I concur with cheesehead. If all involved profess to be christian, how does one interpret the difference in policy based on the same principle? It boils down to something other than religion[I],[/I] congregation, or faith. I call it politics, which can have many varied definitions.

Personally, I love infants, guns, and Jesus, but I also believe you should not be forced to agree with me. Perhaps I'm a libertarian masquerading as a normal everyday American citizen.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140539]Both McCain and Palin represent the extreme Christian right. In fact, McCain choosing Palin rather than his first choice, Joe Lieberman, perfectly illustrates my assertion that McCain has sold his soul to the Christian right. They will of course be pleased by Palin, because she passes all the conservative Christian litmus tests:
[/QUOTE]


I certainly don't see McCain representing the Christian right. I can understand why McCain is not popular in those circles. Through Palin they can be kept motivated to cast their vote though. You wouldn't want to lose the race because of alienating them. Unfortunately they can't be ignored. Yes, I really would prefer Lieberman over Palin. But Lieberman would be more of the same, which may be unwise in the race towards the presidency. Democracy is not perfect, you get weird coalitions.

Look at Biden, he is ready to accept a nuclear Iran. That would mean another five decades of not so cold war. Well, hopefully the strike will be well before the elections.

[quote=AES;140547]I concur with cheesehead. If all involved profess to be christian, how does one interpret the difference in policy based on the same principle?[/quote]I think that answer is clear... people have worked up in their minds that "Christian right" is equivalent to "Christian", which is completely false.

If one examined my personal spiritual beliefs (Christian) and political beliefs (I am pro-life, pro-business, skeptical of Chicken Little liberal "everything is terrible and unjust" hand-wringing, etc. -- although definitely [I]for[/I] gun control), I would most likely be classified as "Christian right".

There are many many Christians though who draw from Jesus a focus on serving the poor (which I do as well, although I think it should be privately driven rather than through a welfare state), and other "liberal" & "progressive" pursuits.

Despite being a conservative myself, I think that very few conservative political beliefs -- with the notable exception of pro-life and believing homosexuality to be a sin -- are driven by Biblical principles.

There is Biblical reference to the notion that we shouldn't expect to eat unless we are willing to work ([URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:6-12;&version=31;"]2 Thessalonians 3:6-12[/URL]), but little else regarding work vs. welfare. Guns? Nothing that I can infer. Economic policy? Ditto. Intervention vs. Isolationism? Nada.

In short, I think associating "Christian" with "right" shouldn't be accepted by Christians, conservative or otherwise. To do so, is to allow Christianity to be essentially hijacked by the politics of the day. I know to some it may seem like the other way around (i.e. back to the "Christian theocracy" comment), but Christians need to wake up to the fact that the right-wing is co-opting Christianity (or at least the label) as a political faction.

Interested to hear dissenting views (and I'm sure I will!)... :smile:

[QUOTE=tallguy;140572]Despite being a conservative myself, I think that very few conservative political beliefs -- with the notable exception of pro-life and believing homosexuality to be a sin -- are driven by Biblical principles.

There is Biblical reference to the notion that we shouldn't expect to eat unless we are willing to work (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12), but little else regarding work vs. welfare. Guns? Nothing that I can infer. Economic policy? Ditto. Intervention vs. Isolationism? Nada.[/QUOTE]In my opinion the Bible is not pro-life as such : the God of the Ancient Testament does not hesitate to kill. Neither are the people calling themselves pro-life, most of them condone war, death penalty, arm possession and so on. It is more about the control of woman and procreation. I do not remember any direct mention of abortion, but it has been a long time I read the books...

There are few mentions of things contrary to the opinion of the religious right : "Thou shall not kill" implies no army, weapons or death penalty. There are the quotes of Jesus in the New Testament about the difficulty for the rich to enter Heaven, about "who lives by the sword will perish by the sword" and so on. Of course one can find the opposite as well, even limiting oneself to the New Testament (the punishment for one who does evil to a child should be to be thrown in the sea with a stone around the neck, but this last example seems to oppose child prisons.)

Jacob

[size=-2](I hope I capitalised all words some want to see capitalised ?)[/size]

[QUOTE=S485122;140584]In my opinion the Bible is not pro-life as such : the God of the Ancient Testament does not hesitate to kill. Neither are the people calling themselves pro-life, most of them condone war, death penalty, arm possession and so on. It is more about the control of woman and procreation. I do not remember any direct mention of abortion, but it has been a long time I read the books...

There are few mentions of things contrary to the opinion of the religious right : "Thou shall not kill" implies no army, weapons or death penalty. [/QUOTE]

No, no, no - that is a pervasive misconception on the part of both the believers [specifically those not fluent in Hebrew and hence reliant on translations of the Old Testament] and secular liberals who like to throw it back at the religious right who are fiercely anti-abortion but quite often strongly supportive of the death penalty.

The original Hebrew text is more accurately rendered as "thou shalt not murder", i.e. one shall not take a life without just cause. The crux of course is "who decides what is just?" This interpretation is fully consistent with the rest of the Old Testament, which is in many places a sea of blood, whose spilling is in fact lauded when done by "the righteous", who not surprisingly happen to be those from the same tribal/ethnic/religious affiliation as that of the scribes who wrote the books of the OT and deemed it "the rendered word of God."

So cheesehead, you appear to essentially agree with me that McCain has sold his soul to the Christian right, although you prefer to use the less vivid language of "pandering" to describe his selling-out. I for one am not comforted by the hope that he might lurch back toward the center once elected - what if he keels over shortly after the inaugural? This is not a young man we're talking about here - making his choice of a running mate even more important than usual. he seems to be in decent health, but given his age, the stress of the presidency [at least for those who take it seriously and don't spend a third of it chillin' at Camp David or their Texas ranch] and regular skin cancer issues, there is a not-at-all-negligible chance that he would not finish his first term, or would spend significant portions of it in an incapacitated state.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140330]If McCain was looking to pander to disgruntled Hillary supporters by way of his VP choice I think he miscalculated badly. Whatever my issues with Hillary, at least she's *qualified* for the office. Palin would appear to be nothing more than a female version of Dan Quayle. Ooh, "Undertook ethics reform in Alaska state government" ... awfully impressive, that.

.[/QUOTE]


Another bomb just hit.

The religious right, socially repressive, anti-free-choice, anti-women's
rights, anti-gay, republican party, whose male members keep cheating
on their spouses while prattling about "FAMILY VALUES" just announced:

Palin's 17 year-old, unwed daughter is 5 months pregant!!!

Now personally, I [b]don't care[/b]. What I do care about is the hyprocrisy
of Palin. She's had 5 kids (which I think is disgusting in this day and age;
how can one give proper care to your children when you have 5 of them?)
Indeed, this pregnancy shows, that Palin FAILED to properly care for
her daughter. She failed to teach her that one doesn't get pregnant
when 17 and unmarried.

Can't these Palin women keep their legs crossed on occasion?

Republians are such fu**ing hypocrites in their attempts to impose
their socially repressive views on everyone else. They want to drag
the U.S. back to their idealized view of the 1950's social environment,
while at the same time the men can't keep their pants zipped, and the
women can't keep their legs crossed.

I think this is great news! It certainly can't help the republitards.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;140605]Palin's 17 year-old, unwed daughter is 5 months pregant!!![/QUOTE]

Let's see what happens if she gets an abortion...:whistle:

For me it boils down to the major evil of each candidate. For Obama, he will raise taxes and spend as if there were no tomorrow. For McCain, he will continue to spread the Christian conservative (and repressive) ideology.

I honestly believe that McCain will spend almost as much as Obama, but won't raise taxes, at least not as much. He would rather add a few trillion to the national debt thinking that future revenue will cover the spending. As for Obama, he won't pander to Christian conservatives, but I wouldn't be surprised if he maintains the current tendency to use religious organizations to help with social issues.

I would probably be more conservative if the Republicans weren't married so strongly to the Christian right, who (IMO) are repressive and espouse their creationist dogma (which is utter crap). They think that the Constitution is an extension of the Bible and spread more hate than any other group.

I would probably be more liberal if the Democrats would stop thinking that government can solve all problems. I'm concerned that their desire for freedom from religion will open the door for people to practice their religious beliefs without legal consequence. They spend money like water and tend to not hold people responsible for their own actions.

As I "mature", I would like to see two things happen. First, ensure that NO religious beliefs are above the law. I see this happening in Europe WRT Islam and it frightens me (read [URL="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4034908.ece"]this[/URL]). Second, do everything we can in the U.S. to give children the best education in science that we can so that they can use that knowledge to (hopefully) disprove fundamentalist beliefs (see [URL="http://www.creationmuseum.org/"]this[/url]).

[quote=ewmayer;140604]The original Hebrew text is more accurately rendered as "thou shalt not murder", i.e. one shall not take a life without just cause. [/quote]Good point.
[quote=ewmayer;140604]The crux of course is "who decides what is just?" This interpretation is fully consistent with the rest of the Old Testament, which is in many places a sea of blood, whose spilling is in fact lauded when done by "the righteous", who not surprisingly happen to be those from the same tribal/ethnic/religious affiliation as that of the scribes who wrote the books of the OT and deemed it "the rendered word of God."[/quote]This is not at all fair... just as often, when Israelite blood was shed and they were sent into captivity, they accepted it as being from God. While it wasn't "lauded" (obviously), it was understood that they were getting their just desserts.

The Old Testament is a real grind to read -- an endless cycle of deliverance by God, followed by treating Him with contempt, followed by judgment & punishment, repentance, and forgiveness/deliverance. It's not at [I]all[/I] fair or accurate to say that those who wrote the books only thought that killing was just or acceptable when they were the ones doing it.

Daniel 9:14 is a great example, speaking of the destruction brought by the Babylonians:

"The LORD did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for the LORD our God is righteous in everything he does"

It's a pretty extraordinary thing to say, particularly given the circumstances at the time. Regardless of our faith, how many of us would think in this way today?

Read any of the major prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekial (not to mention the minor prophets as well) and that's about all you hear is how Israel would be destroyed, and [I]deserve[/I] it! While these prophets certainly tried to induce a change within their people to turn back to God, they absolutely viewed their own nation's impending destruction as being just.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;140605]Palin's 17 year-old, unwed daughter is 5 months pregant!!!

[...]

I think this is great news! It certainly can't help the republitards.[/quote]
It can. They knew this happened (well, I would hope), and I think it is safe to assume that they knew the word would eventually (quickly) get out.

Good timing? At least it is a great way to STIR UP ATTENTION which is exactly what they want right now.

Wait for the apologetic responses that are supposed to win us over.

[quote=rogue;140606]Let's see what happens if she gets an abortion...:whistle:
[/quote]
Why would they do that? It isn't like the baby will cost them anything.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;140605] Republians are such fu**ing hypocrites in their attempts to impose
their socially repressive views on everyone else. They want to drag
the U.S. back to their idealized view of the 1950's social environment,
while at the same time the men can't keep their pants zipped, and the
women can't keep their legs crossed.[/quote]
Do you understand the conservative-right mind? They only want us to follow those socially repressive views so we will not take up any more of their space (except in the factory where we belong). But fortunately, they are above us, so they can reproduce at will.

It's simple, really.