Christian Forums

Should a Christian vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion, against helping babies aborted alive, for stem-cell research, pro-homosexual laws, believes in evolution, while believing in helping the poor?   

There are folks who believe in the gospel accounts who will say no, some will say yes, and others will say Christians shouldn't vote.  As for me, the Christian way is for limited government, as spelled out in the constitution, because the only thing the government is REALLY good at is killing folks and messing with their stuff.  In short, I vote conservative/libertarian.  There are Christians who vote differently.  The thing is, the church began in a corner of an empire and questions about political matters were not asked of those seeking baptism.  They shouldn't be asked now and they shouldn't be asked later in an attempt to kick someone out.

It's even more complicated because it's not only about voting...except for being opposed to helping babies who are born alive during batched abortions (which I'm pretty sure no one is ACTUALLY opposed to, vagaries of politics aside), for each of those views there are plenty of Christians who not only vote for but actually hold them.  You could also make analogous lists of other characteristics targeting typical politicians from the other side of the aisle.  It seems to me that Christianity is primarily about something wholly different than politics...so the two really don't mix well and a Christian will almost inevitably find himself holding his nose no matter for whom he votes.

Quote from: jonmower on Mon Jun 08, 2009 - 15:00:23
It's even more complicated because it's not only about voting...except for being opposed to helping babies who are born alive during batched abortions (which I'm pretty sure no one is ACTUALLY opposed to, vagaries of politics aside),...

On March 30, 2001 Obama argued that the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was unconstitutional.  He is a sick man.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

Quote from: Lou on Mon Jun 08, 2009 - 21:39:15
On March 30, 2001 Obama argued that the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was unconstitutional.  He is a sick man.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

that is just horrible. And then he votes "present". Sure, he'll slam the 'aye' votes...but he doesn't have the spine to vote 'nay'.

 No, because God sees what you do, and nothing will be hidden from him on judgment day.

Politics gets me angry so I try to stay out of. Not much good can come out of so I do my best to take care of what happens in my house and leave the rest to God. No use getting upset about things that you have no control over.

Quote from: Lou on Mon Jun 08, 2009 - 21:39:15

Quote from: jonmower on Mon Jun 08, 2009 - 15:00:23
It's even more complicated because it's not only about voting...except for being opposed to helping babies who are born alive during batched abortions (which I'm pretty sure no one is ACTUALLY opposed to, vagaries of politics aside),...

On March 30, 2001 Obama argued that the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was unconstitutional.  He is a sick man.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

There is a difference between arguing a law is unconstitutional and morally correct.

A Christian, just like every other American, should vote for the candidate best suited for the job. The pickings have been getting slimmer and slimmer, and hopefully a strong third party will emerge next election.

love,

sopranette

Quote from: sopranette on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 05:34:19
A Christian, just like every other American, should vote for the candidate best suited for the job. The pickings have been getting slimmer and slimmer, and hopefully a strong third party will emerge next election.

love,

sopranette

It had better start emerging very rapidly or it ain't gonna happen.

Quote from: bereaniam on Sun Jun 07, 2009 - 17:59:20
Should a Christian vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion, against helping babies aborted alive, for stem-cell research, pro-homosexual laws, believes in evolution, while believing in helping the poor?   

Should a Christian vote for a candidate who supports limiting or denying access to the courts for wrongs, aiding the wealthy at the cost of the poor, who proclaims as friend and ally the nations who imprison, torture, and kill those whose only crime is to declare that they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and that eternal life is only gained by following him, that believe goods made with the tears and sweat of labor of those imprisoned believers should be imported as if made here?

I'm feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with any of this.  Politics erodes the truth gene and makes any statement in support of a position, candidate, or ideology A-okay.

Quote from: bereaniam on Sun Jun 07, 2009 - 17:59:20
Should a Christian vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion, against helping babies aborted alive, for stem-cell research, pro-homosexual laws, believes in evolution, while believing in helping the poor?   

I don't.  But I also wouldn't vote for a person who is pro-life, against embryonic stem-cell research, pro-traditional marriage laws, believes in intelligent design, while looking down on the poor and refusing to lift a finger to help them.

Quote from: Arkstfan on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 10:11:48

Quote from: bereaniam on Sun Jun 07, 2009 - 17:59:20
Should a Christian vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion, against helping babies aborted alive, for stem-cell research, pro-homosexual laws, believes in evolution, while believing in helping the poor?   

Should a Christian vote for a candidate who supports limiting or denying access to the courts for wrongs, aiding the wealthy at the cost of the poor, who proclaims as friend and ally the nations who imprison, torture, and kill those whose only crime is to declare that they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and that eternal life is only gained by following him, that believe goods made with the tears and sweat of labor of those imprisoned believers should be imported as if made here?

I didn't read the responses to the OP before reading my own, but...ditto.

Only if they could be certified as Fox News listeners.     

Seriously I don't believe either party is empathetic enough to the plight of the poor, so decisions must be made on other criteria. I believe certain governmental decisions that appear to be sympathetic to the poor actually are detrimental to them.

If you think some of their decisions are detrimental, you say, "So I'll ignore that topic and judge only by other issues?"  That doesn't make sense.  It's like saying that if you thought both parties were making decisions detrimental to national security you'd just leave that one off the table and look at how they handle fleet car purchases instead.

James,  I'm not entirely sure of what you just said. All I'm saying is rhetoric about being concerned about the poor may not translate into help. And rhetoric about creating opportunities for the poor might seem calloused to some, but might actually be more helpful than the one with the concerned rhetoric.

I will use a tired old analogy but a good one. The one who gives a man a fish to eat everyday for 30 years is probably not as compassionate as the one who teaches a man to fish and feed himself for the rest of his life.

Both political parties can do better and in my opinion one is not much worse or better than the other in the helping the poor category. One has been better in the rhetoric and the demonizing of the other side as selfish.

I have been legitimately poor more years of my life than I have been not poor. And the years I have not been poor, I have been a whole lot closer to the poor side of the spectrum than I have been the rich side. I am all for helping the helpless and to assist them in not being helpless. I believe some have enslaved the poor by keeping people helpless and dependent, all the while with the disguise of being the true compassionate ones.

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 09:25:05

Quote from: sopranette on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 05:34:19
A Christian, just like every other American, should vote for the candidate best suited for the job. The pickings have been getting slimmer and slimmer, and hopefully a strong third party will emerge next election.

love,

sopranette

It had better start emerging very rapidly or it ain't gonna happen.

I'm doing my best! And you know it's a lot easier to talk about third parties with Atheists and hippies, because conservative Christians will stick with the Republican party no matter what, it seems. A lot of people I talk to feel just as strongly about the Constitution and the right to life as I do.  I admit I was pleasantly suprised by this.

love,

sopranette

Quote from: sopranette on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 14:41:20

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 09:25:05

Quote from: sopranette on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 05:34:19
A Christian, just like every other American, should vote for the candidate best suited for the job. The pickings have been getting slimmer and slimmer, and hopefully a strong third party will emerge next election.

love,

sopranette

It had better start emerging very rapidly or it ain't gonna happen.

I'm doing my best! And you know it's a lot easier to talk about third parties with Atheists and hippies, because conservative Christians will stick with the Republican party no matter what, it seems. A lot of people I talk to feel just as strongly about the Constitution and the right to life as I do.  I admit I was pleasantly suprised by this.

love,

sopranette

I don't think that's true. I would vote for a 3rd party candidate that had a chance to win. The trouble is 99% of the time they don't have a chance. Christians need to understand that a party of 100% evangelical Christians couldn't win dog catcher in a medium sized city. We don't represent much of the population. Coalition is the key. We have to vote for folks that we agree with MOST of the time. We will never fill a single office at any level if we wait until we get the perfect candidate. 70% agreement is a good level to shoot for. Heck Ronald Reagan just barely beat that with me.

I didn't agree with McCain but maybe 60% of his stances, but compared to virtually 0% with Obama, it was a no brainer. I agreed with Ron Paul probably 0n 90%, but the 10% we disagreed on was a deal breaker for me, plus no way in H. E. double hockey sticks was he going to get nominated.

To win elections we HAVE to join forces with folks we don't agree with on everything or we will have to endure being governed by folks we don't agree with at all.

Isn't that a catch 22?  You won't vote for a party that doesn't seem to have a chance at winning, but the reason they don't have a chance of winning is because no one is voting for them?  Parties need to build up, and that takes campaigning and voting.  I'm still hoping many of the third parties will get together, put egos aside, and concentrate on collectively putting a sound plan for the future of this country on the table.  So I'm an idealist; that's better than being a cynic. As I've said some time ago, I don't buy into the Nirvana fallacy; that is, there will never be a perfect candidate, there will never be a perfect plan, but we sure could do a lot better.

love,

sopranette

The reason they don't have a chance is organization and money. Get those two things and yes a third party has a chance at winning. Being right has little to do with it, unfortunately.

Until that happens, reforming the old GOP is probably more feasible. But yes, a third party that is viable would be great. I voted for Perot in 1992 (helping Clinton get elected, by the way.) The only 3rd party candidate that had a snowballs chance for a while. (He used a lot of his own fortune.)

TV time is where it's at. TV can make Satan himself look like Sherrif Andy Taylor of Mayberry. Without money and media, Jesus himself wouldn't have a chance.

What about the guy who sees the poor man fishing, dumps sludge in his fishing spot, then criticizes him for not catching as many fish as the corporate fisherman upriver?

Quote from: marc on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 15:15:34
What about the guy who sees the poor man fishing, dumps sludge in his fishing spot, then criticizes him for not catching as many fish as the corporate fisherman upriver?

He's a slime ball! That ain't EMPOWERING anyone, anymore than dumping a mercury infested fish at the man's doorstep everyday.

Most of the calls I see for a "viable third party" seem to assume that the party would be conservative in nature.

What if the "viable third party" was the "Flower Children Liberal Progressive Party" or some such?

I suppose then we would be hearing a call for a viable "fourth party".

If conservatives want to right the ship in the GOP, the focus should NOT be on Presidential politics - it should be on supporting conservative candidates for state legislatures and congress - and most importantly, supporting conservative party leadership from the county level upward.

It worked in the 70's...

Of course OD, in my view, the reason that so many Republicans stayed home or jumped ship in recent elections is because of about 20 or so congressmen and women didn't stick with their principals and gave the other side what they wanted. Heck if a few more Arlen Specters will resign or change parties, we might be back to where we used to be. Instead of embracing or scratching our heads in dismay at Dem wannabes, encourage them to leave and let's get on with conservative business. OR we can recreate the wheel from scratch.



PS and I ain't just talking social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism or specifically the lack thereof is why the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008.

Plus I whole heartedly support Ralph Nader and the Green Party's effort to siphon off votes from the Democrat party.

Without a doubt government makes problems worse.

Reagan era we shut mental institutions and reduce mental health benefits. Thousands end up on the streets and suddenly drugs and crime become huge problems in large part because of mentally ill people "self-medicating". We get tough on crime and create three strike laws but don't like paying for the extra prisons so three strikers who can't be released often on non-violent charges get to stay in while over-crowding is addressed with releasing more dangerous prisoners. Tell poor kids that education is the way out but the average Pell Grant is now about half what it was 20 years ago in spending power because Wall Street pressured Congress to make loans the solution to education and of course the ever popular tax credit but no university will accept a promise of a tax credit in April for tuition in August.

Quote from: sopranette on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 14:55:11
As I've said some time ago, I don't buy into the Nirvana fallacy; that is, there will never be a perfect candidate, there will never be a perfect plan, but we sure could do a lot better.

In my opinion we could have done much better with a man I could agree with 60% of the time rather than moan and groan about a man being elected I agree with 0% of the time.

Elections are won by coalitions not candidates I agree with always.

Two choices

1. Agree always with a candidate and lose to a candidate you never agree with.

2. Agree most of the time or the majority of the time and have a good chance to win.

I really wish it was the best man or woman always wins, but it's just not that way. It's every bit as much about trying to keep the very person OUT of office that you can't abide as it is about putting in the very one you agree with.

It's kinda like American Idol. The best talent hardly ever wins, but the one with the most votes always does.

Quote from: Arkstfan on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 15:49:41
Without a doubt government makes problems worse.

Reagan era we shut mental institutions and reduce mental health benefits. Thousands end up on the streets and suddenly drugs and crime become huge problems in large part because of mentally ill people "self-medicating".

That goes back to at least 1975 from what I've read.  It was court decisions of lawsuits on behalf of folks who were being tossed into the nervous hospital against their will.

Quote from: OldDad on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 15:25:05
What if the "viable third party" was the "Flower Children Liberal Progressive Party" or some such?

We already have that party.  They put Obama in office.

love,

sopranette

Quote from: Mere Nick on Sun Jun 14, 2009 - 00:32:34

Quote from: Arkstfan on Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 15:49:41
Without a doubt government makes problems worse.

Reagan era we shut mental institutions and reduce mental health benefits. Thousands end up on the streets and suddenly drugs and crime become huge problems in large part because of mentally ill people "self-medicating".

That goes back to at least 1975 from what I've read.  It was court decisions of lawsuits on behalf of folks who were being tossed into the nervous hospital against their will.

Started the ball rolling and someone figured out we could save money...

Quote from: marcI'm feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with any of this.

Nothing?

You're feeling more and more that Christians should have ... nothing ... to do with politics.

I hope you know the definition of the word and are prepared to defend your position, because that is one of the more jaw-dropping things I think I have ever read.


Nothing.


No voting?

You're feeling more and more that Christians should not vote.

I don't understand how anyone who is a Christian could "support" Obama or McCain (or Bush for that matter).  A lot of Christians want change in this country and the world to come through a political party and the government, rather than through Jesus Christ.  And that's the bottom line.

They may not ultimately think this is the case, but their actions betray them.

Quote from: poptart on Sun Jun 14, 2009 - 09:18:12

Quote from: marcI'm feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with any of this.

Nothing?

You're feeling more and more that Christians should have ... nothing ... to do with politics.

I hope you know the definition of the word and are prepared to defend your position, because that is one of the more jaw-dropping things I think I have ever read.

You really need to get out more, then.  This is hardly a new or radical view.

You're feeling more and more that Christians should not vote.

Yes or no?

Yes.