 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/9/2004 9:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | In a few weeks the citizens of the United States will be standing in the ballot box and choosing who they want in office for the next four years. I have been struggling in knowing what to do. Should I forfeit my option to vote? Should I vote for the moral issues that I am most passionate about or should I vote for the side that seems to have more emphasis on the social issues of our society? I NEED ADVICE! It seems that I am divided between the moral issues I adhere to and the social issues I believe in.
The pros I'm focusing on:
Bush is against stem cell research and partial birth abortion.
Kerry is for working on world diplomacy and focusing more at home on the poor and middle class issues and concerns.
The cons I'm focusing on:
Bush will continue in fighting this war on Iraq and appears unwilling to admit he made a bad call. From the movie "Fahrenheit 911" it looks as though Bush may have put our country at war for greedy reasons - can we trust this man?
Kerry appears to switch back and forth on issues -- is he stable enough to lead a country? Kerry is pro-choice and for stem cell research of embryos.
Does anyone have advice on how to weigh out these pros and cons? What are the issues that you are looking at? Thank you. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/11/2004 1:53 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott and Sahid, thank you for giving me your thoughts on the topic.
I agree with you, jefscott, that we can't totally trust any president. We only hear what they want us to hear.
As far as the third party, Sahid, I have been thinking of looking further into what they stand for in this campaign yet unless the majority of Americans are sick of politics as usual, the third party has a VERY slim chance of winning - BUT - Jesse Ventura did win for governor of Minnesota because the young voters made a statement.
SO MY QUESTION IS: WHAT WOULD JESUS DO IF HE WERE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES? WOULD HE VOTE? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/11/2004 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | At what point do the odds determine who we will vote for? Suppose you firmly support everything John Doe stands for. Now suppose he is 25 points behind Popular Candidate in the state in which you are registered. You've got something like a 1% chance of John Doe taking your state. So now you have a choice: vote in the candidate you believe in or vote in the way that has the best chance of being on the winning side.
At what point do we draw the line? Should we only vote for those who have a 50% chance of winning? 40%? 30%? 20%? 10%? At what point does pramatism take over for our desire to do what's right? I would argue that even if there was absolutely no chance of the candidate I believed in winning, I should still vote for him or her.
I do, however, see some merit in saying things like abortion take precedence over the election. If you believe that abortion is murder, then yeah, screw the election and just vote for whoever will end abortion. The problem is, neither candidate is going to do that. Bush is pro-life, yet thousands of abortions are still preformed. I don't have the stats on me, but I wouldn't be surprised if more abortions have been preformed under Bush than any other president. If you really want to use your vote to deal with abortion effectively, vote Badnarik. He is pro-choice, but he's pro-Constitution first. He is in favor of making it a state's issue like the Constitution says it should be. If states were deciding, I bet a few of them would outlaw abortion.
I have equally negative views of Kerry's "social concerns". He favors socialized sevices. I think socialized services are fine unless you threaten people with jail time. All these wonderful services (socialized education, medicine, insurance) are forced by the majority on the minority. If you'd rather have privite education, medicine, or insurance, you still have to pay for the socialized services whether you use them or not (or go to jail). And the richer you are, the higher percentage you have to pay in taxes. Why? Are rich people necessarily bad? Is it ok to take money from people so long as the majority thinks they can afford it? I'm not sure how one can defend something other than a flat tax as anything but unethical.
As for Kerry and diplomacy, what would he have done differently? Given Iraq 30 chances to comply instead of 20? Enlisted the help of those superpowers France and Germany? Personally, I'm an isolationist, but if one believes that we have the right as a country to get involved in other people's business, then I still don't see how Kerry is a good choice. He voted to go to war in Iraq. Now he criticizes the war because it will get him elected. But I thought we were voting for the next four years, not the last for years. As far as the next four years are concerned Bush and Kerry don't look much different in regard to foreign policy.
I don't know how Jesus would vote. But would he vote for the best candidate or the candidate most likely to win? Voting for likely winners seems more like betting. I say we shouldn't water down our vote. We should vote for our favorite candidate, even if he's not popular. The presidential election is a popularity contest only because we allow it to be so.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/11/2004 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
A rich, white, male graduate of Yale in a blue tie versus
a rich, white, male graduate of Yale in a red tie.
RICH WHITE MALE Isn't it enough to make you sick!
Give me the POOR/AVERAGE MINORITY FEMALE and I'll vote for the BEST candidate, Sahid.
Have any of you ever become tired of seeing WHITE MALES running for presidency!!!
Moderator's Second Cousin, as far as being a YALE graduate... I have no problem with a person being intelligent enough to graduate from Yale as long as they have common sense, a heart of compassion, and respect for all people. | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/12/2004 5:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Tigressquote:
I only vote for pro-lifers so this election, I'm voting for Bush.
Thanks for your feedback! I had taken that stance in my selecting which candidate to vote for until I began to recently think, "Would I vote for a candidate that was pro-life but that neglected to care for the needy?" And how do I go about selecting which people group (victims so to speak) that the bible tells me to care about? I care that unborn babies have no ability to defend themselves but I also care that there are countless children that have no health care. I care that there are more people living with no shelter or food today than four years ago because they lost their jobs. So my biggest struggle is how do I decide which issue to put most weight on in making my choice?
When I watched 'Farenheit 911' and saw how much investment the Bush family has in Middle East companies.... I began to resonate with Michael Moore in questioning the reasoning behind many of the actions that have taken place. When I saw all the innocent victims from the war on Iraq (Iraq wasn't behind September 11) I began to really become angry.
So, I believe that voting strictly on one issue can be dangerous and possibly be missing the mark on our calling as Christian citizens. After all, would any of us really vote for a Hitler just because they were the only pro-life choice on the ballot?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/13/2004 1:43 AM (GMT -6) | | JEEquote:
It is always a curiosity to me when I hear people try to say the Democrat party is more reflective of a Christian approach to the poor. That may or may not be true
In what I know... the the Democratic party seems to have more of an emphasis in health care for ALL. The Democrat party puts more pressure on the rich paying taxes so that the poor can have some relief. These are a couple ways I believe they take what I believe to be a Christian approach to the poor. What do you think?
JEEquote:
but again I have to ask, "Don't we believe in SEPARATION of Church and State?" Why should we think it's the government's job to do that which God has commanded the Church to do?
As a Christian I want to make a choice that will be most reflective in what I believe in. The government passes the laws for the United States which have an impact on the church so to this extent they are interdependent. The government makes the decisions that encourage or discourage killing (war, abortion laws, taxes) and I am prolife. The bible tells us to NOT KILL but both war and abortion encourages killing so who I vote into office does have an impact on my Christian beliefs. The government has the power to tax or give tax breaks and the bible tells us that "as we do for the least of our brethren we are doing for Christ" so voting for the one who will give tax reliefs to those who struggle (including the middle class) has in impact on my Christian beliefs. I do not see them as seperate in that respect. We are to live our lives with the heart of Christ. JEE, would you mind telling me who, in your opinion, that you think Jesus would vote for and why?
Thank you so much for your response and feedback I am thinking out loud as I work through this decision. I appreciate everyones feedback so much! | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/13/2004 1:46 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscottquote:
Especially when the poor are worse off than they were before the great society programs
Would you mind expanding on this for me? I am seeking facts and truth before making my final decision. Thank you! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/13/2004 1:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Quest,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially when the poor are worse off than they were before the great society programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you mind expanding on this for me? I am seeking facts and truth before making my final decision. Thank you!
Mainly making the point that politicians are typically more concerned with buying votes than they are in actually helping anyone. Not to say that they intentionally hurt people, but politicians seem to be pretty clueless about human nature to me. I'm not being partisan; I have MAJOR problems with both establishment parties. After all, the Republicans never really fought to reverse any of those programs - indeed, they expanded them, albeit at a slower rate.
I'm not real sure how the 90's welfare reform legislation affected things, so I don't really know how it all works now. But there's probably a ton of info in books and on the internet about how teenage pregnancy, out-of-wedlock births, etc. increased when the Great Society programs kicked in.
There were times when the subsidizing basically rewarded women for living with a guy as opposed to marrying, etc. Again, the intention was supposedly good, but the result was not. Do a google search for "welfare" and "daniel moynahan." He's the one Democrat who publicly repented of his role in advocating those programs.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/13/2004 11:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
JEEquote:
It is always a curiosity to me when I hear people try to say the Democrat party is more reflective of a Christian approach to the poor. That may or may not be true
In what I know... the the Democratic party seems to have more of an emphasis in health care for ALL. The Democrat party puts more pressure on the rich paying taxes so that the poor can have some relief. These are a couple ways I believe they take what I believe to be a Christian approach to the poor. What do you think?
Again, this completely depends on one's view of the appropriate respective roles of the Church and the State, and on one's views of the Constitution (founding principles) of the United States.
I personally do not find the New Testament to anywhere state or imply that it is the proper role of the secular gov't to take care of the poor; that is the responsibility of the Church, from the New Testament perspective.
I also do not find anywhere in the founding principles of our nation the idea that it was the government's job to basically be a sort of omni-thieving Robin Hood, taking from the rich to "give" to the poor.
quote:
JEEquote:
but again I have to ask, "Don't we believe in SEPARATION of Church and State?" Why should we think it's the government's job to do that which God has commanded the Church to do?
As a Christian I want to make a choice that will be most reflective in what I believe in. The government passes the laws for the United States which have an impact on the church so to this extent they are interdependent. The government makes the decisions that encourage or discourage killing (war, abortion laws, taxes) and I am prolife. The bible tells us to NOT KILL but both war and abortion encourages killing
The Bible nowhere forbids war. In fact, in the same Covenant in which God said "Thou shalt not kill (murder)", war is positively endorsed! (E.g., when God told the people of Israel to kill all the hopelessly depraved inhabitants of Canaan). In the New Testament, Jesus said there would be "wars and rumors of wars" until the end of the age. (Not that all wars are somehow justified by this fact, but it is crucial to note that Jesus was basically apolitical with respect to secular government in his day).
quote:
The government has the power to tax or give tax breaks and the bible tells us that "as we do for the least of our brethren we are doing for Christ"
Again, your last sentence totally confuses the proper distinction between Church and State, besides the fact that your quotation of Christ totally ignores the context of His statement. In the original context, who is Christ speaking to? (Hint: It was definitely NOT the secular gov't he was addressing in that passage).
quote:
JEE, would you mind telling me who, in your opinion, that you think Jesus would vote for and why?
If Jesus were here, He wouldn't need to vote, He'd rule over all the earth! This is one area where the question, "What would Jesus do?" really cannot apply--He advocated nonresistance to Roman rule in his day in his situation. He expressly told His disciples and Pilate, "My kingdom is NOT of this world."
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/13/2004 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Jefscottquote:
Not to say that they intentionally hurt people, but politicians seem to be pretty clueless about human nature to me.
You may be right. I will do a search on the web site to look up "welfare" and "Daniel Moynahan"
quote:
Puts pressure on the rich"? You mean makes laws that force the rich to pay? How is this "pressure" Christian?
Sahid and JEE, WOW! There is so much here that I don't know how to respond except to say thank you for giving me more meat to chew on. I have to rethink what I previously thought in regards to this. Here are my initial thoughts:
I don't see the church doing the job for people to the extent that is needed so who is going to do it? If the government doesn't help people who will? The church is VERY limited and therefore does not seem to give much outside of it's walls to United States citizens. The church is great at supporting missions and is good at taking care of their own members (at least most are) but what about all the people who don't attend a church? Who is to care for them? We christians need to be concerned with selecting those who will pass the laws that benefit society. If we say that the government is not in the position to take care of the poor.... I believe we are neglecting the poor and needy because the church is inadequate to do the job, IMHO.
Thanks for your feedback. This is very helpful for me in making my final decision. I appreciate your help.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/13/2004 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
I don't see the church doing the job for people to the extent that is needed so who is going to do it? If the government doesn't help people who will? The church is VERY limited and therefore does not seem to give much outside of it's walls to United States citizens. The church is great at supporting missions and is good at taking care of their own members (at least most are) but what about all the people who don't attend a church? Who is to care for them? We christians need to be concerned with selecting those who will pass the laws that benefit society. If we say that the government is not in the position to take care of the poor.... I believe we are neglecting the poor and needy because the church is inadequate to do the job, IMHO.
Hi QFT,
Respectfully, if your logic on this continues to be the basic approach of professing Christians to their responsibility for the poor, they NEVER WILL do their duty as Christians; they will have absolutely NO incentive to do so.
If the Church were to obey Christ's clear commands to them about the poor and take more responsibility in this area, I can see SEVERAL positives resulting:
1. More people would possibly be persuaded that Christianity has something to it, and that at least some of those who claim to submit to Christ as LORD of all of life actually are loving their neighbor as themself.
2. The Church would find God's blessing in greater measure than ever before, for "inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me," and "he that GIVES (not "pays taxes to support") to the poor lends to God," as the Proverbs say.
3. The Church would have the satisfaction of knowing that they were in fact obeying this oft-neglected aspect of being a disciple, and would more steadily grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
4. God would be glorified in this, as Jesus said, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may SEE your good works, and glorify your Father in heaven."
5. The need for taxation would decrease in direct proportion to the lessening of people depending upon the gov't for their subsistence.
I have worked directly with our denomination's benevolence ministry for the past five years, and can attest to the FACT that both the givers and the receivers are FAR MORE blessed when giving is allowed with no strings attached and simply on account of need than when taxation (forced "giving") is the mode in which the poor are "helped." First, the receivers don't learn to depend on a monthly check from "the giverment," but instead on a benevolent God who has benevolent people. Second, the givers have the opportunity to give out of love rather than coercion.
There are many, many other benefits to private benevolence programs, but I have a severe headache right now and must sign off. Perhaps I may be able to continue tomorrow.
Blessings,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
richschmidt
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 10/13/2004 7:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
If the Libertarian Party candidate actually believes that abortion should return to the States, I'm impressed. Are you sure of that?
Badnarik said it isn't a federal issue (meaning it should be handled by the states or "lower") at the debate for third party candidates held at Cornell recently. You can watch it on C-Span's website.
The abortion question was asked, and Badnarik explained that the Libertarian Party's guiding principle is that of private property, including the idea that you own your own body. So a woman has the right to do with her body what she wants to. And the Libertarian Party's official position is pro-choice. However, he acknowledged that the LP is split on this, because many are arguing that the baby's ownership of his/her own body begins before birth, meaning that the mother would have to acknowledge and respect those rights and not kill him/her.
Of course, another of the LP's principles is that the federal government should be returned to its Constitutional rights and responsibilities, which means that abortion wouldn't be a federal issue. It would be a state one, I suppose.
I like the LP for all the reasons that have already been explained here by others. I think the church would be free to again be the church if the government weren't doing the church's job. Though I can understand how some would think of it differently.
You might want to read up on the Libertarian Party at their website:
www.lp.org.
Peace,
Rich Schmidt
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/14/2004 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Is terrorism and prostitution "just a nuisance"?
Sen. John F. Kerry -- in an interview with Sunday's New York Times Magazine -- said the Sept. 11 attacks "didn't change me much at all"; and said he hopes the country will return to the days when terrorism was "just a nuisance," the same way that prostitution and illegal gambling are a nuisance.
www.townhall.com/news/politics/200410/POL20041011b.shtml
lexus.msn.com/id/2094580
Please be sensitive, this little girl is someone’s daughter!
Missing Daughter or Cpl./Sgt. Maxwell Klinger?
Answer: Senator John Kerry in Vietnam
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/po/20041014/co_po/kerryreferstomarycheneystirsuproar | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/14/2004 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's a quiz to take to see who your views match up with. Will it be the Bishops, Bush, or Kerry? Take the quiz tofind out!
www.cafeteriacatholics.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/14/2004 3:14 PM (GMT -6) | | JEEquote:
If the Church were to obey Christ's clear commands to them about the poor and take more responsibility in this area, I can see SEVERAL positives resulting:
1. More people would possibly be persuaded that Christianity has something to it, and that at least some of those who claim to submit to Christ as LORD of all of life actually are loving their neighbor as themself.
I think that the people would be persuaded that Christianity has something to it if we all walked daily, hourly, every minute in LOVE but that doesn't always mean we all are capable of giving the way the poor need. The world will know we are Christians by our LOVE NOT NECESSARILY MONEY!
JEEquote:
I have worked directly with our denomination's benevolence ministry for the past five years, and can attest to the FACT that both the givers and the receivers are FAR MORE blessed when giving is allowed with no strings attached and simply on account of need than when taxation (forced "giving") is the mode in which the poor are "helped."
I believe that!
I have heard of MANY churches and Christian organizations struggling just to survive. I don't see how churches can give to people in such a way that needs would be met but I might be of little faith. | | Back to Top | | |
| 103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:06 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|