feel helping the individuals of those countries would do more good than the war has, it's up to individual Christians to express that through the organizations they create and contribute to.
But please do not make the mistake of thinking that simply because one party is adept at pointing out the motes in their neighbor's eye, their hearts are pure.
You will find yourself deeply dissapointed if you try to find, in either party, a complete reflection of Christian values that will leave you feeling free from guilt.
I am not saying you'd find it any better staying in the Republican party. But I am saying that other sources (Maybe even the guy Bob's talking about--don't know anything about him) might offer you more insight than Bono.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to tell you, but judging by the thread title, the Republicans might be justified saying 'improves both parties'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have Wallis's book and found it so repetitive that I couldn't finish it, but I did agree somewhat with the one point he kept making. Hopefully he is a better speaker
Doc,
As I said I am become more and more disenchanted with the two party system. It seems to come down to you're for or against me. There is no room for compromise or even just stopping to listen to what the other side has to stay. Both sides are just waiting for the other side to make a mistake instead of trying to come up with solutions.
I don't believe we should just let ourselves be abused. We do have to defend ourselves. Obviously there are no easy answers. We will never please everyone, but if we as a country are out there helping people it makes it a lot harder to recruit people to hate us. If a group of Americans just came to your village immunized your children and dug a well so you don't have to walk two hours to get drinking water then its going to take some might persuasive auguring to convince you that the US is Satan incarnate.
Oh well off to bed
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally don't understand why the two issues you brought up are such a problem. Surely you could just choose not to participate in those actions, let other people live how they themselves think is correct and vote for someone that isn't a total raving lunatic.
Then again, my country has managed to keep John Howard as leader for ten years or so now, so I can hardly point stones. And while we technically don't have a two-party system, we might as well have.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally don't understand why the two issues you brought up are such a problem. Surely you could just choose not to participate in those actions
Not when you think one of those actions results in the death of an innocent human being.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand why the two issues are considered a problem I just don't understand how people could interpret the Bible in a way to think that Christ would consider stopping abortion and SSM to be a higher priority than stopping wars, being merciful towards criminals, and helping the poor or unfortunate.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They very likely don't, Tresopax. Many of us don't see the Democrats as being more likely to stop wars or create a system where the poor and unfortunate are helped more.
The differences are not only in first principles but in differences in practical matters.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should also be noted, Tres, that not even the highest estimates of the lives lost in the conflict in Iraq since the 2003 invasion come close to the number of lives lost to abortion in one year in America.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It all comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. If I lived in the U.S., I would probably throw away my vote on an Independant who falls into neither category.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of us consider it helping to build viable third parties, rather than throwing our vote away. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might be a pipe dream where you live, Samprimary, but it's not here. (Minnesota.) If a third party gets 5% of the vote in any race in the election, they get major party funding for the next year. We've had two parties make that in the last decade, an Independant branch and the Green Party. We have several Green Party officials at the local level, and you may remember our former governor, Jesse Ventura, who was an Independant. So we may be taking baby steps, but they're steps all the same.
I don't vote on party lines, I vote for the individual people running. But as long as the two major parties put forth career politicians who are practically indistinguishable from each other, I ain't voting for them. And when my city council member has gotten a little more experience I fully expect him to run for a spot in the state legislature. And that's how third parties grow. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
