Christians, Romney and the "establishment"

[XD40scinNC]

And all of them claim to be human. So according to your logic we should demonize all humans. Which of course shows your logic to have absolutely no logic at all. Or common sense for that matter. Hate much?

No, but followers of any religion should not follow someone else merely because they "say" they are christian or whatever sect they profess to follow. I vote for the person, based on their character, views, and track record, not religion or party which is why our political system is swimming in self-serving greed and corruption of the totally corrupt.

The more a person professes their religious views, the more warning bells go off in my mind for it is often a false front. Same with the very vocal homophobic, for they are also hiding or compensating for something.

Now talking about demonizing everyone, perhaps you should re-read your post.

 

[BluesStringer]

Will you please either link to an example of where I said that sort of thing on this forum or retract your statement?

No.

 

[Nadir Point]

Non sequitur. Theoretically, practically any policy would have the support of at least SOME religion or religious group somewhere, so your attempt at connection here would fall flat even if it were applicable to the government rather than to voters, which it obviously isn't.

Red Herring. We're talking about voters and their motivation - not politicians and policies. I'll assume you are simply reading comprehension challenged.

 

[Nadir Point]

No.

Then by default it is at best hearsay not to be believed, and IMHO, merely bafflegab of the intellectually dishonest.

 

[Oldgrunt]

No, but followers of any religion should not follow someone else merely because they "say" they are christian or whatever sect they profess to follow. I vote for the person, based on their character, views, and track record, not religion or party which is why our political system is swimming in self-serving greed and corruption of the totally corrupt.

The more a person professes their religious views, the more warning bells go off in my mind for it is often a false front. Same with the very vocal homophobic, for they are also hiding or compensating for something.

Now talking about demonizing everyone, perhaps you should re-read your post.

XD: The animus held by you and Nadir Point against religion/religious has clouded your judgement to the point that neither of you are able to produce a cogent argument. You are only able to infer that people are incapable of making sound decisions simply because they happen to consider religious affiliation/belief in their selection process during an election. You are the one who is demonizing everyone who professes a religious belief and you "hear warning bells" with which you consider someone to be putting on a "false front." You are exhibiting the bitter hatred for Christians that you accuse us of having for those who do not follow God's laws. But, hate is your word, not ours. I do not consider anyone professing to be a Christian as a saint. None of us are, only forgiven of our sins. But, for them to profess their religion indicates to me that there may be a modicum of religion and morality in them, characteristics I consider very important in any selection process. If I find those characteristics to be absent, I would never consider voting for that person. As do you, I look at other factors in any selection process but I refuse to let my opinion be tainted by anyone who can't acknowledge that people can be religious and as good a citizen as you or I.

I agree that our political system is corrupt but I would like to point out one small fact. WE, collectively, in our voting processes, have put the crooked people in office that have so undermined the government. Our downfall has been at the hands of the greedy, and they have been supported by voters who are also greedy and looking for the handouts. Perhaps, if both the politicians and the voters had more religious values, we would not be in such dire straits. Just sayin'.......

 

[XD40scinNC]

But, hate is your word, not ours. I do not consider anyone professing to be a Christian as a saint. None of us are, only forgiven of our sins.

No you have that bass ackwards. If I have an issue with someone, it is due to their actions or deeds, not blindly because of race, gender, or whom they happen to love.

Forgiven for your sins? What flaw caused you to sin in the first place, or do you subscribe to the self-deprecating concept that you were born with sin? Or are we talking about silly things like 'lusting in your heart' or 'coveting' which has been branded by religion as a sin, making religion the 'thought police' for the gullible. But either way, 3 hail mary's and all is good, what a cop out.

I don't expect anyone to be a saint, but honest and ethical would be a good start. A lifetime of dealing with businessmen here in the bible belt, the man that wears his christianity on his sleeve is often presenting a false front and should not be trusted. Fortunately I only encountered a handful, but they all wore their religion on their sleeve, or wanted to pray over a contract with me. There is a real reason to those warning bells, the reality of the actions or deeds of such dishonest and unethical people professing to be christian as a guise.

 

[BluesStringer]

Then by default it is at best hearsay not to be believed, and IMHO, merely bafflegab of the intellectually dishonest.

No, it's just a refusal to acquiesce to the demands of someone whose posted tripe has proven many times to my satisfaction that s/he doesn't understand the constitutional basis or meanings of religious freedom.

 

[Nadir Point]

No, it's just a refusal to acquiesce to the demands of someone whose posted tripe has proven many times to my satisfaction that s/he doesn't understand the constitutional basis or meanings of religious freedom.

Well that's expected. You have time to argue, but no time to support your own statements. That basically makes you a liar.

 

[Reba]

Technically no - not at face value. But it's also obvious it is done with the implication you anticipate your candidate, if elected, will support church-friendly policies and so forth in your favor.

Whatever criteria one uses for candidate selection, I would assume would reflect the voter's interests whatever they may be.

What are "church-friendly" policies? Which church? I don't know of any one-size-fits-all church policies for secular governments.

As a Christian voter, I want leaders I can trust, who support the Constitution, and have a conservative viewpoint. That leader might be Christian, might not be.

 

[Rhino]

No, but followers of any religion should not follow someone else merely because they "say" they are christian or whatever sect they profess to follow.

I never saw anyone say they were doing that.
.

I vote for the person, based on their character, views, and track record, not religion or party which is why our political system is swimming in self-serving greed and corruption of the totally corrupt.

Our political system is swimming in self-serving greed and corruption of the totally corrupt because you vote for the person, based on their character, views, and track record? Just kidding. Couldn't resist. So if a group of people or an organization supports the principles, political views and applauds the same political track records that you do, why would it be improper for you to identify with them? You believe people should be members of no organizations that supports the same political goals that they do? That's a pretty radical notion, and it puts you WAY outside the mainstream.
.

The more a person professes their religious views, the more warning bells go off in my mind for it is often a false front. Same with the very vocal homophobic, for they are also hiding or compensating for something.

So your answer to people that don't embrace homosexuality is to become a bigoted hater yourself. Yep, that'll solve lots of problems. I never agreed with the word homophobia. A phobia is a fear, and Christians don't fear homosexuals. They simply don't agree with the lifestyle. And while you can certainly find some haters of homosexuals out there just as we've found a hater of Christians here, hate is not an identifying characteristic of a Christian. Trying to label Christians as haters based on the actions or statements of a few is like saying all New Yorkers are terrorists because Timothy McVeigh was from New York. That kind of logic indicates an ignorant mind woefully unaware of facts. But attempting to turn it around and use it as a basis for the very hate you claim to be fighting also shows it to be the argument of a lazy mind that's unwilling to expend the effort to find the facts or heed them. You can't decry hate while spreading it thick as molasses.
.

Now talking about demonizing everyone, perhaps you should re-read your post.

Maybe you should re-read mine. I never said you were talking about demonizing everyone. I said your ridiculously faulty logic would work out that way if people were dumb enough to try to use it. But you are still demonizing.

 

[Rhino]

Red Herring. We're talking about voters and their motivation - not politicians and policies. I'll assume you are simply reading comprehension challenged.

ROFLMAO!!! If it's a red herring then it's yours. You're the one who talked about someone's' "candidate, if elected, will support church-friendly policies". I was simply responding to what you said. But hey, if you're now saying that your original comments were a red herring, then okay. Fine by me.

 

[Reba]

or common sense. Some of the most corrupt and unethical people refer to themselves as 'christians', a meaningless term for 90%+ of those that so label themselves.

Sadly, there is no certification or documentation required for someone to self identify as Christian. Anyone can say, "I'm a Christian." No one can know another's heart but we can be discerning. If that person's own words deny a trust in Jesus Christ, or that person doesn't give a clear-cut testimony of a salvation experience, or that person's actions ("fruits") don't follow the teachings of Jesus, then we can be skeptical of that person's profession to being a Christian.

If candidates are corrupt or unethical, I don't vote for them. Period. I don't care if they say they're Christian or not. Just saying "I'm Christian" doesn't automatically get my vote. I didn't vote for Jimmy Carter. I don't doubt his personal relationship with the Lord but his political policies and lack of leadership weren't mine to support.

 

[Rhino]

Sadly, there is no certification or documentation required for someone to self identify as Christian. Anyone can say, "I'm a Christian." No one can know another's heart but we can be discerning. If that person's own words deny a trust in Jesus Christ, or that person doesn't give a clear-cut testimony of a salvation experience, or that person's actions ("fruits") don't follow the teachings of Jesus, then we can be skeptical of that person's profession to being a Christian.
.
If candidates are corrupt or unethical, I don't vote for them. Period. I don't care if they say they're Christian or not. Just saying "I'm Christian" doesn't automatically get my vote. I didn't vote for Jimmy Carter. I don't doubt his personal relationship with the Lord but his political policies and lack of leadership weren't mine to support.

And you highlight another reason why people don't simply vote for someone because they're a Christian. The definition isn't the same for everyone. My wife is Catholic and I'm Protestant. Her religious definitions are quite different from mine. Definitions can differ dramatically among Protestant religions, and I've seen some fairly fundamental differences in interpretations between two different Baptist churches. So this claim that Christian is a meaningless term for more than 90% of those that so label themselves that XD40scinNC is tossing around is complete hogwash. It's just something he's made up so he can justify his hate, just like racists used to make claims that black people had smaller brains and stuff like that. It's a standard tactic of bigots. If you don't have a logical basis for your hate, make something up and keep repeating it.

 

[Reba]

No you have that bass ackwards. If I have an issue with someone, it is due to their actions or deeds, not blindly because of race, gender, or whom they happen to love.

Forgiven for your sins? What flaw caused you to sin in the first place, or do you subscribe to the self-deprecating concept that you were born with sin? Or are we talking about silly things like 'lusting in your heart' or 'coveting' which has been branded by religion as a sin, making religion the 'thought police' for the gullible. But either way, 3 hail mary's and all is good, what a cop out.

All people are born with sin natures--true equality there, no favoritism. We have all committed sins, whether we label them as such or not. There is no monolith "religion" but there is one God, and it is He who named sin as sin. Sins of the heart and mind, if not dealt with, will lead to sins of commission.

As an independent Baptist, I've never said even one hail Mary. When I have a sin to deal with, I go directly to God for forgiveness, and then to whatever individual/s I might have harmed with my sin, to make things right. God's forgiveness restores our relationship; it doesn't wipe out consequences, so there is no "cop out."

I don't expect anyone to be a saint, but honest and ethical would be a good start.

That's fair.

A lifetime of dealing with businessmen here in the bible belt, the man that wears his christianity on his sleeve is often presenting a false front and should not be trusted. Fortunately I only encountered a handful, but they all wore their religion on their sleeve, or wanted to pray over a contract with me. There is a real reason to those warning bells, the reality of the actions or deeds of such dishonest and unethical people professing to be christian as a guise.

That's true for anyone, professed Christian or not. Crooked Christians should be held accountable, even more so, for the very reason that you have shown--one bad action by a "Christian" taints all Christians in the eyes of the world.

 

[Nadir Point]

Whatever criteria one uses for candidate selection, I would assume would reflect the voter's interests whatever they may be.

What are "church-friendly" policies? Which church? I don't know of any one-size-fits-all church policies for secular governments.

As a Christian voter, I want leaders I can trust, who support the Constitution, and have a conservative viewpoint. That leader might be Christian, might not be.

So you agree with an elected public servant making decisions and policy based on a religious preference?

 

[Nadir Point]

Sadly, there is no certification or documentation required for someone to self identify as Christian.

So unfortunately there is no one to blame for the tax-exempt status and christian ethos ingrained in our culture from the beginning.

How convenient. :fie:

 

[Reba]

So you agree with an elected public servant making decisions and policy based on a religious preference?

Not a religious preference but guided by principles that aren't in conflict with biblical principles.

 

[Reba]

So unfortunately there is no one to blame for the tax-exempt status and christian ethos ingrained in our culture from the beginning.

How convenient. :fie:

"Blame"?

 

[BluesStringer]

Well that's expected. You have time to argue, but no time to support your own statements. That basically makes you a liar.

I've got all the time in the world, or at least all the time I have left in this world, to argue or not as I see fit and with whom I see fit. There's a big difference between lying about something and refusing to let you goad me into proving something that I have already confirmed for myself is true - that being, that you don't understand what the founding principle of religious freedom means from a purely academic, constitutional perspective. Because of that misunderstanding, you have posted many times promulgating thoughts that are counter to our constitutionally-acknowledged rights of religious freedom, and the post that Reba replied to you about, and that I replied secondarily to her about, proves it when you said:

Doesn't voting based on religion fly in the face of the separation of church and state doctrine?

Especially in the context of all you self-ascribed constitutionals? How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction in your devout, yet constitutionally strict minds?

What you call an "obvious contradiction" is proof positive that you don't understand the first thing about what Jefferson meant when he coined the phrase, "...a wall of separation between church and state." I have taken note of your lack of understanding in this regard on many occasions, and have no desire to try to educate you concerning the true meaning of the phrase as-further expounded upon in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, CT Baptists in 1802. Jefferson was simply answering a series of questions from the Baptists. He certainly wasn't intending or claiming to be documenting some "doctrine" as you describe it that cannot be found articulated anywhere within The Constitution. The Constitution is law that supports individuals and groups as practicing their own doctrines within the many varied religions and faiths present in this country as they see fit, without fear of intrusion or recriminations from government for said practices.

Jefferson himself would tell you that the First Amendment was written to protect the notion that government must maintain a hands-off approach to practices of faith, while the faithful are free in every respect to participate in the processes of government, including running for and/or sitting as an elected government official, or campaigning for or voting for any candidate who stands for Christian values, or campaigning against or voting against anyone who doesn't. I know Jefferson would tell you that because the letter to the Danbury Baptists from which the "wall of separation" phrase was coined essentially told them the very same thing.

In short, there is no contradiction as you have described it, "obvious" or otherwise. The "wall" Jefferson spoke of was erected to protect the faithful from government, not to keep the government free from any and all influences and/or exposures to the faithful.

Blues

 

[Reba]

And you highlight another reason why people don't simply vote for someone because they're a Christian. The definition isn't the same for everyone. My wife is Catholic and I'm Protestant. Her religious definitions are quite different from mine. Definitions can differ dramatically among Protestant religions, and I've seen some fairly fundamental differences in interpretations between two different Baptist churches. So this claim that Christian is a meaningless term for more than 90% of those that so label themselves that XD40scinNC is tossing around is complete hogwash. It's just something he's made up so he can justify his hate, just like racists used to make claims that black people had smaller brains and stuff like that. It's a standard tactic of bigots. If you don't have a logical basis for your hate, make something up and keep repeating it.

A lot of Americans call themselves "Christian" simply because their grandparents were or because it's the default American religion. That is, if they aren't Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, Wiccan, or whatever, then they assume they must be Christian.