Elections

[alban]

We as Anglicans i think tend to be bit more liberal in our choice of votes- i'm not talking liberal in a simple left and right divide, but perhaps more broadly. The issue of abortion has once again returned to the fore. It is an issue i feel quite strongly about, but that is irrelevant. My question is, as both Anglicans and citizens, at what point should our political and moral views 'get in the way' of our votoing behaviour. Is it wrong that i would prepared to let a single moral issue advocated by my religious belief to change my electoral voting behvaiour *because i think it might). Where does faith stop and politics begin?

[PaladinValer]

Honestly, I try to not let my religious views get in the way of my political views. Since my country is religion-neutral, I prefer not to force my theology down other peoples' throats who may disagree with it by supporting ideas based on said theology.

Of course, if I can argue beliefs by reasoning or logic alone, it doesn't matter if they correlate to my religious beliefs, as it would be a moot point then. My pro-life stance is a excellent example of this.

[Aymn27]

We as Anglicans i think tend to be bit more liberal in our choice of votes- i'm not talking liberal in a simple left and right divide, but perhaps more broadly. The issue of abortion has once again returned to the fore. It is an issue i feel quite strongly about, but that is irrelevant. My question is, as both Anglicans and citizens, at what point should our political and moral views 'get in the way' of our votoing behaviour. Is it wrong that i would prepared to let a single moral issue advocated by my religious belief to change my electoral voting behvaiour *because i think it might). Where does faith stop and politics begin?
I think the two are inseperable. One cannot "be" without having some ideological/political/moral standard in place. How do we seperate what we believe from who we are? You can't...you can choose to ignore certain issues or focus more heavily on others, but when all is said and done - religious (or moral/ethical) beliefs go hand in hand with how we vote/should vote. If we accept our vocation as a Christian one, then we have to vote in a Christian way.

Now, that doesn't mean that you have to vote for say, Republicans, because they are anti-abortion or for Democrats because they are for the environment, etc. Basically it comes down to the overall package (a downfall of this country's process is that you pretty much have to vote one way or the other b/c third party people don't even get in the running). Therefore, you should make a decision based on a morally formed conscious.

The main reason I vote Repub is b/c they are more likely to be anti-abortion. But across the board, I don't agree with many of their policies. Actually, if the Democrat party were more "conservative" I would be more likely to vote for them. However, if you compare their platform to the Socialist platform, they are pretty much identical. I, in good conscious, cannot vote for a person who supports abortion. If both candidates do, then I do not vote - it's that simple. For me, that is an issue that is uncompromisable. However, I have friends who are very good practicing Catholics who vote for every Democrat on the ticket. It's just a matter of what you conscious tells you. The one point I would make though, is that if you do vote a certain way and you feel that a part of their platform is irreconcilable with the Christian gospel, then you should work to change that in that party.

I suggest listening to some NT Wright lectures off of his website especially in reference to the cross and to the kingdom - he gives some very good insight into our role as citizens and Christians.

Peace and all good,
Aaron

[Colabomb]

We as Anglicans i think tend to be bit more liberal in our choice of votes- i'm not talking liberal in a simple left and right divide, but perhaps more broadly. The issue of abortion has once again returned to the fore. It is an issue i feel quite strongly about, but that is irrelevant. My question is, as both Anglicans and citizens, at what point should our political and moral views 'get in the way' of our votoing behaviour. Is it wrong that i would prepared to let a single moral issue advocated by my religious belief to change my electoral voting behvaiour *because i think it might). Where does faith stop and politics begin?
Faith and Politics are intertwined.

Vote your Conscience.

I will be this fall.

[AveMaria]

I'm one of the pro-choice Christians out there - I suppose I ought to insert the standard disclaimer here that I certainly don't *like* abortion, and ideally I'd like to see it safe, legal, and rare. I don't tend to voice my opinion on this often, as I know I'm a rarity, but perhaps I should....

Two of my aunts almost died from unsafe abortions in the 1960s and one was left sterile from an emergency hysterectomy, so I'm sure knowing this has influenced my views.

I had lunch with a woman from church the other day, and we were discussing politics, and she said something that's really struck me. She said, "To read the papers or watch the news, you'd think abortion and sexuality were the only two moral or ethical issues out there!"

But back to the original question - obviously, your faith is going to influence how you vote, but I think it's important, if a single issue is the basis of how you vote, to reexamine that very closely and look at other issues, too.

[Aymn27]

But back to the original question - obviously, your faith is going to influence how you vote, but I think it's important, if a single issue is the basis of how you vote, to reexamine that very closely and look at other issues, too.

Not if that "single issue" is such a large one that it goes against everything you believe and understand to be true. And I would argue that is much broader than a single issue involving everything from individual rights and responsibilities to economic factors (like SS going broke when the boomer retire). 30 million more people on the tax rolls would have a dramatic impact on things like our economy and social programs...

[Fish and Bread]

I'm against abortion, but I wouldn't vote for President Bush for dogcatcher even if someone held a gun to my head. I feel the abortion issue has become an idol in the hearts and minds of many Americans on both sides of the issue, but I want to speak only to my side, the side that labels itself pro-life, in order that I might better explain why I voted for John Kerry in the last election.

Firstly, it needs to be noted that there are many more pressing issues out there. Yes, I do believe that a fetus is a unique, special, and valuable thing and that it is a gift from God. *However*, it is not completely the same as the living breathing sentient human beings who are allowed to suffer and die from lack of adequate healthcare, because, despite being one of the richest nations in the history of the world, we'd rather fund war and give tax breaks to the rich than to fund a universal healthcare system. A fetus is not as important as the women and young children who are having limbs blown off and who are being killed by the American war of aggression in Iraq. A fetus is not as important as people who will their whole lives never be able to live the American dream because "free trade" policies have shipped their job overseas and they can't support a family. A fetus is not as important as the people who *are* overseas and work as virtual slaves in unsafe work environments because we'd rather have cheap consumer goods than apply governmental pressure to these companies to provide adequate wages and benefits. A fetus is not as important as the young children who are starving to death in Africa because the leading nations of the world won't contribute just 0.7% of their federal budgets to wiping up poverty in the third world. A fetus is not as important as the people our government is unlawfully imprisioning in death camps in Cuba and in Iraq and treating like animals. Life is not just about living, but about the quality of one's life.

To sit there and say a small lump of flesh without a brain is more important than living breathing human beings who our government is quite frankly treating like dirt is to make an idol of the fetus. I support a culture of life. I support protecting people from the beginning of pregnancies until their deaths. But there are other issues. And it's worth noting that many of these women who seek abortions are going to do so anyway -- whether it's legal or not.

It's also worth noting that Republicans in government pay lip service to the pro-life issue, but rarely do anything about it. Just think about it. Republicans have controlled the White House and both houses of congress for 4 1/2 years or so now. Have they done anything substanitive to protect the unborn? There was the partial birth abortion ban, which also had a lot of Democratic support, but that's it folks. The Republican leadership in government either cares very little about the pro-life cause relative to other issues or doesn't care at all and is using pro-life voters to keep itself in power. Just watch the nomination battle for the Surpreme Court -- dollars to donuts the first thing Bush does is concede and nominate a pro-abortion candidate, but you can bet he won't back down and nominate a candidate who opposes the Patriot Act or something.

I'm sorry for the rant, but this really agravates me that the good intentions of those who justifiably are upset about the taking of the lives of fetuses are being used to forward an agenda of death (War, capital punishment, death by starvation and exposure, etc). Folks, the kingdom of God is not about the Republican agenda, it's about God's agenda, which means we collectively have an obligation to the poor and the downtrodden, the weak and the forgotten. Part of that may well be protecting the unborn, but it's only a part of it. I think we'd be better off fighting to open up the Democratic Party to anti-abortions views than to try to change the mind of the Republican Party on just about every other issue.

John

[Colabomb]

I'm against abortion, but I wouldn't vote for President Bush for dogcatcher even if someone held a gun to my head. I feel the abortion issue has become an idol in the hearts and minds of many Americans on both sides of the issue, but I want to speak only to my side, the side that labels itself pro-life, in order that I might better explain why I voted for John Kerry in the last election.

Firstly, it needs to be noted that there are many more pressing issues out there. Yes, I do believe that a fetus is a unique, special, and valuable thing and that it is a gift from God. *However*, it is not completely the same as the living breathing sentient human beings who are allowed to suffer and die from lack of adequate healthcare, because, despite being one of the richest nations in the history of the world, we'd rather fund war and give tax breaks to the rich than to fund a universal healthcare system. A fetus is not as important as the women and young children who are having limbs blown off and who are being killed by the American war of aggression in Iraq. A fetus is not as important as people who will their whole lives never be able to live the American dream because "free trade" policies have shipped their job overseas and they can't support a family. A fetus is not as important as the people who *are* overseas and work as virtual slaves in unsafe work environments because we'd rather have cheap consumer goods than apply governmental pressure to these companies to provide adequate wages and benefits. A fetus is not as important as the young children who are starving to death in Africa because the leading nations of the world won't contribute just 0.7% of their federal budgets to wiping up poverty in the third world. A fetus is not as important as the people our government is unlawfully imprisioning in death camps in Cuba and in Iraq and treating like animals. Life is not just about living, but about the quality of one's life.

To sit there and say a small lump of flesh without a brain is more important than living breathing human beings who our government is quite frankly treating like dirt is to make an idol of the fetus. I support a culture of life. I support protecting people from the beginning of pregnancies until their deaths. But there are other issues. And it's worth noting that many of these women who seek abortions are going to do so anyway -- whether it's legal or not.

It's also worth noting that Republicans in government pay lip service to the pro-life issue, but rarely do anything about it. Just think about it. Republicans have controlled the White House and both houses of congress for 4 1/2 years or so now. Have they done anything substanitive to protect the unborn? There was the partial birth abortion ban, which also had a lot of Democratic support, but that's it folks. The Republican leadership in government either cares very little about the pro-life cause relative to other issues or doesn't care at all and is using pro-life voters to keep itself in power. Just watch the nomination battle for the Surpreme Court -- dollars to donuts the first thing Bush does is concede and nominate a pro-abortion candidate, but you can bet he won't back down and nominate a candidate who opposes the Patriot Act or something.

I'm sorry for the rant, but this really agravates me that the good intentions of those who justifiably are upset about the taking of the lives of fetuses are being used to forward an agenda of death (War, capital punishment, death by starvation and exposure, etc). Folks, the kingdom of God is not about the Republican agenda, it's about God's agenda, which means we collectively have an obligation to the poor and the downtrodden, the weak and the forgotten. Part of that may well be protecting the unborn, but it's only a part of it. I think we'd be better off fighting to open up the Democratic Party to anti-abortions views than to try to change the mind of the Republican Party on just about every other issue.

John
I would respond, but I am afraid we are on the verge of breaking some forum rules.

[Aymn27]

I would respond, but I am afraid we are on the verge of breaking some forum rules.
It amazes me how intellectually dishonest liberals are with themselves. Honestly. To compare 4.5 yrs of Republican control with a generation of socialistic programs that have failed over and over and over and over again. If the Dems are so great, then why after forty + years of equal rights is the African American population still far behind the white population. How has public housing benefited the poor? By creating breeding grounds for gangs, drug dealers, prostitutes, etc?? What about our public school system - now there there's a winner - ha! Take a look at the socialistic countries and the condition they are currently in - France, Spain, etc etc - what is their unemployment rate b/c of course that is a human dignity issue - right? What have they or the UN done to intervene in Rwanda, Sierre Leone, etc etc...failed failed failed - all under a Socialistic banner of human rights and dignity. All miserable failures.

No party or system is perfect, however, I fail to see how a person can worship God on Sunday - receive him in the Eucharist, and say that they believe life begins at conception, then vote and support abortion, especially partial-birth abortion where, btw, the baby has a brain, etc. when they return to the senate on Monday. Although it is a horrible way to look at it - how many persons have died in Iraq and in the death chamber vs. abortion? Do you have the numbers? I doubt it is anywhere near 30 million.

Socialized healthcare? Give me a break! Any thing the government does on a grand scale it screws up on a grand scale. Just visit the post office and you'll see what I'm talking about!

I, nor anyone I know, believes that the Republican party is the 'party of God' or that it has all the answers - as a matter of fact, I would favor a pro-life libertarian type party over and above the current Republican platform (which is about where the Democrat party of the 1960's was ideologically). However, I feel that they are much truer to my ideals as a Christian than a party with watered-down Marxist understandings of economics and social systems.

The idol, I believe, is not the fetus et al. but the secular humanistic thinking that "we" can fix the world. "We" are the idol and our social imagination is caught up in that liberal-social ideal - where God is absent. The "we" has infiltrated our institutions including our churches - and I think the Lord is doing a major cleansing of all that right now. Yes, "we" can work to bring about the kingdom, but only Christ can complete that work "we" cannot....

[PaladinValer]

You are confusing the Democratic party with the international political theory of liberalism. And guess what? Bush is a liberal in this regard.

[Fish and Bread]

It amazes me how intellectually dishonest liberals are with themselves. Honestly. To compare 4.5 yrs of Republican control with a generation of socialistic programs that have failed over and over and over and over again. If the Dems are so great, then why after forty + years of equal rights is the African American population still far behind the white population. How has public housing benefited the poor? By creating breeding grounds for gangs, drug dealers, prostitutes, etc?? What about our public school system - now there there's a winner - ha! Take a look at the socialistic countries and the condition they are currently in - France, Spain, etc etc - what is their unemployment rate b/c of course that is a human dignity issue - right?

As the political identity icon displayed on all my posts indicates, I am an independent and not a Democrat. I don't think the Democrats have done a good job when they've been in power, in part because they, like Republicans, are required to grovel for campaign money, and that means in a very real sense in order to be elected to office and to be re-elected, they must to a certain extent win the endorsement of corporate sponsors. So, they don't offer us a real choice in many respects.

That said, however, at least Democrats make an effort part of the time. To keep these in the religious sphere, I want to ask you: What was Jesus' response to poverty? Was it to say "Those people are lazy bums who should get a job"? That seems to be the Republican response. Yet, that was not Christ's response. Christ calls us to love and be merciful. In fact Jesus tells us that the poor, the very people who many seem to think are responsible for their own problem, will in fact be first in the kingdom of heaven. He doesn't seem to think their problems are their fault or that they should be ignored. In fact, Jesus told us that whenever we offer someone something to drink or eat, or a blanket to keep warm, we are aiding and comforting him, and doing the will of his Father in heaven.

Yes, sometimes gifts get abused. Each of us, as sinners, are constantly abusing the gifts that God has given us. No doubt, when a social programs around the world are brought into being to provide food, shelter, or healthcare to those who need it, they are sometimes taken advantage of and used improperly, maybe sometimes even by those who don't need them. And yet, would we deny these necessities to those who truly need them because a few people may take advantage of the system? I say that to help these folks who need us, who according to Christ are the very face of Christ to us, we should be willing to put up with a little bit of our money being misused. It's really the least we can offer. And even those who misuse the system often have psychological difficulties that to a certain extent make them inculpable.

I ask you, which party is closer to the vision of Jesus? The one who mouths allegience his name and then uses it to wage war and deny our treasure to the needy or the one that may not invoke Christ's name very often but works to make sure the poor have enough to survive and thinks twice before using our armed forces to take innocent blood? Remember, our God is the one who told us that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword and that we should turn the other cheek whenever possible.

What have they or the UN done to intervene in Rwanda, Sierre Leone, etc etc...failed failed failed - all under a Socialistic banner of human rights and dignity. All miserable failures.

I am opposed to military interventionism abroad. Think Howard Dean, not Bill Clinton. :)

No party or system is perfect, however, I fail to see how a person can worship God on Sunday - receive him in the Eucharist, and say that they believe life begins at conception, then vote and support abortion, especially partial-birth abortion where, btw, the baby has a brain, etc. when they return to the senate on Monday.

I fail to see how a person can worship God on Sunday and then go out and cut necessarily funding that prevents people from starving or can order people to bomb innocent civilians. I'm guessing that President Bush and his party don't see their actions in that light, though. Likewise, I think those Democrats who favor legalized abortion think of themselves as protecting women. In my view, they're both incorrect. Sadly, neither party truly values life from it's beginning to it's end. I grieve for our country in many respects. Yet, I do have hope that the ideals of Christ and the ideals that some of our founding fathers were beginning to glimpse 229 years ago will one day be fully realized and that we will truly be a country that offers life and liberty to all.

Socialized healthcare? Give me a break! Any thing the government does on a grand scale it screws up on a grand scale. Just visit the post office and you'll see what I'm talking about!

Sometimes a principle is important enough that you risk having an inefficient system so that there at least *is* a system. It is morally unacceptable to have people who can not get medical treatment and suffer and even die from cureable diseases because they're poor in a country that is one of the richest in the history of the planet.

The idol, I believe, is not the fetus et al. but the secular humanistic thinking that "we" can fix the world.

God calls us to make the world a better place. He did it over and over again in the holy scriptures. The secular thinking in play in politics today is actually in the idea that we collectively have no power to work for good -- that we as might as well cut inefficent programs because the people they're helping don't matter. Our founding fathers believed that all men were created equal (by God) and our holy scriptures affirm that each individual has value and worth, created by God for a purpose, and that God loves everyone. Jesus calls us to actively work for the growth of the kingdom here on earth.

John

[Aymn27]

You are confusing the Democratic party with the international political theory of liberalism. And guess what? Bush is a liberal in this regard.
No actually, we here in America use the term liberal incorrectly. Somehow the Socialist agenda has adopted that term here. I am a true liberal - I believe in free trade and very limited government. But you are somewhat correct in that this neo-conservative branch of Republicanism does buy into a socialist-type agenda. For example nation building and the expansion of medicare. That is still a far cry from socialized medicine, national education, the current structure of SS and abandoning our military to the UN - for a few examples...