Religious/Political Question

[Nash13]

Me and a friend of mine have had this discussion lots of times. And i know of a couple of people on this board have declared their christianity. So for those who are christians or know of the bible, do you think voting for Bush was a biblical vote?

If you have an opinion of this, please share it because it is very important to me.

[mavsman55]

Well it depends on your definition of "biblical vote". I can agree with the fact that most christians voted for Bush, mainly because of abortion and gay marriage issues. However, there are many other groups of people that also voted in favor of Bush for mainly stereotypical reasons (Hunters because of gun control, etc).

It really depends on one's motives do determine whether or not it was a "biblical vote". But I can tell you that Bush's policies are more in agreement with the bible than Kerry's are (were) [img]i/expressions/anim_laugh.gif[/img].

[XERXES]

Nash13,
That's a good question. While I am a Christian, my vote had much more to do more with political and economic issues than spiritual ones. I favored the President's low tax, small government stance...and his vision for fixing any economic woes we might have. I also agree with where he stands on the 'war on terror' and protecting the homeland.

That being said, it was kind of a "bonus" that President Bush and I agree on some popular ethical issues- and that the nature of our feelings on these issues is spiritual in nature. Does that make sense?

I'm glad that President Bush is a Christian...but the fact is, if Joe Lieberman were a Republican, I'd vote for him...I can't speak for other republican members of d-m, but I bet many of them would echo those sentiments.

btw- I have an undergraduate degree in religion and would love to take a run at any other questions you might have that are political/spiritual/ethical in nature.

[u2sarajevo]

I'm a Christian first, Republican second. I will always vote for a pro-life candidate.

I know that Kerry is a Catholic.... a Christian denomination... however I had a problem with his stance (or should I say double-stance) position on abortion. Catholic faith will always take a pro-life stance. Kerry didn't. However he attempted to get around that with his proclamation that he didn't feel he could impose his views on others that didn't believe like him so he supported the availability of a mother to kill her unborn child. To me, that is not being a Christian. It's being a politician trying to please everyone.

So with out a doubt it was a "Biblical" vote. As Americans we should vote for the candidate that most represents our views. And as a Christian I did so by voting for Bush.

[vinnieponte]

I obviously didn't vote for bush for hundreds of reasons, but I had three major issues with his policies. The first one being gay marriage: I don't believe anyone has the right to tell someone weither they can marry or not, it's not up to the goverment or politicans to say whats "real" love and whats "immoral" love, telling people who they can and can't marry sounds alot like a taliban law to me. Secondly is abortion. I'm still trying to figure out why any woman would vote for a man who wants to put laws on their own rights. Bush will NEVER be able to ban abortion, yet I know he is trying everything to get a ok to make crazy restrictions, but it will never happen. An ofcourse the thrid reason is the war and don't get me started. The point being is Bush and republicans want to make everything a law. Marriage shouldnt be determined by someone or some group. Its what is in their heart that matters.

[sturm und drang]

I think it depends on what type of Christian you are - and, thus, how you interpret the Bible.

I am a Christian, and I voted for Kerry. In my opinion, most (but not all) of Kerry's stances were more aligned with my interpretation of the Bible. For example, I believe that banning two people who love each other from marrying is embarrassingly un-Christian. Tax breaks for the rich and advocacy of a latter-day version of trickle-down economics is, to me, embarrassingly un-Christian.

It just depends, however, on how you read the Bible – and your personal brand of beliefs.

[vinnieponte]

It just depends, however, on how you read the Bible – and your personal brand of beliefs.[/quote]


understandable, but thats what Im talking about. You take something which is "personal" turn it into a platform for debate, then a political edge in the bible belt states, then try turning it into a law, and banning something such as marriage, like I said, it sounds like a taliban law to me!

[Chiwas]

I think the key for a religious vote would have been to decide if Bush posseses a better moral -or at all- than Kerry, or the other way around. The all in all picture.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: Chiwas
I think the key for a religious vote would have been to decide if Bush posseses a better moral -or at all- than Kerry, or the other way around. The all in all picture.

Exactly right Chiwas.

I thought the topic of this thread was was that for those of us that voted for Bush did we do so for "Biblical" reasons. Not Kerry.

[dude1394]

Wonderful honest question. Hmmm...kind of tough to answer on just a message board and not a face-to-face discussion. I was born and raised a southern baptist. Fell into an anti-religiousity for quite a while until I realised how sad it was that I would try to talk someone out of being a religious person.

My wife is a devout jehovah's witness while I am sort of like John Walton, going to church with her about once a year, sort of agnostic. I allowed and supported my children being raised in the church as I felt it was important for them to realise that there are more important things than themselves and that there "may" be consequences for immorality. It's been interesting as I'm not nearly as dogmatic as the wife and there has been tension about that in the home.

I sort of feel that the mainstream culture is not only atheistic, but also immoral in general and certainly not healthy for my children to buy into. And of course immorality pre-supposes religiousity to some extent which is why I've always supported my children being brought up in a religious context.

Our country was founded on religious principles and I think that is important to my children, our next generation and our country and are just basically damn good principles to keep the country grounded in. So knowing that bush believes in that morality is a comfort, but not a reason perse for me to vote for him, although it is probably a bigger reason (the party in general to be honest) than I know.

However with the dems it's the anti-religious, anti-morality that I disagree with so much. I cannot support a party that would be willing to condone partial birth abortion, removing god from our documents, rituals. I certainly cannot support a party that would disband the boy scouts for example if possible. They would nuance it that they are "only" trying to keep government/religion seperate but it's a bogus argument in my opinion, it's a direct affront on an organizations ability to publicly state that homosexuality in there opinion is just wrong. The democrats can't abide that certainty.

In so many cases, it's the democratic parties immorality that is being promulgated throughout our culture, not the other way around that is disturbing. You don't see mainstream television shows for example promoting any sort of religiousity, it's all immorality and whatever feels good do it.

The political party that supports THAT culture is not mine, nor will ever be.

[vinnieponte]

That is your personal thoughts and hey, I respect it. Yet the issue on gay marriage still stands. Gays & Lesbians aren't going to just dissapear, and if you notice, the number of gay & lesbian couples is growing by the year, and sooner than later the republicans wont be able to silence them. You can't make a law stopping them from marrying. Maybe for now bush can put together a short term stoppage yet it wont be like that forever. Yes america was founded on "moral" beliefs right or wrong, but the day we start telling people they cant marry because we don't aprove of it, is the start of the next "taliban".

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
That is your personal thoughts and hey, I respect it. Yet the issue on gay marriage still stands. Gays & Lesbians aren't going to just dissapear, and if you notice, the number of gay & lesbian couples is growing by the year, and sooner than later the republicans wont be able to silence them. You can't make a law stopping them from marrying. Maybe for now bush can put together a short term stoppage yet it wont be like that forever. Yes america was founded on "moral" beliefs right or wrong, but the day we start telling people they cant marry because we don't aprove of it, is the start of the next "taliban".

That brings light onto some of your beliefs. And, just so you know, all 12 states that had a measure to approve gay/lesbian marriage shot that measure down. So, I guess in your eyes, the taliban has arrived.

[XERXES]

I certainly don't mean to chase a rabbit (but they are plentiful in this thread) but it is obvious that the concerted effort (by mainstream media and other mediums) to neutralize (and consequently render insignifanct) the traditional definition of marriage and family has failed. When I turn on my tv, when I pick up a magazine, it seems as though whenever I open my eyes, I'm getting blasted with images trying to convince me "gay is ok"...well you know what, 13 states got to vote on the message they've been lambasted with and they all shot it down...So, maybe every once in a while, conservative (biblically-based) values and common sense prevail.

[dude1394]

Also I don't quite understand where the proof is that gay is ok? I really do not care what people do to each other in their private lives, but nor do I see anywhere where someone has the "right" to do whatever they want against the mores of society.

The age of consent in canada is 14, S. Korea 13 (per google) I believe but our society has decided that this is pedophilia. There is no inherent "right" to commit pedophilia either, nor does our society condone it. I really don't see much difference. You either feel it's immoral or it's not.

No matter HOW you think about it however, it's certainly NOT natural. (You know the laws of nature and all that). In fact you could argue that pedophilia is much more natural than homsexuality.

[XERXES]

good post dude...this whole "right" thing is comical (almost but not as quite as funny as Sturm and Drang suggesting that not allowing two people who are in love to get married is embarassingly UnChristian...) Where did they get this "right" to deviate from social norms? Were they born with it? Or, do they feel like they are"owed" some inalienable right becasue of some injustice they have previously suffered? The fact is - the suggestion that they have a "right" is, at best, an extremely ambiguous, esoteric claim that is EXTREMELY difficult to validate...



(I'm not comparing- I'm simpling rambling) Do I have a right to do heroin? Do I have a right to walk around the mall naked? Do I have a right to be a polygamist? God made me a polygamist...God made me...God made me...yada yada...

[dalmations202]

it is still an abomination. it is wrong.

I don't care what individuals say......it is still wrong.


Years ago, they killed children under the age of 2 because a man (king) said it was OK. It didn't make it ok then or now. It doesn't make abortion a choice....just because a man says it is. It doesn't make homosexual relationships right, just because they happen. It doesn't make murder right just because it happens.

Either man is in charge (satan) or God..... and right now satan controls the Earth, because God allows it.

Yes, I voted for Bush, and some of the decision was religious. All I can do is try and show Jesus through me, and hope I am doing the Lord's will.

[mercury_rev]

While Bush did well among Christians, I don't see the Christian vote as forming the preponderance of reasons supporting his reelection. I support the right to an abortion, the right of gays to marry, (and the right to use heroin). Nonetheless, right now those issues pale in comparison to the war in the Middle East. I have some problems with Bush's foreign policy (wish for one he would be tougher on Iran) but not nearly as many problems as I did with Kerry's. Besides, Kerry doesn't support gay marriage and neither did the blue states, so I don't see this election having been "Jesusland" versus secularists.

[madape]

I can say that my vote had nothing to do with Christianity at all. However, I believe that Bush's morals and ethics are consistent with my own.

[chumdawg]

and right now satan controls the Earth, because God allows it.

Dalm, this strikes me as completely illogical.

[Nash13]

It is my belief that in this past election, the Bible cancels itself out. Because their are things Bush does or doesn't support that is un-christian as well as Kerry. My pastor also agreed with me. BTW, i'm a Baptist.

I told my friend that you could only go on worldly issue since the Bible cancels itself out. He voted for Bush because he said he was a 2-issue voter(abortion and homosexuality). I told him that the way he voted is kinda sacreligious because Biblically you can't condemn people although you religiously disagree. Also, there is more to the bible than Abortion and Homosexuality, and the Bible says elect a leader that can fully uphold God's word.

I voted for Kerry. As a young Black man in America, i just felt it fit better to vote for him, and i respectfully disagree with Bush supporter.

[dude1394]

Actually chumdawg it may seem illogical but there is some biblical support for that conclusiion. The main one I heard was when satan was tempting jesus, telling him that he would give him dominian over all of the earth. The thinking is that he couldn't offer dominian over the world if he didn't have it.

[mercury_rev]

I voted for Kerry. As a young Black man in America, i just felt it fit better to vote for him, and i respectfully disagree with Bush supporter.

I like this thread, Nash. Would you elaborate on your decision?

[Nash13]

History says Democratic candidates benefits minorities. And i know that Bush had denied resorting to the draft, but i don't trust him, and if he did, i'd be the prime target. And poverty hurts me 10 times more than the average person, and our poverty rate has increased by 10% while he's been in office. And i don't agree with how we went about going to Iraq.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: Nash13
History says Democratic candidates benefits minorities. And i know that Bush had denied resorting to the draft, but i don't trust him, and if he did, i'd be the prime target. And poverty hurts me 10 times more than the average person, and our poverty rate has increased by 10% while he's been in office. And i don't agree with how we went about going to Iraq.

Then why are you curious about the religious implications? You have already stated that you think Kerry can uphold God's word better than Bush.

If that is what you truly believe I wonder what the intent of this thread was.

[Nash13]

U2, i'm REALLY not trying to be rude, but if you read my post before, you'd know my situation. I feel that the Bible can't be upheld since it goes both ways. And me and my friend have been debating trying to vote Biblically, so i wanted to know different thoughts from different christians.

[dude1394]

Trust me nash...the military doesn't really want you. A draft (unless we get into another knock down drag out) is over. The military is a much more professional and efficient organization without a bunch of folks who don't want to be there.

If a knock down dragout occurred, I'm not sure there would need to be a draft anyway, much like wwii.

[XERXES]

Originally posted by: Nash13
History says Democratic candidates benefits minorities. And i know that Bush had denied resorting to the draft, but i don't trust him, and if he did, i'd be the prime target. And poverty hurts me 10 times more than the average person, and our poverty rate has increased by 10% while he's been in office. And i don't agree with how we went about going to Iraq.

Gosh Nash13...I certainly don't mean to be presumptuous, but if I were a young black man in America I'd be on board with Bush BIG TIME. Seriously, Democrats have exploited the welfare state for votes for years. And the welfare state as it exists, traps the poor (and many minorities) in a caste system where they have little or no hope of leaving. Bush, has actually implemented policies through education and tax breaks to help minorities more than most Democrats ever will. (btw- have you ever looked at the color of his cabinet?)

Again I'm chasing a rabbit, but the last thing posers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want is for black america to succeed - b/c if it does - gues what - they're out of a job! They will have lost their identity and their relevance...That's why they're here! They are no friend of the black man and Nash13 I'd run as far away from those dudes and their policies as I could...

And, if you really are suspicious about a draft...well, that's just simply ridiculous. please don't believe the hype...

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: chumdawg

Dalm, this strikes me as completely illogical.

Maybe seems illogical, but yes their is some biblical backing.

1) Satan offers dominion to Jesus
2) Satan and Job --- only God will not allow his death
3) In Joshua 10:13 and 2Sam1:18 the bible mentions the book of Jasher --- read it --- it is a history of Genesis through Moses or so.
4) There are actually several other places, but I need to dig them up.....PM me if you need more information.

[Nash13]

Gosh Nash13...I certainly don't mean to be presumptuous, but if I were a young black man in America I'd be on board with Bush BIG TIME. Seriously, Democrats have exploited the welfare state for votes for years. And the welfare state as it exists, traps the poor (and many minorities) in a caste system where they have little or no hope of leaving. Bush, has actually implemented policies through education and tax breaks to help minorities more than most Democrats ever will. (btw- have you ever looked at the color of his cabinet?)

It is extremely difficult to understand. Because if Bush had a good welfare plan, then why is our poverty rate still increasing? And although i guess welfare is an issue, there's more to it than that. It striked me wrong that he didn't even try to reach out to the black vote.

I also look at my local government. Even though our demo governor now isn't doing squat for anybody, past demo members of the local goverment has benefited minorities.

I want to ask you a question. If Bush seems that fit for blacks, why did 90% of us vote for Kerry?

Again I'm chasing a rabbit, but the last thing posers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want is for black america to succeed - b/c if it does - gues what - they're out of a job! They will have lost their identity and their relevance...That's why they're here! They are no friend of the black man and Nash13 I'd run as far away from those dudes and their policies as I could...

I don't listen to an adulterer and a Reverend who's in favor for abortion.

And as for the draft, that's just something to think about.

[sturm und drang]

Glad I could provide entertainment for you, XERXES. Glad you find the act of prohibiting two consenting adults who are in love from marrying to be decidedly Christian.

I, on the other hand, find such exclusion the very antithesis of what Jesus was about. Hate is not a family value, as they say; Arbitrary exclusion is, to me, not a Christian value.

And before you accuse me of being some thick-skulled, crazy-ass pinko liberal – slurs of which I have received before, and roundly enjoy – you must acknowledge that there are legions of Christians who believe like I do...

[XERXES]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Glad I could provide entertainment for you, XERXES. Glad you find the act of prohibiting two consenting adults who are in love from marrying to be decidedly Christian.

I, on the other hand, find such exclusion the very antithesis of what Jesus was about. Hate is not a family value, as they say; Arbitrary exclusion is, to me, not a Christian value.

And before you accuse me of being some thick-skulled, crazy-ass pinko liberal – slurs of which I have received before, and roundly enjoy – you must acknowledge that there are legions of Christians who believe like I do...

S&D, while I do find your comments entertaining (and for the most part well-thought-out), I don't think of you as a tscapl...and you're right, there are lots of people that do concur with your beliefs. However, you can find large groups of people that believe all kinds of things - that doesn't really shock me.

Also, nobody said anything about "hate." I would never condone that. You're right, Christ was extremely inclusionary...yet he was able to reach out to the adulterer and the corrupt tax collector without suggesting that their behaviour was ok or even tolerable.

[XERXES]

It striked me wrong that he didn't even try to reach out to the black vote.

Nash, this is simply an untrue statement. The number of black voters skyrocketed (and rightly so) for Bush in this last election. Also, I would suggest that Bush has done more for Blacks than any other president since JFK...possibly since Lincoln. I don't think that is an overstatment at all...

[mavsman55]

I think it depends on what type of Christian you are - and, thus, how you interpret the Bible.

The bible can be interpreted in many different ways, but I see no other ways 1 Timothy 1: 8-10 can be interpreted:

"But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully - realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who can kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and <u>homosexuals</u> and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching"

As I respect your beliefs sturm, I'm not sure how one can declare themselves a member of a religion, yet disagree with parts of it and only "interpret" it how they want to.

[dude1394]

From time, with respect to inclusivity of dubya.
-------
THE FOLKS AT TIME send a press release with this kicker:

New York – President George W. Bush’s cabinet is more diverse than National Public Radio, Tavis Smiley tells TIME in an exclusive interview. “It is ironic that a Republican President has an Administration that is more inclusive and more diverse than a so-called liberal-media-&eacute;lite network,” Smiley says.

That's got to hurt.

[sturm und drang]

[quote]
Originally posted by: mavsman55

The bible can be interpreted in many different ways, but I see no other ways 1 Timothy 1: 8-10 can be interpreted:

"But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully - realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who can kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and <u>homosexuals</u> and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching"

As I respect your beliefs sturm, I'm not sure how one can declare themselves a member of a religion, yet disagree with parts of it and only "interpret" it how they want to.

So, Mavsman, how do you "interpret" Ephesians 6:5-9?

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ..."

Certainly you don't actively advocate slavery, as Paul does in his dictum above? No, indeed - as Christians, we're ALWAYS "interpreting" the Bible: the metaphor, the symbolism, the deeper meaning of its passages. In some cases, we simply disregard its teachings, as in the case above and in our willful disobedience of the strict dietary laws set forth in Leviticus (which Orthodox Jews to this day follow).

These are but a few of many examples of how we all "interpret" the Bible - reading it figuratively instead of literally. And in the case of homosexuality (which is scarcely mentioned in the Bible), you and I happen to fall on different sides of the interpretation line.

[mavsman55]

Sturm, remember how the bible was written thousands of years ago, when slavery existed?

Modern day's equivalent of slavery is work. Do you obey your boss?

[capitalcity]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Nash13

I want to ask you a question. If Bush seems that fit for blacks, why did 90% of us vote for Kerry?

I don't listen to an adulterer and a Reverend who's in favor for abortion.

And as for the draft, that's just something to think about.

NASH - why is it that persons of your race who, like you just did, expose or publicly question the actions so-called "African-American leaders" are looked upon as collaborators and labeled Uncle Toms?

[Murphy3]

We've had alot of these discussions before. Personally, I cannot believe that homosexuality is in any way correct according to God's views. I know it's a hot button with many people, but homosexuality is referenced a couple of times throughout the Bible. I don't see a huge deal with churches preaching against homosexuality. But where's the line? Should churches make it a point to:

1. speak out against gay marriage?
2. not allow homosexuals in their congregation?

Obviously, I believe that it is important for churches to speak out against gay marriage much in the same way that they should speak out against pre-marital sex, pornography, and many other sins.

Should churches not allow homosexuals into their congregation? No, of course not. How can a Christian help another soul find Jesus if they exclude them? Obviously, a church shouldn't just stand by and continue to allow someone to ignore their sins. But much like someone that is knowingly over indulging in alcohol without addressing their issues or living with someone before marriage, there has to be a line. Is there forgiveness for repeated sin? Isn't that what homosexuality is? Isn't that what living with your partner before marriage is?

It's just weird that many churches often focus on particular sins such as homosexuality while ignoring the sins of many others because it's just become socially acceptable.

Too often, 'WE' pervert the grace of God to fit our own immorality. It's easy to be judgemental of the sins of others while failing to address the enormous issues/sins in our own lives.

1 Corinthians 5:9-11 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

[XERXES]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
We've had alot of these discussions before. Personally, I cannot believe that homosexuality is in any way correct according to God's views. I know it's a hot button with many people, but homosexuality is referenced a couple of times throughout the Bible. I don't see a huge deal with churches preaching against homosexuality. But where's the line? Should churches make it a point to:

1. speak out against gay marriage?
2. not allow homosexuals in their congregation?

Obviously, I believe that it is important for churches to speak out against gay marriage much in the same way that they should speak out against pre-marital sex, pornography, and many other sins.

Should churches not allow homosexuals into their congregation? No, of course not. How can a Christian help another soul find Jesus if they exclude them? Obviously, a church shouldn't just stand by and continue to allow someone to ignore their sins. But much like someone that is knowingly over indulging in alcohol without addressing their issues or living with someone before marriage, there has to be a line. Is there forgiveness for repeated sin? Isn't that what homosexuality is? Isn't that what living with your partner before marriage is?

It's just weird that many churches often focus on particular sins such as homosexuality while ignoring the sins of many others because it's just become socially acceptable.

Too often, 'WE' pervert the grace of God to fit our own immorality. It's easy to be judgemental of the sins of others while failing to address the enormous issues/sins in our own lives.

I hate to agree with you, Murph...but that is a good post.

[Nash13]

NASH - why is it that persons of your race who, like you just did, expose or publicly question the actions so-called "African-American leaders" are looked upon as collaborators and labeled Uncle Toms?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. But i said what i said about Sharpton and Jackson because they are both Reverends that disobey God's words. Sowhat you call Uncle Tom i call Sacreligious and Unholy.

Nash, this is simply an untrue statement. The number of black voters skyrocketed (and rightly so) for Bush in this last election. Also, I would suggest that Bush has done more for Blacks than any other president since JFK...possibly since Lincoln. I don't think that is an overstatment at all...

So answer me why 90% of us voted for Kerry? Also, i did say other reasons why i voted for Kerry besides my race.