Why are you what you are, politically?

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm a Democrat and I'm a Christian-and I think I'm a pretty good Christian too. I try, I fail cause I'm merely human-but I am able to coexist in both worlds quite well. I have good values and morals.

 

[BVS]

Like you, I was raised in a conservative Christian home and I remain, I suppose what would be called a conservative Christian. In fact I'm a missionary so you could definitely say my faith is very important to me.

I just wanted to point out that being a conservative Christian does not necessarily inexorably lead to Republican party orthodoxy.

I'd like to challenge a couple of points you've made and I'd appreciate your responses:

Where's the Biblical support for believers pushing for God to be part of the public sphere? (Remember Jesus lived in a time when God's people were being dominated by an outside pagan power--the Romans--and there were many people eager to put God back into the government. Where did Jesus stand on those issues?)

While on the surface you might make a Biblical argument for "working hard to get ahead and not taking handouts" ususally that kind of statement is code for being against increased social programs from the government. In other words, it's fine for churches to do charitable work but not the government. Where's the Biblical justification for "smaller government" in this sense?

What is the Biblical justification for U.S. foreign policy and defending itself? (I'm not saying it shouldn't, I'm just asking is there a Biblical justification?)

What's the Biblical argument that the environment is unimportant?

What I'm hoping you'll consider is that perhaps your views are more rooted in your culture, what your ministers and sources of news tell you etc rather than the actual teachings of Scripture. After all many of the political views have nothing to do with Christinaity. It's not that a Christian SHOULDN'T hold any of your views, but it would be a mistake to conclude that your being a conservative Christian automatically leads you to the particular political views you hold.

I understand you feel like your way of life is under attack by a secular-humanist worldview but think about the early church. Their way of life really was under attack! All but one of Jesus disciples gave their LIFE for their faith! How did they respond to the assault on Christianity? What should that tell us about how we should respond?

Excellent post.

I really think this brand of conservative Christianity GOP thing, is an American thing created by WASPs. I can't think of another region where Christianity is used and abused in this way.

 

[Irvine511]

LikI understand you feel like your way of life is under attack by a secular-humanist worldview but think about the early church

ah, but see, the secular humanists embrace secularism, which enables the free, unhindered expression of religious freedom, right up until the point that it infringes on anyone else's rights. the government stays out of religion, religion stays out of government, thusly enabling both to flourish.

you want to truly put religious freedom under attack? it's the preference by the government of one religion over another. it's not people smoking pot in Seattle who say "Happy Holidays" and don't go to church.

 

[maycocksean]

ah, but see, the secular humanists embrace secularism, which enables the free, unhindered expression of religious freedom, right up until the point that it infringes on anyone else's rights. the government stays out of religion, religion stays out of government, thusly enabling both to flourish.

you want to truly put religious freedom under attack? it's the preference by the government of one religion over another. it's not people smoking pot in Seattle who say "Happy Holidays" and don't go to church.

Oh, I agree with you. I've always appreciated how you've summed the argument for secular government. I'm just trying to help 2861U2 get a little perspective. . .my point being even IF your way of life is "under attack" there's no Biblical support for "getting God into the public sphere.

 

[Irvine511]

Oh, I agree with you. I've always appreciated how you've summed the argument for secular government. I'm just trying to help 2861U2 get a little perspective. . .my point being even IF your way of life is "under attack" there's no Biblical support for "getting God into the public sphere.

sorry, that might have been phrased wrong -- i know you agree with me. i was trying to buttress your point, not take issue with it.

 

[maycocksean]

sorry, that might have been phrased wrong -- i know you agree with me. i was trying to buttress your point, not take issue with it.

I figured as much

 

[Bluer White]

It's about a scene involving maybe about 10 Americans who were expats, living in Paris. They were discussing differences between two countries. Like the fact that women get 6 months off when they have a baby and an option of another 6 months after that (pay notwithstanding). Like after giving birth, a woman can have a government employee come into her home twice a week for 4 hours to do her laundry, prepare meals, and watch the baby so the woman can have a break. Like the fact that daycare costs the French $1/hour per child. Like the fact that everyone, including part-time employees have 5 weeks of mandatory vacation a year. When you get married, you get an additional 7 days for your honeymoon. Like the fact that if you work past 35 hours a week, that entitles you for more vacation time. Like the fact that working people have unlimited sick days per year: if you are sick, you are sick.

They were saying, is this not family values? That we have more time with our children, that we are not stressed with debt, that the state supports child-rearing and supports mothers and fathers?

The U.S. could take a lesson from some of these provisions. They are very generous and great for families.

But there's a trade-off here as well. France has a relatively stagnant economy. Taxes are high to support the welfare state. The overall unemployment rate is about twice America's. And the unemployment rate for for young adults 25 and under? Between 15 and 20 percent depending on where you look. So there is a high cost that goes along with the many benefits, which are undeniable.

http:// www .insee.fr/en/home/home_page.asp

 

[Irvine511]

it's interesting.

i know several Europeans who live and work in DC, and i knew several Americans who lived and worked in Europe (Belgium and Germany, to be specific).

and they all said the same thing.

if you want to work hard and get ahead and succeed and make money, go to the US.

if you want to live and raise a family, you are much, much better off in Europe.

 

[U2democrat]

I just think the men and the accents over there are better


I do think you're onto something there though.

 

[yolland]

European political economy is not my forte, but my understanding is that labor protection laws in France (which make it very hard to fire people and consequently especially risky to hire young people, etc.)--as well as a longstanding sluggishness in gearing the economy towards high-growth industries--are a much stronger contributor to their high unemployment rate than the cost of child welfare and health services, though the latter obviously do factor in indirectly through payroll taxes and so on. When I taught in southern France last summer (immediately in the wake of the strikes over de Villepin's proposed labor reforms), I also heard repeatedly from colleagues that there's a serious distribution-of-services problem where the people most in need of both employment and social welfare services (i.e. immigrants) are by far the least likely to wind up getting much of either. Unfortunately, I don't myself know enough about the workings of their social services to comment meaningfully on that. It's also my understanding that those European countries which have had considerable success over the last decade in reducing unemployment by trimming back the welfare state (for example, Sweden) have in fact done so at minimal cost to basic services like childcare and healthcare, which are seen as being in the longterm best interests of the economy to support.

I don't really think there are too many working parents here in the US clamoring for guaranteed 5-week vacations or government-furnished nannies 8 hours a week to give mom or dad a break. Making daycare more affordable and maternity *and* paternity leave policies more generous--as well as college tuition more affordable for older children--are much higher priorities for most of us. The kinds of low-paying service jobs that constitute an increasingly larger share of the economy here simply don't pay enough to allow one parent to stay at home all the time, but then as soon as you add on that second paycheck, the resulting need for paid childcare turns right around and eats up most of it, so you can't save anything. And if you live in an economically depressed region with poor schools (which tend to go together), then so much the worse, for both your future and your children's. If I hadn't happened to have very highly educated, albeit poor, parents who quite literally provided us with the equivalent of 10-15 extra hours of schooling a week at home, I don't think I could ever have managed to work my way to the career I have today; much as they wouldn't have come by that level of education themselves if they hadn't had the immense network of private Jewish social services set up for Holocaust refugees to draw upon when they came here. Very few kids where I grew up were that lucky.

Fiscal efficiency is necessary, but so is supporting children's welfare...it's a cliched point to make, but we have no future without them.

 

[financeguy]

I think if Jesus saw the ACLU and other far-lefts doing what they are doing regarding God, He would be appalled and very dissapointed.

Can you explain why you think the ACLU are far left?

 

[maycocksean]

it's interesting.

i know several Europeans who live and work in DC, and i knew several Americans who lived and worked in Europe (Belgium and Germany, to be specific).

and they all said the same thing.

if you want to work hard and get ahead and succeed and make money, go to the US.

if you want to live and raise a family, you are much, much better off in Europe.

Whoa, whoa. Careful now. You wouldn't be questioning the sanctity of the American Dream now would you?

 

[BVS]

Can you explain why you think the ACLU are far left?

Rush told him so...

 

[A_Wanderer]

Can you explain why you think the ACLU are far left?

Because they champion the same causes as the left at the expense of social conservatism, but that doesn't make them wrong.

 

[2861U2]

Can you explain why you think the ACLU are far left?

reasons include, but are not limited to:

1) Taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance
2) Removal of God from the public schools
3) Supporting partial-birth abortion
4) Supporting same-sex marriage
5) Supporting unlimited immigration and open borders
6) Defending terrorists held at Gitmo, not wanting the US to treat them as the enemy combatants that they are
7) Supporting the Phelps-Roper maniacs and the Westboro Baptists Church
8) Support of NAMBLA and refusal to fight pedophilia
9) Support of the decriminalization of narcotics

The ACLU used to be an admirable organization. However, they are no longer a free speech organization but are a far-left group only striving to push their own agenda.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I support more or less all of the above, does that make me far left?

 

[2861U2]

I support more or less all of the above, does that make me far left?

You support NAMBLA?
You support the Westboro Baptist Church?
You support open borders?
You support taking God out of the Pledge, and/or not requiring the Pledge be said in public schools?

If you indeed do, then yes, I would put you in that category.

Bring on the "YOU'RE MAKING GENERALIZATIONS!" crowd....

 

[A_Wanderer]

I support the right to free speech and free association, I support the principle of secularism namely the government neither promoting or persecuting religious belief and I believe that as individuals we have sovereignty over our own bodies and minds.

If you have no appreciation for liberty and individualism then how is your theocratic ideology any different from leftist collectivists? I mean that quite seriously, the totalitarianism of state being used to enforce the doctrines of God usually ends up crushing the individual just as much if not more than other forms of statism. One can be vigorously opposed to Islamic fascism and still be supportive of liberties (both social and economic); I simply don't see Big Religious Government (the so called "Christian Right") as anything other than socially authoritarian statists who by measure of how much they want to interfere with individuals lives are not really right wing and are in so many ways anti-American.

 

[LemonMelon]

I'm probably more towards the right, but the only things I'm really all that concerned about is abortion and border control. Gun control, homosexual rights and other such things don't really concern me either way.

 

[Diemen]

You support NAMBLA?
You support the Westboro Baptist Church?
You support open borders?
You support taking God out of the Pledge, and/or not requiring the Pledge be said in public schools?

If you indeed do, then yes, I would put you in that category.

Bring on the "YOU'RE MAKING GENERALIZATIONS!" crowd....

You have one thing very, very wrong in your assessment of the ACLU. Supporting a group's right to free speech is not the same as supporting that group's message. Free speech is not free-unless-I-disagree-with-you speech.

And in regards to taking God out of the pledge of allegiance (read: returning it to its original form), what of the Hindu and Buddhist (not to mention atheist) children who are in school? Should they be forced to pledge allegiance to a nation under a divine being they don't believe in?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Why should an atheists taxes go to an education system force children to acknowledge a supernatural (read impossible) entity?

 

[LemonMelon]

And in regards to taking God out of the pledge of allegiance (read: returning it to its original form), what of the Hindu and Buddhist (not to mention atheist) children who are in school? Should they be forced to pledge allegiance to a nation under a divine being they don't believe in?

I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Republic for which it stands
One nation, under God, indivisible
With liberty and justice for all

OK, answer me this. Though it says "under God" and not merely "under a God", where, in this context, does it reference the Christian God? We know better because we know what many of the founding father believed in, but can you honestly say to me that a child couldn't make up his own decision what "God" means to him in this context? It sounds pretty vague to me.

 

[A_Wanderer]

There is no such thing as God the statement is endorsing nonsense, vague enough for theists but not for all.

 

[LPU2]

I believe America is the greatest country on earth. The reason it's great is its Freedom, Constitution and Bill of Rights. It sells itself. By requiring our children to pledge allegiance to it, we're essentially forcing our children to be patriotic, as if we didn't really believe its greatness could be made clear without it.

Forcing people to swear devotion doesn't sound like America to me.

Should "God" be in it? As a devout Christian, it doesn't bother me, sounds generic enough, but if we really believe in what America stands for, we probably shouldn't have it in there. Doesn't bother me nearly as much as putting the 10 Commandments in court rooms though.

 

[LPU2]

reasons include, but are not limited to:

1) Taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance
2) Removal of God from the public schools
3) Supporting partial-birth abortion
4) Supporting same-sex marriage
5) Supporting unlimited immigration and open borders
6) Defending terrorists held at Gitmo, not wanting the US to treat them as the enemy combatants that they are
7) Supporting the Phelps-Roper maniacs and the Westboro Baptists Church
8) Support of NAMBLA and refusal to fight pedophilia
9) Support of the decriminalization of narcotics

The ACLU used to be an admirable organization. However, they are no longer a free speech organization but are a far-left group only striving to push their own agenda.

This sounds like an O'Reilly talking points memo!

I've always admired the ACLU. When Rush Limbaugh's privacy rights were being trampled on, who took his case? The ACLU. When the Nazis couldn't march in Skokie because it was a community of Jews, who took their case? A Jewish lawyer from the ACLU.

Speech that isn't offensive doesn't need protecting.

Couple more things on your list. Putting God in government is what Islamic extremists want to do. And Gitmo is working AGAINST the war on terror. I agree with Colin Powell that we ought to shut it down. We're in a massive battle trying to keep 2 billion Muslims from turning into extremists who hate America. Gitmo, because of the abuses, is doing exactly that.

 

[LPU2]

Ooops. Error.

 

[BVS]

The ACLU used to be an admirable organization. However, they are no longer a free speech organization but are a far-left group only striving to push their own agenda.

Not all of those are far left organizations, some of those are on your side, and they have supported your side quite a bit, so you may want to do some research.

The ACLU may support a lot of groups that you don't support, they may help a lot of groups I don't support, but it's free speech.

Something you said you support.

 

[BVS]

As far as the pledge alligiance, that would fall under worship of false idols in Biblical terms...so who are you going to follow?

 

[LJT]

Do Conservative Americans view Europe as some sort of degenerate, amoral cesspit, idol worshippers, all marxists and what not?

I mean, we seem to have an awful lot of what they hate.

What issue would Jesus have with immigration? I don't recall him ever setting out a policy on that issue, not even sure if there was such a thing as immigration control in those days, I don't think he mentioned anything on narcotics either, homosexuality, abortion...I really don't think he would care much about the pledge of allegiance either...the only political gesture I recall Jesus making was "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's......."

Reading here sometimes would make you think America is the Holy Land or something, the only people God truly loves

 

[2861U2]

As far as the pledge alligiance, that would fall under worship of false idols in Biblical terms...so who are you going to follow?

That's not true. The definition of "allegiance" is a promise of loyalty to the state. It has nothing to do with religion. So it does not mean "I'm going to follow my country more than I'm going to follow God" like you might think it does.

I also agree with LemonMelon, that it does not say "Jesus" or the "Christian God" in the Pledge. It simply says "God" and children of non-Christian religions shouldnt be offended, in my opinion.

A_Wanderer made a interesting point. If I read him right, he basically said we are all individuals and we should be able to do whatever we want without any interference. I get what he's saying, and I kind of agree. However, there has to be limits. Once your actions start to harm other people and endanger the well-being of the country (things like NAMBLA, open borders, decriminalizing drugs) it crosses the line. I suppose I can understand supporting the WBC or even Gitmo, but it is very irresponsible for the ACLU to support NAMBLA and open borders, which put others at risk.

Regardless of whether or not you really think they are a free-speech organization, you would be misguided if you thought they werent trying to push an agenda.