I hope Sara Evans reconsiders

So it is better if you make no pretenses about being on the right side of abortion and various other issues? Somehow it is better if you not only ignore Christian conservatives but are openly hostile to their point of view? Moreover, leftists make no bones about the fact that they think they should be able to use gov't force and the public school system to further their aims.

I am by no means happy with the scandals... and of course that's why there is a vested interest for liberals to keep those scandals on the front page. OTOH, I know full well that those liberals if empowered will act aggressively against my beliefs and to restrict my legitimate rights, ie to speak on issues from the pulpit, use the internet unrestricted to espouse my views, have talk radio as a political info source, etc. I don't have to guess... they've verbalized it.

We can also expect to see Congress mandating pro-homosexual propaganda to the public schools that want to keep federal funding if liberals take control as well as a restoration of the previously denied federal funds for abortion.

They can also be expected to raise taxes again, pass more regulations to govern our lives, and do basically what liberals do when they have power... control people... for their own good of course since we're too stupid to help ourselves.

So the current realistic choice is between a party that is wrong on virtually every issue, promotes moral relativism, and has scandals or a party that is right on some issues, gives voice to those who believe in moral absolutes, and has scandals.

 

.

Both parties are composed of sinful individuals just like you and me.

You are right. The democrat party , for the most part , does not represent itself as" purveyors of faith and family" largley because they have so many members that act otherwise that they can't pull it off.

On the other hand the Republican party does represent itself as more moral that the democrat party, and for the most part, it is true. Just because one individual does not meet the high standards of his party, that does not make everyone in the party a hypocrite.

If it does, then you, as a Christian, are hypocritical when I sin.

I hope you enjoy being a hypocrite.:thumbs:

 

Two things and the last one is first. All Democrats are not leftists just as all Republican are not conservatives.

Second: You are exactly right. I perfer an honest Democrat with whom I disagree to a dishonest Republican who pretends to believe the same as I. Why don't you?

Why are Christians so blind that they prefer dishonesty to liberalism?

 

Never said every individual in the Republican party is a hypocrite, I said the party as a whole has become hypocrital.

I have yet to see the proof of this opinion. Do we not still have abortion and even partial birth abortion continuing even though Republicans have been in the White House for 18year of the last quarter of a century? Is homosexual behaviour not worse than it was when Reagan was elected? What have these Republicans been doing all this time?

See, I've heard all the excuses of Democrats controlling Congress and it's all the liberals fault, but they simply don't hold water.

I am indeed a hypocrite when I say I believe one thing and then turn around and condone or fail to condemn that which is opposite of what I believe.

NEITHER party has the scales of morality tipped toward their side. I will be looking outside both parties for candidates in the coming election.

 

And your point is? I know people who out of tradition vote Dem. I've sat and talked with them. At the same time they rail about the likes of Jesse Jackson they affirm they'll never do anything but pull a straight Dem ticket. Upon asking a cousin once why she would vote for a man (Clinton) that supports abortion rights, she responded, "Awww, that's just what the media says about him..." I said, no, that's what he says. She still wouldn't believe it nor even attempt to find out whether I was telling her the truth or not. Her daddy said that the Dems were the good guys, the party of the working man et al, and that's what she believes no matter what.

Are you kidding? You prefer someone who is in favor of denying people the right to life over someone who professes the intent to protect it?

At least in the second case you can demand accountability. In the first, you are getting exactly what you compromised to accept. You have no complaint.

FTR, I don't think that is the choice. There are many sincere Republicans who have worked very hard to promote a reasonable approximation of my views and interests. None will ever line up perfectly but they come much closer than liberal Dems.

And again FTR, I have not found Dems particularly honest. I think they know exactly what they're doing vis a vis social programs, wealth redistribution, use of public schools for liberal indoctrination, homosexual favoritism, etc.

I don't find the term "pro-choice" concerning abortion "honest". In fact, it is wholly dishonest. I don't find the propaganda concerning a number of issues coming out of the left in the run up to this election "honest" to include the analyses of Iraq. It may not be a very good operation... but historically speaking it is by no means ineffective or costly in lives/resources.

Maybe most fundamentally, I find the big liberal lie the most offensive- that they are morally superior for favoring wealth redistribution. There is nothing moral about confiscating wealth at the point of a bayonet from one person to buy the vote of other people- which is precisely what liberal Dems have been doing since the New Deal.

Because liberalism which isn't liberalism at all but rather socialism IS DISHONEST from its premise to its conclusions.

If they say they'll do one thing then don't do it, they can be held accountable... as the GOP appears on the way to finding out. If they espouse wrong/immoral things from the start then do them, you have no complaint. You've compromised principle and have absolutely no basis for expecting anything different than what you've gotten.

 

Regarding the Democrats and Republicans -- I hope Christians one day realize that neither a political party nor politics can stem moral decay.

I am not saying we should not take a stand or speak out (I say that as I can see that comment coming), but we should not put faith in political entities for morality. It doesn't work. I think it backfires as it has been doing for awhile, and will continue to do so.

 

True Marcia. I believe that libertarian principles which were greatly espoused by the "small gov't" conservatives when they came to power through the 80's culminating in 94 would return us to a more "righteous" nation.

Either by dictating morality (some so-called conservatives) or facilitating immorality (liberals), gov't only does harm when it tries to engineer a social outcome. If people were once again given the right to do as they believe best but the full responsibility for the consequences then people would begin to make better, more moral decisions.

I have no problem personally granting homosexuals the right to enter into any kind of legal contract with one another that they see fit IF the legitimate rights of the rest of us not to associate with them, not to employ them on OUR property, not to conduct business with them in any form, or otherwise not be coerced into accepting what we find immoral were restored as well.

Liberals decry the notion that we should declare something immoral then want to use the force of gov't to stuff their morality down our throats. We have a right to speak our opinion yet they reject this notion. They have no right to force us to accept their opinions yet they claim it.

 

Well, I do have a problem with civil unions and will vote against them. In fact, an ammendment is coming up in VA on Nov 7 on that issue.

What I was saying is that Christians put too much faith in political entities and should not align with them. I think that is where a lot of trouble has come.

 

RE: mutterings about the link in the OP.....well, it's been edited & rather than moan about the moderators, please use the report post button. We can't be everywhere, you know. And it was an inappropriate link.

LE :flower:

 

Sorry all, I completely missed this yesterday.

See that's the problem. Folks can profess all they want, but until they put feet on their profession it's just talk and dishonest talk at that.

I perfer an honest man with whom I disagree to a dishonest man any day of the week.

Accountability? Where's the accountability when Christians are being told by other Christians to ignore the dishonesty and vote for the Republicans anyway because it's the "Christian" thing to do.

Wealth redistibution is what the Republicans call it when folks complain about the big businesses and the rich abusing their workers, paying unfair wages, cutting safety corners because it cuts profits to be safe and so on. Of course we could go back to the days of our grandfathers, when they were paid less than what it cost them in rent and groceries at the company store. Oh and back to the days when Dad was killed and the family was left without resources.

Public school indoctrination is NOT the fault of the liberals, but the fault of parents everywhere that allow it to go on because they are to busy to read the notes the teacher sends home, much less actually walk through the doors to the school. In districts where parents pay attention, there is no "indoctrination"(well except the constant smoking and drinking are bad for you stuff. I guess that kind of indoctrination is okay).

Homosexuals? My goodness they are just sinful people just like us. Why some sins become such mega sins that God can't/won't forgive is beyond me. When the majority of American males make use of pornography, why don't we expect further perversion? If homosexuals "marry", does that make them any more sinful? Does that really change the meaning of the word marriage? I have other things to worry about. The only issue here is that they shouldn't expect MORE rights just because they are perverts and the rest of us don't want to be around them. That is a problem and I don't vote for a man who espouses such nonsense.

Scott, tell me what FTR stands for?

This is probably the most important idea that Christians will never get. Why on earth do we ever expect nonbelievers to act like believers? In a free nation even unbelievers get to vote. And if they have the majority, then we need to shut up and put up until we can change enough hearts to regain the majority. But we Christians aren't going to do that because we are to lazy, to uneducated, or simply to unmotivated to discuss the Solution to the world's problem with those we come in contact with. Until Christians start acting like Christians, this country will be stuck in the rut we've been in for the last 30 years. (going downhill fast)

Not finished but I'm getting long so I'm going to split the post.

 

Here is something that I agree with on face value, but when you look deeper there is a flaw. People simply won't do what is right. Why do we have to have laws that give black people the right to eat at the same restaurant as whites? Why do we have to have laws that give disabled children the right to be educated and educated along side and in the same manner as normal children? Why do we have laws that set a minimum wage? Because people won't do what is right, but instead will do whatever it takes to put themselves above their neighbors.

This country has experienced all of this and more. There are reasons for our laws. Even for our laws regarding abortion and homosexuality. They are set up so the majority of our citizens can enjoy the liberties gaurenteed to us by our Constitution. We may not like how some folk use those freedoms, but guess what? They don't like how we use ours! Freedom must be free to all or it works for none.

And were I in Virginia I would probably vote with you. But if an employer chooses to extend "family" insurance coverage and such to same sex couples, then I will let that employer make their own decisions.

 

I see. You are perfectly consistent with your professions all the time in every situation? However FTR (for the record), the GOP has put more constructionist/pro-unborn rights judges on the bench. They have cut funding for abortion. They have lowered taxes. They have implemented a much more common sense and I would argue effective environmental policy (the only thing it hasn't been effective in doing is creating lawsuit opportunities for leftist groups which is the REAL issue speaking of dishonesty).

The problem is that you have created a fallacy of limited alternatives. Liberals have a long history of deception. Roe v Wade is a classic example. Unable to get national legislation they set up a test case to change the law through a compliant judiciary. Resistance to voter ID's is another. The whole concept that gov't is the arbitor of good and therefore empowered to decide the one has too much while another has too little or that one person's point of view is more worthy of protection than another's is a fundamental "dishonesty" of liberalism.

Liberalism accepts no absolute moral standard and objects to the notion that law should be based on one. This idea is by definition, "dishonest".

Who said to ignore it? Who said that dishonest people shouldn't be held accountable. Though by no means as thorough as I would have it, the GOP has been much more accountable than Dems for many reasons. Want examples?

Kennedy is guilty of manslaughter. Foley is guilty of writing perverse things to minors... which one is more severe? Which man is still in Congress?

Barney Frank was involved in a male prostitution scandal... Where is he? Where was the investigation to see who knew what and when?

Bill Clinton assaulted Juanita Broderick and engaged in much more than dirty talk with a page... yet he was defended by the media and liberals. Is that what you consider "honest"?

Gingrich, Livingston, and others were defrocked for much less than many Dems have been guilty of... Does the GOP not get credit for accountability there?

The Dems and liberals prevented even legislation to stop partial birth abortion... Are you saying you would rather side with them because they were "honest" about supporting an ideal that is rotten and dishonest to its very foundation?

No. It is what libertarians call it when gov't claims the power to confiscate the wealth of one person and give it to another for political reasons. Like any other problem society has, there were many more and better solutions than for gov't to interfere.

Nonetheless, your examples are poor if not false. Define "abuse their workers". Would that be requiring them to meet the terms of the contract they agreed to when they freely accepted the PRIVILEGE of employment?

Who gets to decide what is an "unfair wage"? You? How are you or liberals in gov't more qualified than the free market to determine what a job is worth?

Safety issues could have easily been resolved by making laws enabling employees to sue for damages when injured. The whole system of gov't interference in the workplace protects "big business" at least as much as the employee.

Or we could just demagogue with non-sense. The "cure" for the robber barrons has turned out to be far worse than the disease ever was.

Tell it to the parents and politicians in Smyrna, GA who wanted to simply put a notice in science books telling kids the truth- Evolution is a theory, not a fact. That was determined to be an attempt to religiously indoctrinate.

That simply isn't true. We've experienced it in the Chicago area schools ourselves. We were effectively blown off when we complained about some of the material our 2nd grade child was being given.

How about California? Didn't they recently rule that the school could teach positively about homosexuality without the parents approval or prior knowledge... or was that Mass.?

They're not. That isn't the point. The point is that I should not be forced by gov't to accept ANY person who defines themselves by something I consider immoral. I don't claim the right to deny them their freedom. I only claim that they don't have a right to impose themselves in violation of my freedom.

No. But because liberals have successfully shifted the forum of debate for social mores from the free public to the halls of gov't... it amounts to societal consent in the name of all of us.

My solution would be to eliminate gov't involvement in any type of marriage and let free individuals work out their own contracts. Free private individuals and companies would have the "RIGHT" to determine which of those relationships, if any, they chose to honor... of course this is based on consent to employer/gov't based healthcare which I don't. It is a vile centralization of power over individuals and a grievous restriction of freedom.

Exactly! I'm not arguing any different. I know a guy who went to Hawaii and "married" another man. I have never been nor am I now hostile toward him in the workplace. In fact, he would probably tell you that I am one of the nicer people in the company to him even though he knows exactly where I stand on morality.

I just want everyone's freedom back. The primary deception is the premise that these issues should be determined in gov't via a political power struggle. I say reduce the gov't to its literal constitutional restrictions and let a free, very intelligent people work out the problems for themselves.

NO, NO, NO, NO. We need to restore the system in which all of us can exercise our rights and liberties regardless of who happens to be in the WH or Congress. We need to reject the very notion that "majority rule" is a legitimate means of restricting individual freedom.

Ideally, I don't want or even want to discuss creation in public schools... or sex education... or political indoctrination... or any number of other issues but not because I don't favor those things being taught in school. I oppose in principle the idea that gov't should have the ability, used or not, to directly shape the opinions and ideals of children.

The first, best step if we want a restoration of our just and civil society would be to privitize all primary education.

I just spent a good portion of three days trying to help out some people who called our church for help. We gave them food and shelter but I also "preached" to them and laid ground rules that they would have to submit to if they wanted continued help. Namely, he had to start looking for a job and they had to stop co-habitating and that I wanted them in church. Would gov't do that? Or would they simply facilitate/subsidize their self-destructive behavior?

30 years? Try at least 90 going back to the Amendment that allowed income tax.

 

Let me see if I can explain this in a manner that some can understand . . .

May the Eternal Father judge the wicked and perverse politicians that are in office BEFORE HE BEGINS TO JUDGE THE PEOPLE. May He judge the wicked and perverse people BEFORE he judges His people. But, if He must judge us for His glory and honor . . . then let Him begin.

I would that God would judge us Himself, than to have His judgement come through His using evil infidels . . .

:godisgood:

 

And that is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to make the decision. What we have now is people making bad decisions but being protected from the consequences. It creates conflict and perpetuates the downward spiral of our society.

Are you arguing that people should not be free because they might not do what YOU think is right?

For the same reason tv is a pit of stench. The 30-50% of Americans who oppose insertions of bad content will watch the shows anyway because they are mostly good. This is where a free press is supposed to come in and foster social action by free individuals through sharing information.

Had the press "preached" boycotts and individual action against discrimination I believe the results would have been much faster and thorough. As it is, we are still fighting a "zero sum game" in gov't over what exactly should be done to engineer outcomes that virtually all of us want. I want success and opportunity for everyone including minorities... but I find it unfair that the gov't "provides" it at the expense of more qualified white people. That isn't "fair".

Because it elects politicians. Minimum wage laws have a temporary effect at best. The best way to promote wages is to shrink taxes to create business activity and induce a labor shortage. Wages went up through the 90's and since the recovery began in earnest over the past couple of years for this very reason.

And please show me where you or anyone else has the "right" to deny someone else's rights because they don't use them the way you think they should.

Precisely (except for abortion which is not a moral issue but a human rights issue)... but out of the other side of your mouth you are arguing that if someone doesn't do what is "right" in your opinion or in the opinion of the majority then they should be subject to more control. How is it "right" to demand that a person who earns wealth must give up his property/commerce rights when you don't think he uses them properly when you say that we must accept that others may use their freedoms in ways that we don't like?

Just be consistent. Freedom indeed must be free to all (even people you think should help the poor more or should run their businesses differently) or it works for none.

Absolutely. Though I think individual based insurance would bring the consumer force back into the market and have a net effect of improving service while lowering costs. Laws restricting cooperative insurance buying should be removed so this can be accomplished while freeing people from employers and employer interference. Right now there is a perverse incentive for companies to try to fool employees into believing they are providing good insurance while minimizing what is actually done for them. The company, not the insurance company, is ultimately the driving force behind cost savings at the expense of quality medical care.

 

Since it seems that Jeremiah was not enough . . .

Try Ezekiel . . .

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezek 33;&version=49;

 

Please do not use large fonts on your posts. Thanks,

Lady Eagle
Moderator

 

What do you mean Lady Eagle? I don't see any large fonts. I can see some bolding, but it looks like simple bolding.

Really? I'd love to see documentation cause I keep hearing folks say this but I haven't seen any proof. Lower taxes? Can't tell it by my paycheck!(city, state, federal income taxes and SS) Can't tell it by my property taxes. Can't tell it by the sales and gas taxes.

Liberals did this, how? Are conservatives not also guilty of this by calling for laws against abortion and homosexuality(btw, sodomy laws have been on the books for centuries, how is it that those laws didn't amount to shifting social mores from the public to the government?)

This would be funny if it weren't so sad. You want a government that doesn't meddle in personal freedoms, but you just told this couple that Christians wouldn't help them (and by extension that God didn't love them) until they straightened up their act. Can you not see the contradiction in your own actions.

Really, but yet you want laws to keep women from having abortions?

I have to pick on one more thing:

Even in this day of rampant illegal immigration I am hugely opposed to having to suppy an ID in order to vote. This is not communist Russia where everyone must have "papers" in order to subsist. For the same reason I am againt a National ID to replace my drivers liscense. How free can a person be if they must have a card (think number or mark) in order to go about their daily business? (okay, end paranoid mini-rant)

 

Big difference I see in the political world is that when a Republican crosses the line..... He's out on his ear.... Shamefully dropped from party support and voted out of office. The Democrat on the other hand is lauded, applauded and given choice committee assignments after reelection.....