Christian = Arch Conservative?

[shinchy]

My question is why do evangelical Christians get behind the highly unethical arch conservative politicians, especially that dunce in the White House. I've never found their dirty tactics or their inhamane policies Christian yet I've known people in the church who think these people are right and will excuse any they atrocities (especially international) perpetrate.

[al Hartman]

     I have always wondered why Christians get behind any politician.  To me, voting has always represented choosing the lesser of evils, and the choice is seldom an easy one.  I have yet to find a politician who can convince me he or she is not in some lobby's pocket.

     I am always dismayed by the churches that stage protests regarding political issues, as if godliness can be legislated.   Ban guns, ban drugs, ban abortion, ban smoking, ban the death penalty:  You will not change one person's mind about anything.  All that will change is the ways in which individuals who are bent upon having things their own way go about attaining their goals.  The U.S. proved that during the 20th century with prohibition.

     "History always repeats itself, and we never learn from history."  Who was it used to say that?

al

[David Mauldin]

I have been asking the same questions for a long long time,  When? Why did voteing Democrate qualify you for the Lake of Fire?  Christians use to vote both partys until the 1980's!  That is when Jerry Falwell began his crusade to premote Reagan through "The Moral Majority"  These people constatntly hammered Democrates as "immoral" (Jimmy Carter immoral?  Comon the guy is the most Christ like man in politics!)and Reagan as a "Born Again Christian who believes in God and Country" Issues like abortion became the main reason for voteing against a canidate.  During the 1988 election I voted for Dukakis.  Not because he supported a womans right to choose but that he supported health care for all Americans and he supported education for all Americans. Yet, Curtis Miles just happened to see my registration when he voted and I got lectured when he got home. My thinking is, Why would a guy who struggles to support his family  vote Republican?  Republicans do not cater to the poor- but the rich.  They have been very successful at presenting themselves as the moral party.  When in truth they demonstrate immorality.  During the late 1980's the saints in Fullerton started listening to Rush Limbaugh. They bought into all of the same Falwell rhetoric.  Recently I watched an interview on ABC.  A woman was asked, Who will you vote for?"  "George Bush" was her reply, Why,  "Because he is a Christian"  For this woman it is not an issue about who is best for the job.  It is an issue between God and Satan.  This is wrong!  We need to see that all human beings have the same potential for good deciscions and bad.    

[moonflower2]

David,

You hit a nerve with me when you bring up the issue of abortion. I just want to put my 2 cents in here.

Abortion is murder of an unborn human being, fetus, if you will, but it is a HUMAN fetus.

It's my belief that someone who has no problem with abortion and in fact, is for it, does not hold the sanctity of human life in the same regard as someone who considers it to be murder. Condoning abortion is a symptom of something gone wrong with the way a person is thinking. It will affect more than just the way they vote in congress or the house.

Someone who is in authority is held responsible for what he allows under his "rule".  I believe that the presidents that we have had, who have allowed abortion and funded it, are going to have to answer for all the deaths that occurred. Partial "birth" abortions? How barbaric, and Clinton would not stand against it when he could have.

There is one big difference that I know of between the democratic party and the republican party: free enterprise. The republican party supports free enterprise: small businesses. Democrats want to tax the businesses to pay for their government programs.
This is quite a general statement, but it is a difference between the two parties.

Democratic party tends to be for more governmental
control, the republican party for less.

Al,
I believe it is important for anyone to speak out against abortion. There are many, many women who have emotional problems for the rest of their life, including suicides due to the guilt involved. Infertility is a problem many of them have as a result. Many don't even know what is involved when they enter a clinic. Someone needs to inform them about the after-effects of abortion.

Will I vote for a pro-lifer? You bet.

[M2]

It is obvious that Moore is liberal.  I saw him on TV at the Democrat convention.  Has he done an exposee on Kerry?  If not, why not?  or, I should be asking, Why did he do one on Bush?  He has a prejudice and an agenda.

I might have voted for Carter because he is Christian .  I agree that not all republican presidential candidates are 'the best man for the job'.  Clinton(a democrat) wasn't either, but he was the 'least of the evils' at the time.  And then the US economy was doing so well for some reason or another so Clinton got re-elected; why change and rock the boat eh??

Someone sent me this:
---------------------------------------------------------
Subject: FW: I'm Confused
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:47:09 -0500

I'M CONFUSED...

I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out
in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one
guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to
believe? Lemme see; have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -
good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it's so confusing.
---------------------------------------------------------

Marcia

[outdeep]

When I was just under the voting age, I would have voted for Jimmy Carter.  Back then, I think you were right.  Christians voted across different parties.

Perhaps to an extent that was changed by Jerry Fallwell's moral majority, but I don't think that is completly it.  A large portion of conservative Chrstians do not get behind the ideas of the defunct moral majority.  We see trying to change society from the top down is wrongheaded and misguided.

What has happened since 1976 is that the parties have become polarized on moral issues that Christians are deeply concerned about - abortion and the institute of marriage (there are a few prolife Democrats but they will never get anywhere in their party).  We are at a loss as to why we can't find a solution for both the mother and the baby instead of just the mother.

 A further coelary is that, being people who study a book, we want the constitution to be taken literally (e.g., Congress should not make a law to establish a religion is what the constitution says, but local governments being forced to remove Christian, but not other religous, symbols from their seals has nothing to do with the Constitution.  Further, the constitution teaches "the right to bear arms", not "the right to privacy for abortion".  If such changes are to be made, they should be made through the legislature, not activist judges.)  With this postmodern approach to government, we are concerned at a continuing trend to spiritualize the Constitution into whatever people want to make it.

Also, we Christians feel that with the Democrats in bed with the National Teacher's Assiociation, humanistic public schools will be the only options afforded anyone.  We are a diverse nation now and should be able to choose the the quality and content of the education we are paying for.

These issues tend to fall very rigidly down party lines which is why conservative Christians tend to see Republicans as the lesser of two evils.

What it basically comes down to is this:  what are your worst fears?  Everyone understands that society is heading somewhere.  They know where they want it to go and where they don't want it to go.  Everyone has in their head the worst case scenerio for society.  Whatever side addresses your worst fears, that is the side you tend to vote for.  Whatever side seems to fulfill your worst fears, that is the side you see as the enemy.

-Dave

P.S. to Shin:  Conservatives see liberals as the party of anger and baseless accusations that has nothing to offer but inconsolable hatred against Bush.  Your post had done nothing to change that perseption.

[shinchy]

When I was just under the voting age, I would have voted for Jimmy Carter.  Back then, I think you were right.  Christians voted across different parties.

Perhaps to an extent that was changed by Jerry Fallwell's moral majority, but I don't think that is completly it.  A large portion of conservative Chrstians do not get behind the ideas of the defunct moral majority.  We see trying to change society from the top down is wrongheaded and misguided.

What has happened since 1976 is that the parties have become polarized on moral issues that Christians are deeply concerned about - abortion and the institute of marriage (there are a few prolife Democrats but they will never get anywhere in their party).  We are at a loss as to why we can't find a solution for both the mother and the baby instead of just the mother.

 A further coelary is that, being people who study a book, we want the constitution to be taken literally (e.g., Congress should not make a law to establish a religion is what the constitution says, but local governments being forced to remove Christian, but not other religous, symbols from their seals has nothing to do with the Constitution.  Further, the constitution teaches "the right to bear arms", not "the right to privacy for abortion".  If such changes are to be made, they should be made through the legislature, not activist judges.)  With this postmodern approach to government, we are concerned at a continuing trend to spiritualize the Constitution into whatever people want to make it.

Also, we Christians feel that with the Democrats in bed with the National Teacher's Assiociation, humanistic public schools will be the only options afforded anyone.  We are a diverse nation now and should be able to choose the the quality and content of the education we are paying for.

These issues tend to fall very rigidly down party lines which is why conservative Christians tend to see Republicans as the lesser of two evils.

What it basically comes down to is this:  what are your worst fears?  Everyone understands that society is heading somewhere.  They know where they want it to go and where they don't want it to go.  Everyone has in their head the worst case scenerio for society.  Whatever side addresses your worst fears, that is the side you tend to vote for.  Whatever side seems to fulfill your worst fears, that is the side you see as the enemy.

-Dave

P.S. to Shin:  Conservatives see liberals as the party of anger and baseless accusations that has nothing to offer but inconsolable hatred against Bush.  Your post had done nothing to change that perseption.

OK, I've never been thrilled that Bush is in office. I am not soft selling that. I do not believe he is office by honest means at all.

During the 90's, conservatives seemed to have a lot of anger and inconsolable hatred towards Clinton to the point that there was a lot of dirty politics in the form of all those proceedings against him.

[outdeep]

That is true, Shin.  We beat up on President Clinton pretty bad.  

I think there are two forces at work.  First, people's fears.  When someone is in office who contradicts our personal values we fear the worst.  When people are afraid, the natural instinct is to react in anger while characterizing and demonizing the one that holds the power.  This is true regardless of what political side you are on.

Second, it is much easier to criticize an incumbent.  The party that is out of office can speak in terms of ideals (if I were in power, I would do it this way . . .).  The one in office has to deal with practical facts, pressures, decisions and compromises.  Again, this is true for both parties.

So, when you look at Bush, you see an incompetent dope who masterfully deceived the nation.  When I look at Clinton, I see a self-serving slick talker who can't keep his pants zipped.   Both are images built upon our fears.  Neither one are true reflections of these men and what they have accomplished.

[outdeep]

OK, I've never been thrilled that Bush is in office. I am not soft selling that. I do not believe he is office by honest means at all.

I suppose the 2000 election debate will never be resolved and it fuels the anger for revenge in 2004.  I personally had problems with the media announcing that Gore won Florida before the results were in (which probably had an impact in the election in people not going to the polls thinking their candidate had already won or lost).

I also felt that Gore's attempt to cherry-pick favorable presincts for recounts was rather dubious.

My understanding is that the surpreme court simply upheld existing election law.   I can understand liberal's anger because it is one of the few times they weren't able to press their adjenda upon America through the courts.

I'll tell you what, if we let Gore (or Kerry) be president, can we have "Row vs. Wade" and the "Gay Marriage" decision back?  We would like to work these issues through the legislature instead of activist judges like they are supposed to.  I'm sure someone will eventually find the right court to get "under God" out of the pledge.

So, stop griping about the court decision that was lost in 2000.  Most of the decisions go liberal's way which is why they use this means so often instead of the constitutional one involving the legislature.

[shinchy]

That is true, Shin.  We beat up on President Clinton pretty bad.

Some of those things were true, i.e. Monica Lewinsky. While this had little bearing on the Paula Jones case (because Lewinsky was not a victim of sexual harassment but a willing participant), it was something very unprofessional and unbecoming of the President. However, the whole investigation was a waste of national resources. The only people who really seemed to profit from it were Paula Jones, who got a make-over, and some drag queens who were incapable of impersonating Madonna so they did Linda Tripp instead.

I think there are two forces at work.  First, people's fears.  When someone is in office who contradicts our personal values we fear the worst.  When people are afraid, the natural instinct is to react in anger while characterizing and demonizing the one that holds the power.  This is true regardless of what political side you are on.

That's a good point. And strangely enough, any candidate who seems to have integrity on either side never see the light of day in an election. Fear and mudslinging, unfortunately, is much more effective in getting a vote than discussing the real issues. So is mud slinging.

Second, it is much easier to criticize an incumbent.  The party that is out of office can speak in terms of ideals (if I were in power, I would do it this way . . .).  The one in office has to deal with practical facts, pressures, decisions and compromises.  Again, this is true for both parties.

People in the out of office party usually have political track records which give some indication of how they would be as presidents, espcially Clinton and Bush, former governors of some very southern states. However, it is nothing compared to the incumbent selling his current track record in office for re-election.

So, when you look at Bush, you see an incompetent dope who masterfully deceived the nation.  When I look at Clinton, I see a self-serving slick talker who can't keep his pants zipped.   Both are images built upon our fears.  Neither one are true reflections of these men and what they have accomplished.

I certainly agree about Clinton being a slick talker. The lamest thing he ever said was to say he didn't inhale. He smoked the damn joint! Maybe even more. You can't try and not inhale unless it's a brownie. So maybe he ate one instead. That is nothing compared to his lack of follow through on his most liberal promises. He catered to a more moderate and somewhat conservative agenda (which ironically frustrated his conservative foes). Bush, while never using Clinton's "tried but didn't inhale" when asked about any past drug use, bluntly said, "It's none of your business." I think he has used, otherwise he would have simply said no. This, like Clinton's half-ass admission, is nothing compared to similarly blunt but deflective rhetoric is constantly used to evade criticism or to justify our state of war which seems to hop from one hot spot to another in the Middle East.

[shinchy]

OK, I've never been thrilled that Bush is in office. I am not soft selling that. I do not believe he is office by honest means at all.

I suppose the 2000 election debate will never be resolved and it fuels the anger for revenge in 2004.  I personally had problems with the media announcing that Gore won Florida before the results were in (which probably had an impact in the election in people not going to the polls thinking their candidate had already won or lost).

I also felt that Gore's attempt to cherry-pick favorable presincts for recounts was rather dubious.

My understanding is that the surpreme court simply upheld existing election law.   I can understand liberal's anger because it is one of the few times they weren't able to press their adjenda upon America through the courts.

I'll tell you what, if we let Gore (or Kerry) be president, can we have "Row vs. Wade" and the "Gay Marriage" decision back?  We would like to work these issues through the legislature instead of activist judges like they are supposed to.  I'm sure someone will eventually find the right court to get "under God" out of the pledge.

So, stop griping about the court decision that was lost in 2000.  Most of the decisions go liberal's way which is why they use this means so often instead of the constitutional one involving the legislature.

Your fears about Gore or Kerry are not shared by me. My fears about Bush, especially those that surround the Patriot Act, may not be shared by you.

[David Mauldin]

Marcia,  from what little I understand about the Yugoslavia situation was that a group of people, (Albanian Muslims) were being systematically anihilated. (Genocide) Clinton, with the full approval and full involvment of  of the U.N., saved millions of lives by intervening, Yes bombing the Serbs!  (Of which he was critisized by a right winger named Michael Moore in the film Bowling for Columbine.)  It is interesting to read your account of the situation.  Bush on the other hand has invaded a country that was not presently commiting genocide. (although in the late 80s' Saddam did gas the kurds with weapons sold to him by our Country.) Yet at the time Bush invaded Iraq Saddam was not openly doing anything that meritted an invasion. He was allowing weapon inspectors to make sure he wasn't doing anything. All Bush had to do was continue the inspections. The U.N. refused to sanction the invasion by President Bush because Bush could not prove "A real and present danger" in Iraq.  There is a lot I do not know about the whole Eastern European situation but I believe that Clinton did the honorable thing. A year after Clinton bombed the Serbs there was and is a relative peace and stability in Yugoslavia.  Yet a year after Bush invaded Iraq there is a much different situation!

[M2]

David M,

The real diference of opinion here is that you are liberal and I am conservative.  So I am interested in the reasons that you support the democrat point of view.

On the topic of U.N. approval, I have a few other comments.  The UN is not the conscience of the world.  Many in the UN are from Arab nations, so it was very unlikely that they would vote for war on an Arab brother nation ie Iraq.  Yugoslavia, on the other hand, well a group of people were being annihilated, so that was an easier call.

Yesterday I watched Pearl Harbor, an American story, produced by Americans, so the American cause was pre-dominant.  But then, it was an unforgetable and trajic event.  Who came to aid the US and rebuild Pearl Harbor?  It reminded me of 9/11 when a foregin enemy 'invaded' the American people on their soil without a prior declaration of war.  IMO Bush's motivation was to protect his country from further terrorism.  In WWII the Americans were criticized for not entering the war effort soon enough.  Now they are criticized for entering it too soon because Sadaam was not presently commiting genocide.  For the most part the Iraqi people themselves are very happy to be liberated from their tyrant dictator (as we ex-assemblyites are for being liberated from ours).

From Dave Sable's post I gathered that the main diff between republican and democrat is their stand on moral issues.

Watergate was big news when I was a teenager.  Then the movie All the President's Men was released and I thought that it was a factual documentary of the events surrounding Watergate.  Until years later when I read Born Again by Chuck Colson.  I discovered that the 'informer' was actually feeding the reporters propoganda and it was not really 'the truth of the matter'.  It created in me a certain distrust/caution in all that is reported.

This Michael Moore guy is a democrat, so Bush is always the 'bad' guy to him just because Bush is republican.  I'm sure Kerry has his 'failings' too on top of being liberal .

These are my opinios and not intended to slam you.
Lord bless,
Marcia

[lenore]

 :)Hello David:

You are a history buff arent you, and a political science expert too.

I read your post, and amaze at the world affairs you are so knowledgeable about.

SO I am going to test that history, political world affairs knowledge of yours.

What do you know of the FLQ crisis here in Canada in the 1970's.

And if you have any editorial comments on it , I will be very interested in reading it.

"Just having abit of fun"...........BUT............



Lenore

[outdeep]

Your fears about Gore or Kerry are not shared by me. My fears about Bush, especially those that surround the Patriot Act, may not be shared by you.

Thank you, Shin for your honest exchange.

I have been listening to Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel) commentary on Romans (I have his entire through the Bible on MP3 which I bought for $40.00 when I was in California a few years ago).  He was talking about how prevelant pornography was in society and said "I can't imagine it getting any worse than it is."

I had to chuckle because the message was given in 1983.  Who had any idea of the PC revolution and the internet?

Elijah couldn't imagine things being any worse when he was chased by Jezebel yet God said, "I have reserved for myself 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal."

The point is, as bad as things seem to get, God's people are sustained by God.  Ultimately, God is sovereign.  Christians, resting upon God's provision, have survived any form of government.  

So, to balance my comments on fear, after the debate, campaigning, and voting, God will allow his leader to go forth whoever that may be (he may just give us the government we deserve).  If days grow darker, the church will just have to start being the church and allow God to empower them through the Holy Spirit.