The Religious Left? (aka Achilles' Triumph)

[SilentScope001]

This is assuming that Achilles is a Republican (as I think he mentioned some pro-republican policies and stated that he registered as a Republican). If he is in fact a Democrat, then call this "Achilles' Worst Nightmare".

 

Will Huckabee's campaign encourage evangelicals to vote for a Democrat?

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0204/p09s02-coop.html

 

The "Religious Left" is finally arising, and the "Religious Right" may be dying. This means Evangalists are fleeing to the Democrats, leaving a pure and secularized GOP. As I say, Achilles' Trimpuh, as it means that he can fully support the Republican Party without fear of religious extermists praying for the destruction of the welfare state (now they are for it).

[Corinthian]

The Religious Left? What the hell is that? What exactly do they stand for? Let's face it, any religious issue tends to be championed by the Right. Gay Marriage? Abortion? The day the Liberals start condemning those is that we get the directions mixed.

[Totenkopf]

They are basically outfits like the United Council of Churches and such that support policies more befitting of people on the left side of the political aisle. People who bought/buy into Liberation Theology also fit into this category. There are no doubt countless others. Maybe wiki has an entry, who knows (ie I'm not checking).....

[mimartin]

The Religious Left? What the hell is that? What exactly do they stand for? Let's face it, any religious issue tends to be championed by the Right. Gay Marriage? Abortion?

Not all religious issues are championed by the Right. Not being judgmental of others, “Judge not lest ye be judged,” is not a very right political hot button. It seems to be the opposite just looking at the two examples you have given. “But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind." I don’t know but the Bible really goes in depth about the poor, even saying, "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys,” I did not think welfare was an important part of the right’s platform. I guess I could be wrong.

 

So in these two examples I disagree with you Corinthian, I’m a religious person and I plan on voting for the candidate on the Democratic side, be it Clinton or Obama, to some extent because of my religious beliefs. I don’t like of the act of Abortion, but I find it more distasteful for a living breathing human to suffer because they do not have enough to eat or because they cannot afford medical care. As to your other example Gay Marriage, again that is a non-issue to me, as I don’t see where it is my job to judge anyone, but myself.

 

So yes, I can see the Religious Left, but I do not see them making a difference in any elections as they usual decided what issues are important to their own selves instead of letting the person in the bully pulpit tell them what the important issues are.

[SilentScope001]

The Religious Left? What the hell is that? What exactly do they stand for? Let's face it, any religious issue tends to be championed by the Right. Gay Marriage? Abortion? The day the Liberals start condemning those is that we get the directions mixed.

 

See mimartin for an example of a Religious Leftist person.

 

But, really, what does "abortion is wrong" have anything to do with "we must resist the evils of socialized health care"? Not much to be honest. Fusionism is unstable, and really werid.

 

So in these two examples I disagree with you Corinthian, I’m a religious person and I plan on voting for the candidate on the Democratic side, be it Clinton or Obama, to some extent because of my religious beliefs. I don’t like of the act of Abortion, but I find it more distasteful for a living breathing human to suffer because they do not have enough to eat or because they cannot afford medical care.

 

Would you however vote for a person who would provide health care and ban abortion at the exact same time?

[mimartin]

Would you however vote for a person who would provide health care and ban abortion at the exact same time?

I don't know. I don't like the ideal of forcing my religious beliefs down the throats of others. Now when they are able to remove the fetus and grow it outside the womb by artificial means, then I will be all for banning abortion.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, since he said he had contributed to the Obama campaign in the thread about the primaries (iirc), this whole thing may be moot. I share a lot of the same religious views as the 'Religious Right', but the Presidency is not a religious job. I vote for the person I think will do the best job in that office. If it's a Dem, fine. If it's a Rep, fine. I think it's foolish for anyone to vote for Pres solely on whether or not the candidate is religious, or to vote on the basis of any single issue for that matter. The President has to deal with so many different policies and issues that it's essential this person be proficient in handling as wide a variety of these as possible.

[Totenkopf]

One thing is pretty much for certain......achilles wouldn't vote republican b/c he views them as basically controlled by the religious right, something that is anathema to him.

[Darth InSidious]

The Religious Left? What the hell is that? What exactly do they stand for? Let's face it, any religious issue tends to be championed by the Right. Gay Marriage? Abortion? The day the Liberals start condemning those is that we get the directions mixed.

What about upholding the rights of the elderly, the sick and the weak?

 

As for Achilles, I would guess his politics was based more in pragmatism than in dogma.

[Tommycat]

What about upholding the rights of the elderly, the sick and the weak?

God helps he who helps himself.

 

Actually it is really quite simple. As a republican, I am against the government doing the job of churches. JUST as I'm against the churches dictating how the government should do it's job.

 

Of course I'm probably more libertarian than anything. But I prefer to be able to vote in the primaries.

[Pho3nix]

I vote for the person I think will do the best job in that office. If it's a Dem, fine. If it's a Rep, fine. I think it's foolish for anyone to vote for Pres solely on whether or not the candidate is religious, or to vote on the basis of any single issue for that matter.

In a perfect world this would be true.

 

Too bad this doesn't apply to reality in any way. If an Atheist, Muslim or even Hindu would run for president they would never be elected solely on the basis of their religion or lack of it.

[Totenkopf]

They said the same thing about Catholics before JFK was elected, and there was a fairly big bias against them then. It's more about position than anything else. Right now it would be an extremely tough sell for a muslim to try to run for any office outside of places like Dearborn MI or any predominantly ethnic district. And, while I wouldn't have a problem voting for someone of a different gender, race or faith, they'd still have to be sufficiently representative of my values to get that vote. You might want to extend your list to Mormons as well (unless Romney pulls an upset vs McCain).

[Darth InSidious]

God helps he who helps himself.

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,

 

and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

 

He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

 

Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

 

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,

 

naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'

 

Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?

 

When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?

 

When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'

 

And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

 

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,

 

a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'

 

Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'

 

He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'

 

And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

...You were saying?

[RobQel-Droma]

I don't like the ideal of forcing my religious beliefs down the throats of others. Now when they are able to remove the fetus and grow it outside the womb by artificial means, then I will be all for banning abortion.

 

I didn't know that making it illegal for someone to murder an innocent being was forcing religious beliefs down their throat.

 

I did not think welfare was an important part of the right’s platform.

 

That's primarily because me (and others) don't believe in giving lazy people money so they don't have to work. Not that the idea of welfare is bad, but I think it is abused so much. If that's your definition

 

Not being judgmental of others, “Judge not lest ye be judged,” is not a very right political hot button.

 

*cough* It's not a political hot button to anyone. Not even the Left, either, unless you want to tell me that they somehow don't judge anyone.

 

Secondly, not judging people does not mean that you let them be whoever they are. If a man had murdered twenty people, and I was of the opinion that he should be thrown in prison, would you tell me that I violated the teachings of the Bible by "judging" him? "Not judging" doesn't equal "total tolerance", at least the way you seem to put it.

 

(Don't get me wrong, I understand what you mean about judging yourself and not judging others - I think that's a great Christ-like way to live)

[Achilles]

I didn't know that making it illegal for someone to murder an innocent being was forcing religious beliefs down their throat.

I think this argument would get a lot more support if someone could offer a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered "beings". After that, we can begin having similarly rational discussion about what rights these "beings" have and how they relate to other beings, etc.

 

That's primarily because me (and others) don't believe in giving lazy people money so they don't have to work. Not that the idea of welfare is bad, but I think it is abused so much. If that's your definition

No doubt that your generalization fits some measurable percentage of welfare recipients, but even you seem willing to concede that it doesn't apply to everyone. Perhaps we'd be better off spending our time trying to figure out how to make sure the people that legitimately need help get it rather than categorically vilifying welfare and its recipients?

[mimartin]

I didn't know that making it illegal for someone to murder an innocent being was forcing religious beliefs down their throat.[/Quote]Is there proof when life begins now? What if my religious beliefs state life begins at birth. Then would my religious beliefs forced down others throats make it morally correct to have an abortion.

 

That's primarily because me (and others) don't believe in giving lazy people money so they don't have to work. Not that the idea of welfare is bad, but I think it is abused so much. If that's your definition[/Quote] I actually believe those that can work should, but not everyone on the welfare rolls are ripping off the system. Some are not fortunate enough to have the ability to work and some are even children. So are you are saying we should allow every fetus to grow into a child and then allow those that parents do not have the means to feed the child to starve to death?

 

Personally, I believe we should stop welfare fraud and then do away with corporate welfare to save money in the budget.

 

*cough* It's not a political hot button to anyone. Not even the Left, either, unless you want to tell me that they somehow don't judge anyone.

It isn't? For some reason I thought gay marriage and “family values” were important topics to the right. I’ve read something about wanting a constitutional amendment to protect the sanity of marriage. Sounds a like a political “hot button” of judging others to me in order stir up the masses. Or are amendments to the Constitution common place now?

 

I am not saying people cannot legally judge someone that comments a crime. I’m saying it is not my place to judge someone that may not live their life to the same code of conduct I do. People have different religious and moral beliefs, but society’s laws must be obeyed.

[Totenkopf]

Problem is, that is exactly what the law is all about. We make laws to decide/judge what kinds of behavior people can indulge in w/o violating "acceptable norms". By labeling someone a con/excon, society has already passed a moral judgement on someone else's lifestyle choices.

[mimartin]

Problem is, that is exactly what the law is all about. We make laws to decide/judge what kinds of behavior people can indulge in w/o violating "acceptable norms". By labeling someone a con/excon, society has already passed a moral judgement on someone else's lifestyle choices.

I do not see it as being the same. To me a criminal has labeled himself or herself by committing the crime against society. Where as someone that uses God’s name in vain or cheats on his wife has not committed a crime against society. Who I am to judge that person even though I would never do such a thing? Are they going to judge me because I play video games or because I leave my family every weekend during football season?

 

Republicans say they stand for smaller government, yet Republican lawmakers find it necessary to attempt to legislate morality thus making the government larger and more involved in our everyday lives. What happens after they pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage (something that is not recognized in most states already)? Will we then pass a constitutional amendment saying atheist must attend church?

[Corinthian]

Well, we Republicans are also planning to ship you all off in airplanes refitted as spacecraft to a distant solar system where we'll pile you up around volcanoes and then drop thermonuclear weaponry into them and kill you all. After that, we'll collect your souls, make them watch propaganda films for a couple hundred years, and then reconstitute you at about a 5:1 Soul to Body ratio.

[Totenkopf]

It is the same, yet different, different, yet the same. Regardless of whether a felon has commited a breach of "community ethics" or not, it is he who is labled by the group, not the other way around. The intent of the label is to set that person apart from the group as a form of punishment. Most people who are inclined to do "evil" things often try to do them on the sly (if premeditated), thus suggesting that they do not wished to be found out/labeled by the rest of us as deficient. We are always judging others, even we we do not wish to be seen as doing so. That person is dishonest (tells little lies, cheats at cards/games), a whore, a gossip, boring, etc.. We must always exercise some degree of judgement to get through life, or we'd perish/be exploited with relative ease. To your two examples, they are nonsequitor. Why not just say maybe we would pass a law that says people can not have sex outside of marriage or that all people must become practicing christians. But, even if the first were passed, what then? It would only codify the current status quo and not really get the goverenment any more deeply involved than at current rate. It wouldn't prevent gays from cohabitating, so there'd be no egregious erosion of privacy than arguable exists currently. Frankly, both sides legislate morality (or attempt to, anyway). Hate speech laws and hate crime bills are just but a blatant example of "liberal democrat" attempts to get government deeper into your life. CA's decision to put remotely controlled heat sensors in people's homes is also another example (and as goes CA, eventually the rest of America, or so it's said). It can even be argued that sex ed programs in schools are yet another attempt to impose "secular morals" on people. And no matter where you come down on the issue of homosexuality, it's still a subject that divides the religious from secularists, but the latter is winning in the public arena through programs and laws that attempt to "normalize" it in schools and in law. Who's imposing whose morality?

 

Honestly, the whole "judge not, lest ye be judged" quote is often twisted out of context. I doesn't appear to mean that you should never judge someone as lacking or deficient, but rather that you shouldn't see yourself as inherently any better than anyone else (in this case in the eyes of God). My guess is that it's a variation on "Do unto other's as you'd have them do unto you".

[mimartin]

It would only codify the current status quo and not really get the goverenment any more deeply involved than at current rate.[/Quote] Then why pass an amendment to the Constitution that does nothing? Sounds like a complete waste of time to me. Doesn’t the Government have more important issues to tackle than something that really is a state issue?

It can even be argued that sex ed programs in schools are yet another attempt to impose "secular morals" on people. [/Quote]I would say that was true, before HIV. Now I would call it a health issue. People die without sex education, yet even those uneducated in safe sex still have sex.

 

Honestly, the whole "judge not, lest ye be judged" quote is often twisted out of context. I doesn't appear to mean that you should never judge someone as lacking or deficient, but rather that you shouldn't see yourself as inherently any better than anyone else (in this case in the eyes of God). My guess is that it's a variation on "Do unto other's as you'd have them do unto you".

Are you saying the Bible is full of contradictions?

[Corinthian]

Yeah, because STDs and STIs didn't exist before HIV...nobody ever died of Syphilis, did they?

[mimartin]

Yeah, because STDs and STIs didn't exist before HIV...nobody ever died of Syphilis, did they?

25 million have died of HIV since 1981.

 

2.1 million died of HIV in 2007 alone.

 

Syphilis is treatable for the most part.

 

That said you are correct all the more reason for sex education in order to give people the tools needed to prevent preventable STDs. Thanks.

[Prime]

25 million have died of HIV since 1981.

 

2.1 million died of HIV in 2007 alone.

 

Syphilis is treatable for the most part.

 

That said you are correct all the more reason for sex education in order to give people the tools needed to prevent preventable STDs. Thanks.

Just tell them not to have sex. Problem solved!

[Jae Onasi]

No doubt that your generalization fits some measurable percentage of welfare recipients, but even you seem willing to concede that it doesn't apply to everyone. Perhaps we'd be better off spending our time trying to figure out how to make sure the people that legitimately need help get it rather than categorically vilifying welfare and its recipients?

Agreed. I see plenty of people who really need help--people who've lost jobs due to downsizing, people who've had catastrophic injuries or illnesses, had the breadwinner of the family die, etc. I'm fine with welfare as a safety net. I also see abuse in the system. It's not common but it happens with more frequency than I like, given that the abusers are taking my tax dollars. I only see token efforts to stop the abuse, but getting rid of welfare to get rid of abuse would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

@mimartin--I believe there is no sanity of marriage. Just ask Jimbo.