The difference between liberals and conservatives.

Whoa, there. First you said that you can't be in certain positions if you're going to be a compromiser by putting God above the law. Now, acording to you, sometimes it's okay to be a compromiser, and sometimes it isn't? It's all or nothing. You're either a compromiser or you're not.

 

If one is a SCOTUS justice, the first allegiance as a justice is to the Constitution. </font>[/QUOTE]If they had consistently done that we wouldn't be in the mess we are in with the judiciary overstepping its bounds and "creating" new rights...

Only God can create "rights" per the founders... and me . Gov't, in this case SCOTUS, can only preserve them to the individual or confiscate them. Most often politicians that confiscate them will find a way to sell them back in the form of a privilege or favor.

Bottom line- The Supreme Court progressively since Lincoln has shown less and less respect for God or the US Constitution much less the rule of law... and more respect for the rule of men.

Lincoln was right about slavery... but the baby of state/individual rights went out with the dirty bath water of slavery. In the end, the price of "freeing" the slaves was the enslavement of everyone to the gov't.

Disagree? What single right do you now have that the Feds can't confiscate... and sell back to you either for money or empowerment? Property rights ? Religious expression? Freedom of assembly?

If you think you really own a piece of property... try not paying the rent the gov't charges you (property taxes). Try running your private business according to your own moral values.

 

You're either a compromiser or you're not.

I'm not compromising anything; I am simply pointing out that one is a lessor offense than another. We can't go through life without sinning, that's not the issue. We can go through life with murdering.

 

Nothing. It's not up to them. The decision was a SCOTUS decision, not a legislative decision. The best that can be done is to put constructionist judges on the bench (which has pannenned). We must not delude ourselves into thinking that SCOTUS justices will make decisions based on populace opinion. </font>[/QUOTE]That may be the best thing but not the only thing. Congress can do much through correcting legislation. A constitutional amendment on the issue would be definitive... but the GOP nor conservatives in particular hold enough seats to make either happen.

Contrary to liberal propaganda, the courts were not intended to be preeminant among the 3 branches. If any were- it was the legislative. The judiciary was supposed to have been the resistance/check to unconstitutional edicts... not the creator of them.

The public is divided on the issue and compromise is not practical. About 15% are fully pro-abortion. About 20% are no exception pro-lifers. The other 65% favor some degree of restriction but not a total ban. Recent reports indicate that the public is shifting pro-life.

The problem is that no middle solution will satisfy either extreme nor even a majority in the middle.

Pro-lifers tend to be absolutist to the harm of the cause. If we were progressivists like liberals... there would already be significantly more restriction on abortion.

 

Old Regular...I'm very much in touch with reality. After working years as a paid lobbyist I've probably seen some behind the scenes dealings that would make you give up on both parties. That's why I'm not blinded by a party that is long on talk and short on action when it comes to abortion. (That includes both GOP and Democrats).

Just because you don't think it will pass, isn't a reason to sit by and do nothing. Lot of talk, little action by the GOP on outlawing all abortion.

"... even if it were possible the Supreme Court would have the final say..."
That sentiment doesn' seem to stop the GOP and some Democrats from trying to pass a flag-burning amendment. If you can introduce one, you should be able to introduce another.

"A more cogent question is: How can one who claims to be a Christian continue to support a political party that proudly proclaims its support of killing the unborn?"

I am unaffiliated, so I can't answer that one.

 

RockRambler

A paid lobbyist? Perhaps that explains everything!

 

Absolutely! That's why the most should be done at the city and county level, then a little less at the state, and then a whole lot less at the national levels of government. The federal government doesn't need to stick their nose into local business. They need to concentrate on the few big things the Constitution we laid out for it.

I'm not so sure about this one! I think it's too difficult to get 535 people to agree on anything much less three or four times that number. I think the bigger problem is that they're too busy deciding too many things, collecting too much money - our money, and redistributing it according to the votes they want to buy with it. Everything is brought to their doorstep for resolution and they're all too happy to spend money study it, write new laws, and establish new controls.

I agree with this! I think it was the plan to have representation through our representatives with the backup of direct access by petition if they didn't get the job done. Now we don't have their ear and they live "above" those they serve.

I like this one as well. Two weeks per month to take care of business. I think topics should be limited to concise issues with no added on pork or side bar issues.

But, of course, we already have a good plan in place as defined in our Constitution. We just need to get back to following it.

 

The difference in liberals and conservatives in politics is how much money they steal from the American taxpayer. There is not a dimes worth of difference between democrats and republicans. They give the illusion of a difference, when in reality, they are protecting their power, the rotton to the core, money hungry, power crazed slobs. To equate this in any manner or any terms such as liberal and conservative with a Holy God, or the Bible is a blasphamey and not worthy of this board.

 

There's corruption in both and there's big government in both. That I agree with. There are still differences - important ones - which is clearly seen by the way the line up on key votes in Congress. I wish the differences were even greater than they are.

I certainly agree God is Holy and above - far above - all our foolishness but I didn't see where that high value was violated in this discussion. Please elborate.

 

The high value is compromised when scum of the earth people like politicans are discussed on a Christian board.

 

I think you're correct!

There must be some degree of sinful and righteous behavior because the Bible mentions varying rewards and punishments accordingly.

Thereby, we can say one person's conduct is "good" compared to another, or one evil act is worse than another, but by God's standard none of us are good or worthy.

All sin and any sin is worthy of eternal separation from God which is our justifiable sentence from which we are pardoned only by the grace of our Lord.

Even the eternally lost have some civil virtues even if for self serving reasons. Some men seem far more evil than others with respect to the pain and suffering they inflict upon their fellow kind.

Hopefully, we're try to serve our Lord in all that we think, say, and do but even so I think much of it is laced with self serving motives. Paul was right - what a challenge it is! We don't have inherently in us what it takes do we?

 

Isn't this a political forum for Baptist Christians to discuss politics?

I can not agree that all politicians are "scum of the earth" to any greater or lessor degree than those they represent. We are all "scum" before God save the grace of the Lord. But among men is there not still some honor among those who serve us and not some who seek to do right in that duty?

 

We all sin, but it is one thing to work hard, raise a family, do what is best that you can and right. It is quite another to back stab, steal, lie, cheat, and claw your way to power. Do you really think a politician cares about abortion in his heart? Wake up. He cares about what gets votes. Get real.

 

I don't disagree with the fact that there is evilness in our political system and that many - maybe most - politicians go for the votes at the expense of character.

However, are we not to participate in the political process by finding, advancing, electing, and using persons of good virtue to properly represent us? Is there not value in a civil government that upholds good virtues in common with our Christian values?

The realness, I believe, is an awareness that it will never be perfect until the Lord comes again but that we must do what we can for the benefit of His honor and the well being of His creation and created beings.

 

I truly wish there was Godly men to vote for especially in Presidential elections. Having voted in every one since 1972, I see no evidence of this.

 

I pray God will send us many from which to choose!

 

On that we agree, God bless you.

 

So you admit you vote for men you believe to be ungodly. So please tell us how you can stand in judgment of them? As you said on another thread that is like saying which pig smells the worst or words to that effect.

 

Its called voting for third parties, not your Republican and Democrat heros.

 

Bitterness is not very becoming in a Christian!