Getting Evangelical,Christian values back on the table

You've assessed this election to mean more than it does.

We HAVE now disciplined the GOP. The only thing this election had to do with Dems was that they were the default. They didn't present or even admit to ideals or an agenda. They ran on nothing more than public dissatisfaction with Republicans. Had they presented ideas... they'd have probably lost. Americans don't agree with them.

The gov't does not need to be about the business of promoting religious "good" or any other kind of "good". It needs to be in the business of protecting the legitimate rights of the people... to include property rights... which means gov't has no right to confiscate the wealth of one person to buy the votes of created "class" of people. Socialism is contrary to biblical principle. Jesus recognized and affirmed property rights. He recognized and affirmed an employer's right to enter into agreement with someone on wages without being beholden to someone else's sense of "fairness" and explicitly not the employee's sence of fairness.

There is absolutely no scriptural basis for being charitable with someone else's money. NONE.

The libertarian ideals are consistent with NT teachings and principles. No form of statism is.

 

Scott:

Even though you make bold statements like:

you simply show your inability to believe that the majority of people in this country disagree with your ideas, but they do. You are actually in the minority when it comes to many of your right-wing policies and I think things are about to change! Get used to it!

 

The way to stop abortions, as a means of birth control, is to preach and establish a sense of morality in society.

Abolishing abortion simply sends errant young girls back into the back alleys of butchers.

The chief problem is not political, it is family. Parents have become too busy doing their own thing to rightly raise their children with moral values. Discipline must begin at home, and parental controls must return.

Just have a look at the divorce rate among twice-born believers. It exceeds the world's rate. Something is wrong, and legislation is not the answer.

We must stop blaming government and take some control in our own lives.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim -- do you believe that so-called "back alley" abortions will exceed the number of "legal" abortions? That number approaches 50 million in the USA alone! The unofficial number approaches 70 million! That's what is going on with "legal" abortions here. Add to that the "legal" butchering of a human life around the world. I submit that the fear of so-called "back alley" abortions (an emotionally-loaded term used only to instill disgust and fear), would drop dramatically if "legal" abortion was outlawed. However, the results of this disgusting election ensure that it will not be. We're stuck with it.

 

I am an evangelical Christian and will remain so. That automatically puts me in the "conservative" category of the world we live in. Some would even call it the "religious right", whatever that is.

Any person or party is welcome to embrace my core beliefs if they wish. Our Lord has commanded that we extend that invitation to all.

Meanwhile, many Christians will support and condone sin for political gain. So be it. Just don't expect evangelical Christians to follow your lead.

 

Well reasoned and written Scott. If the Republican party cannot be saved, I'll be looking for a third party myself.

 

Sorry Jim, but that's simply not going to happen. We are headed in the opposite direction

 

Agreed, totally

 

Doesn't have to be that way , Jim. That's what "pro choice" truly is.

They can choose to have unprotected sex or not to have sex at all. They can either choose to have their baby or see whatever abortionist is available.

It is their choice to make. Why should others be expected to pay the price for poor individual choices? Nobody will send "errant young girls" to a back alley abortionist. That's their choice. They send themselves.

Let them make their choice without my participation.

 

Please provide links to the data that supports these numbers.

Regards,
BiR

 

No, certianly not. I believe his point was a law won't stop abortions, just create more criminals for an already over burdoned system. A law will also remove the safety element from those seeking this fix to their problem. I know pro-lifers feel this option should be removed, but the truth is it can't be.

I remember growing up with girls using coat hangers, purposely falling down stairs and literally killing themselves trying to force a miscarriage or abortion. A law won't stop the problem, just remove the sign's from the clinics.

I agree with Jim that this problem will not and should not be fixed in the courts. It should be fixed in the home. We need family values, good morals and a society where single parent homes, homosexuality and terms like "my babies daddy" are not the accepted way of life. I'd like to see at least one parent be in the home full time but today we need two incomes to make it.

A law is like clipping the tops off the dandelions. It may give you the faulse sense of a better yard because you have removed the problem from your view. Be not deceived, the problem is still there.

Also, this election had nothing to do with abortion. Abortion like many other serious problems in the nation were just along for the ride.

 

In this logic no one is sending them to the abortion clinics now. It's their choice so they choose to go or they could choose to keep the baby. "They send themselves".

 

True enough.

But I'm being forced to financially support their "choice".

That must stop.

 

Everyone wants to put the emphasis on abortion, when in fact, my emphasis was on the correct solution, a return to a sense of moral values.

The solution is NOT in government it is within ourselves.

Teach the moral values and abortion, as a means of birth control, is out of the question. Then one can consider the random selection of abortion, other than for medical reasons.

Schools are allowed to teach sex education without regard for moral values. Any fool can learn to wear a condom or use birth control! Why not teach no sex in schools?

Cheers,

Jim

 

There is no doubt your solution is best.

But those "moral values" seem to have gone forever missing in a large segment of the population and we can't force it on them.

But we don't have to financially support the lack of such values. How will they ever learn to accept personal responsibility if we continue to supply financial crutches to prop up their poor choices?

 

Whatever you say Terry. The polls tell us that this election was about rejection of Bush's handling of Iraq and scandal. Those are the things liberals cultivated and harvested.

There is no evidence that Americans agree with Dems on taxes, gov't growth, expansion of socialism, gay marriage, increased regulation, gun control, etc, etc, etc.

I certainly hope the Dem leadership agrees with you though and overreach.

BTW, my views aren't "right-wing". They are libertarian and biblical... the same viewpoint that established our nation and provided the foundation for it to become the greatest Republic in the history of the world. Frankly, I am better described a Jefferson Democrat than Republican. However the modern Democrats are nothing more nor less than Socialists... an ideal wholly contradictory to our founding ideals and the Bible.

The dishonest part is that the Dems are using political maneuevering rather than legitimate law/election to transform the country. The communists used to say that coups didn't require a majority but rather a small number of disciplined, ruthless, socialistic idealists... that is the tactic the American Socialist Party (aka Dems) are using.

 

True to the extent that this is a moral issue. If it were only a moral issue then I would be adamently opposed to any law against it.

I believe that the promiscuity that often preceeds abortion is immoral and have absolutely no interest in outlawing it.

The difference is that abortion violates the rights of another human being. That person no matter their stage of development has a right to live that rightly supercedes any right to privacy or choice that the woman might have. She has already exercised her "right to choose" what to do with her body when she engaged in an activity with known consequences.

Freedom by definition demands that people be responsible for the consequences else freedom is lost. Otherwise you have nothing more than subsidized, institutionalized licentiousness.

By the same logic, laws against murder create physical risks for the murderer and therefore should be abolished.

Once again, if someone chooses to violate a law legitimately designed to protect the life of another person then they assume the consequences.

Legislation is not the answer to the moral problem. It is however the answer to the human rights violation that abortion constitutes.

 

In the US, liberals consider that a violation of their made up view of separation of church and state.

The fact of the matter is that schools should be separate from influence... the influence of gov't. I think it was Jefferson who expressed fear that if the gov't controlled the schools they would use them to indoctrinate the people... and today we are seeing his prophecy come true.

When the establishment clause was written, churches did virtually all of the educating of children. In their minds, that wall of separation would have prevented the gov't from effecting any influence at all over the education of children.

My how upside down we are.

 

Everything you wrote here could be used to eliminate any law that prevents one person from directly violating the life or liberty of another person. Does the fact that an embezzler might become distraught over getting caught and jump from the 33rd floor mean that we need to eliminate that law? If a rapist might attempt to escape police and run into a telephone pole mean that we should legalize rape to prevent the chase?

Your logic works if it is only a moral issue. It isn't. It is an issue where the life of an innocent human being is at stake.

If you want to make a factual, medically scientific case for life beginning at one point or another then do so. Nothing should be assumed about a medical procedure that occurs prior to demonstrable life. But IMO based on the medical facts, it is human life at any point where it has human dna and metabolism. No one has the right to a "special right" to enable them to avoid the consequences of their free choices.