A Question of Politics and Faith

[Maximus]

There is something that I have wondered about for a long time but have hesitated to bring up here because I really dislike political debates.

Here it is.

How can one be a Christian and a member or supporter of the Democratic Party?

It is my hope that this question will stand alone and will not be answered by condemnations of the Republicans or with anti-Republican polemics.

I have my own problems with the Republican Party, but the question here is how one can be a Christian and a Democrat and is not meant to imply that Christians should be Republicans.

It only implies that they should not be Democrats.

I pose this question because of the Democratic Party's well-known stances on issues like abortion, gay rights, same-sex "marriage," radical feminism, the injustice known euphemistically as "affirmative action," and its ties with anti-Christian organizations like the ACLU, NARAL, and People for the American Way, among others.

Please restrict this discussion to the Democratic Party and the reasons why a Christian should or should not support it.

"The Republicans are bad!" is really only one reason (perhaps) for being a Democrat.

It says nothing about the beliefs and principles of the Democratic Party itself.

If one accepts (theoretically) that the Republicans are bad, does that automatically mean that the only alternative is the Democratic Party?

Is it possible to so like certain aspects of the Democratic Party platform that one can ignore the morally objectionable (even downright sinful) parts?

Once again, please refrain from using this thread to criticize other political parties. Limit it to discussion of how a Christian can be a Democrat.

[EricTheRed]

You make very good points.

[OnTheWay]

I dislike the immorality of the democratic party and I equally dislike like the "let them eat cake" attitude found in the republican party. Generally speaking I do tend to vote for republicans, simply because while I can personally do charity work and give alms whereas no such counteraction to immorality is open to individuals.

[Maximus]

I dislike the immorality of the democratic party and I equally dislike like the "let them eat cake" attitude found in the republican party. Generally speaking I do tend to vote for republicans, simply because while I can personally do charity work and give alms whereas no such counteraction to immorality is open to individuals.

Good points.

I cannot in good conscience support the Democratic Party, but I do wonder sometimes about the idea of social responsibility and of the notion of the government as righter of social wrongs.

The dilemma, it seems to me, is how to balance the needs of society, especially of the less fortunate, with the need of individuals to be free of government involvement and interference in their lives.

I don't have the answer to that one.

Sometimes, though, I think a healthy mistrust of government - and especially of redistribution schemes - can seem like a "let them eat cake" attitude.

[OnTheWay]

Good points.

I cannot in good conscience support the Democratic Party, but I do wonder sometimes about the idea of social responsibility and of the notion of the government as righter of social wrongs.

The dilemma, it seems to me, is how to balance the needs of society, especially of the less fortunate, with the need of individuals to be free of government involvement and interference in their lives.

I don't have the answer to that one.

Sometimes, though, I think a healthy mistrust of government - and especially of redistribution schemes - can seem like a "let them eat cake" attitude.

I'm not, on face, opposed to the idea that charity isn't directly the responsiblity of the government. Many social liberals have incorrect ideals that we can perfect our socieity by the passage of laws. Even within Orthodoxy I've met quite a few Russian and FSU immigrents that arrive here with the impression that no one is ever mistreated or treated unfairly by the governments of the west. Generally they quickly come to understand that isn't nearly as much of the case as they thought. Governments get more corrupt and more ineffcient as they grow. So no, I don't favor the idea of redistrubting the wealth through the state.
However, I don't care for the attitude one often gets from republican politicans that everyone who has hard times is having them because they are lazy or unwilling to work.

[MariaRegina]

There is something that I have wondered about for a long time but have hesitated to bring up here because I really dislike political debates.

Here it is.

How can one be a Christian and a member or supporter of the Democratic Party?

It is my hope that this question will stand alone and will not be answered by condemnations of the Republicans or with anti-Republican polemics.

I have my own problems with the Republican Party, but the question here is how one can be a Christian and a Democrat and is not meant to imply that Christians should be Republicans.

It only implies that they should not be Democrats.

I pose this question because of the Democratic Party's well-known stances on issues like abortion, gay rights, same-sex "marriage," radical feminism, the injustice known euphemistically as "affirmative action," and its ties with anti-Christian organizations like the ACLU, NARAL, and People for the American Way, among others.

Please restrict this discussion to the Democratic Party and the reasons why a Christian should or should not support it.

"The Republicans are bad!" is really only one reason (perhaps) for being a Democrat.

It says nothing about the beliefs and principles of the Democratic Party itself.

If one accepts (theoretically) that the Republicans are bad, does that automatically mean that the only alternative is the Democratic Party?

Is it possible to so like certain aspects of the Democratic Party platform that one can ignore the morally objectionable (even downright sinful) parts?

Once again, please refrain from using this thread to criticize other political parties. Limit it to discussion of how a Christian can be a Democrat.


Ask his Grace Bishop Tikhon, Bishop of San Francisco and the West (OCA).

He admits that he is a Democrat. Why, I don't know.

Or better yet, visit his forum. I haven't been there in ages.

[OnTheWay]

Ask his Grace Bishop Tikhon, Bishop of San Francisco and the West (OCA).

He admits that he is a Democrat. Why, I don't know.

Or better yet, visit his forum. I haven't been there in ages.

I would probably have to guess that the choice has to do with the war in Iraq. In American politics we have two choices, so do you want to be shot in the rear end or the foot?

[MariaRegina]

I would probably have to guess that the choice has to do with the war in Iraq. In American politics we have two choices, so do you want to be shot in the rear end or the foot?

I think he has been a hippie from way back when. I'm sure he opposed the Vietnam War also (so did I for other reasons - why get into a war that you can never win - what is the point in that). Frankly, I felt that our reasons for getting involved in Vietnam wasn't to free the people at all. They say that President Kennedy didn't want to get into the war in Vietnam and that was the real reason why he was assassinated. If one has guts to go against the establishment, he gets shot.

p.s. Yes, I was a school girl when President Kennedy was assassinated and I was convinced that it was a conspiracy - not a lone gunman. That incident was burned into my young mind by the constant replays on TV. And I was terrified by the nuclear war drills we had almost weekly at school. We grew up thinking that it was the end of time.

[EricTheRed]

I hate to make this about the vietnam war but we could have won that easily. We could have staged a invasion of north vietnam at anytime but we feared getting to russians involved. We couldnt bomb most targets in the north because of bad PR. We lost that war because of the idiotic congressmen and the people who only believed the anti war propaganda in the media.

[MariaRegina]

I hate to make this about the vietnam war but we could have won that easily. We could have staged a invasion of north vietnam at anytime but we feared getting to russians involved. We couldnt bomb most targets in the north because of bad PR. We lost that war because of the idiotic congressmen and the people who only believed the anti war propaganda in the media.

You are right about that.

I remember watching the Green Beret and feeling so proud to be an American. And feeling so angry that our guys couldn't win the war and that my boyfriends mind was blown up.

Pray for all the guys in uniform who fought bravely and died or suffered (mentally, physically and spiritually) for their country in Vietnam, the Gulf Wars and in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[ephraimanesti]

DEAR-TO-GOD MAXIMUS,

If this Thread turns up any definitive answers, we all will be blessed indeed--and i, for one will be surprised. i have struggled with this conundrum every election season for the 5 years i have been Orthodox, and in a more vague sense for many years before then, even though before Christ i didn't understand the issues involved in a Spiritual sense. Now that i do--i'm even more confused than ever!
As Orthodox Christians, we are trapped because, in my opinion, both the Republicans and the Democrates are equal distance away from God--"to the right and to the left"--and what He would have us, as Christians, to support and be involved in. The Democrates appear to support important and compassionate social policies designed to help the poor and needy in our society in a way, i think, our Lord would approve of. On the other hand, they are actively supporting and even pushing abortion--which is unconscionable murder of the most innocent and helpless of God's beloved children--and, in addition, actively furthering and promoting the homosexual agenda--an abomination spoken most strongly against in both the Old and New Testaments.
On the other side, we have the Republicans who condemn and at least make a show of fighting against abortion and the acceptance of so-called "viable alternative lifestyles", while, at the same time, rolling back and dismantling most of the social welfare programs which have aided and supported the poor in meeting their basic human needs.
i, personally, am wondering if this political situation is not God's way of demonstrating in a concrete manner that only in Him can the answers to life's needs and problems be found--that the truth is that He is ALL TRUTH, and everything else masquerading as "truth" is just a humanly created illusion and delusion--a vain grasping at the knowledge of good and evil--and that all political rhetoric is just the nattering of sinful fools.
Soooooooooo . . . . i have said all that to say this: i, in truth, do not have a clue who or what to support politically, and i am beginning to wonder if Christians should even be involved in worldly politics at all--given that we are just pilgrims and strangers and just passing through.

IN CHRIST AND IN CONFUSION,
ephraimanesti :scratch:

p.s. Sometimes the old political set-up in Byzantium--Church balancing State--looks pretty cool, even with all its flaws and rough edges! :holy:

[OnTheWay]

I think he has been a hippie from way back when. I'm sure he opposed the Vietnam War also (so did I for other reasons - why get into a war that you can never win - what is the point in that). Frankly, I felt that our reasons for getting involved in Vietnam wasn't to free the people at all. They say that President Kennedy didn't want to get into the war in Vietnam and that was the real reason why he was assassinated. If one has guts to go against the establishment, he gets shot.

p.s. Yes, I was a school girl when President Kennedy was assassinated and I was convinced that it was a conspiracy - not a lone gunman. That incident was burned into my young mind by the constant replays on TV. And I was terrified by the nuclear war drills we had almost weekly at school. We grew up thinking that it was the end of time.

There are a lot of "old party democrats." Many people have lost sight that the Democractic party wasn't always the party of homosexual "marriage" and on-demand abortion.
Vietnam was a touchy situation. Basically when the French went in they were using the Foreign Legion which was packed with former German Wehrmacht and SS soldiers that were well versed in fighting red cell tactics, and were brutual enough to do what need to be done to get the job done and control the spread of communism. Then for some inane reason the French PM decided that no one who had served in the German armed forces during WW2 could be in the FL, so many inexperienced Frenchmen took over and the situation rapidly fell apart. The US was successful in stopping the communists in Korea and the Domino theory was still very fresh in the American mind. Really the entire thing would have been avoided if Gen. Patton would have been allowed to take an American army into Russia and dipose Stalin. Before the Russians realized that the NAZI's were going to treat them worse than the communists they were flocking to join the foreign legion of the SS. Patton would have been viewed as a liberator. Anyway, the military philosophy of containment was seriously flawed, so it wasn't so much that we couldn't win in Vietnam it was that we weren't willing to do what needed to be done. Granted doing what needed to be done might have sparked WW3. The intentions were good, it just wasn't followed up with the apporiate actions.

I used to think that the JKF killing was a conspricy too, but then I bothered to read about Lee Oswald and that really shead some light on the issue. Oswald was an attention seeker. He first fancied himself a communist, and so he "defected" to the USSR. He thought they'd welcome him with open arms as a possible spy. At first they weren't willing to take him at all, then he tried to kill himself so they stuck him in a factory. He then came to realize that life in the USSR wasn't all he hoped for so he decided to come back to the states where he was sure the press would be waiting enmasse to meet him. No one cared, he lived for some time going job to job and was an alcoholic. That's pretty much when he decided killing JFK would get him the attention he wanted. His wife that he met in Russia told him she was sick of him and going home ASAP, that's pretty much what sent him over the edge. A lot of people point out that his rifle was a cheap one, and it was. However, it was an older Italian weapon and it was in reality a good flat shooting rifle. Pretty much perfect for the shot he wanted to take. Oswald was a Marine and he qualified as a marksman, which is no easy feat. Oswald believed for a number of years he was somehow destined to greatness, but came to realize he was pretty much a failure. His wife informing him that she was leaving him pretty much confirmed he was a total failure, and killing a president was probably the only thing Oswald could think of that would get him the attention he thought he deserved.

[orthodoxy]

I think he has been a hippie from way back when. I'm sure he opposed the Vietnam War also (so did I for other reasons - why get into a war that you can never win - what is the point in that). Frankly, I felt that our reasons for getting involved in Vietnam wasn't to free the people at all. They say that President Kennedy didn't want to get into the war in Vietnam and that was the real reason why he was assassinated. If one has guts to go against the establishment, he gets shot.

p.s. Yes, I was a school girl when President Kennedy was assassinated and I was convinced that it was a conspiracy - not a lone gunman. That incident was burned into my young mind by the constant replays on TV. And I was terrified by the nuclear war drills we had almost weekly at school. We grew up thinking that it was the end of time.

I have met Bishop Tikhon however I did not know he was a Democrat. I will need to query him on this point next time I see him. Not that it really matters. umm can my bishop be a christian as a Democrat. Interesting.

I do not see how one can be anti war and pro abortion as the demoncrats claim to be. But hey I am just a stupid republican. One thing I get real sick of is the patronizing statements that try to paint the right as to stupid to understand what is really going on in the nation and the church for that matter.

Bush has a plan and the plan is moving forward. I will go out on a limb and say the majority of american fighting forces will be out of Iraq when George Bush leaves office. I will also suggest Bush will go down as a "great president" when all is said and done much like Reagon.

as a side note:

As for the single bullet theory I am also of this age. I cried with my mother on that day. I still weep in seeing those images of the past. I also for years thought it was a conspriacy. I watched a show just the other night about this very issue. Some experts took the Zaperuder film and placed it digitally into a computer thus being able to view the event in all angles and stages of the motorcade. The films shows that it was most certainly 3 shots made by Lee Harvey Oswald alone from the Texas book depository. No question. I also saw a program on if a bullet could possibly go through to men and come out nearly unscathed. The experts showed without a doubt in my mind that a bullet of this type could preform in this manner.

The 2 shows concreted in my mind that our president John F. Kennedy was killed by one man Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963 in extrodinary coincidence, skill and luck.

unworthy servant,

kyril

[OnTheWay]

Soooooooooo . . . . i have said all that to say this: i, in truth, do not have a clue who or what to support politically, and i am beginning to wonder if Christians should even be involved in worldly politics at all--given that we are just pilgrims and strangers and just passing through.


I can understand how someone might come to believe this, however I also think it could easily become an excuse not to take part in the world. Even though this world is fallen, it is still God's creation and He loves it.

[orthodoxy]

I can understand how someone might come to believe this, however I also think it could easily become an excuse not to take part in the world. Even though this world is fallen, it is still God's creation and He loves it.

I am certain Paul speaks of supporting and praying for those in charge of the civil governments we live under.

kyril

[orthodoxy]

There are a lot of "old party democrats." Many people have lost sight that the Democractic party wasn't always the party of homosexual "marriage" and on-demand abortion.
Vietnam was a touchy situation. Basically when the French went in they were using the Foreign Legion which was packed with former German Wehrmacht and SS soldiers that were well versed in fighting red cell tactics, and were brutual enough to do what need to be done to get the job done and control the spread of communism. Then for some inane reason the French PM decided that no one who had served in the German armed forces during WW2 could be in the FL, so many inexperienced Frenchmen took over and the situation rapidly fell apart. The US was successful in stopping the communists in Korea and the Domino theory was still very fresh in the American mind. Really the entire thing would have been avoided if Gen. Patton would have been allowed to take an American army into Russia and dipose Stalin. Before the Russians realized that the NAZI's were going to treat them worse than the communists they were flocking to join the foreign legion of the SS. Patton would have been viewed as a liberator. Anyway, the military philosophy of containment was seriously flawed, so it wasn't so much that we couldn't win in Vietnam it was that we weren't willing to do what needed to be done. Granted doing what needed to be done might have sparked WW3. The intentions were good, it just wasn't followed up with the apporiate actions.

I used to think that the JKF killing was a conspricy too, but then I bothered to read about Lee Oswald and that really shead some light on the issue. Oswald was an attention seeker. He first fancied himself a communist, and so he "defected" to the USSR. He thought they'd welcome him with open arms as a possible spy. At first they weren't willing to take him at all, then he tried to kill himself so they stuck him in a factory. He then came to realize that life in the USSR wasn't all he hoped for so he decided to come back to the states where he was sure the press would be waiting enmasse to meet him. No one cared, he lived for some time going job to job and was an alcoholic. That's pretty much when he decided killing JFK would get him the attention he wanted. His wife that he met in Russia told him she was sick of him and going home ASAP, that's pretty much what sent him over the edge. A lot of people point out that his rifle was a cheap one, and it was. However, it was an older Italian weapon and it was in reality a good flat shooting rifle. Pretty much perfect for the shot he wanted to take. Oswald was a Marine and he qualified as a marksman, which is no easy feat. Oswald believed for a number of years he was somehow destined to greatness, but came to realize he was pretty much a failure. His wife informing him that she was leaving him pretty much confirmed he was a total failure, and killing a president was probably the only thing Oswald could think of that would get him the attention he thought he deserved.

I agree. Also, Oswald was a great shot. One thing I found was a friend of his that knew nothing of his passion got him a job at the TBD 5 weeks before the route of the motorade was announced. This woman merely was a friend trying to help him out. If it was a conspiracy this seeming coincidence should not have taken place. Pure dumb luck and good fortune on Lee Harvey Oswald's part.

Why is it so hard for americans to believe coincindencies such as this?

kyril

[EricTheRed]

I can not wait untill the dems make a drive-thru abortion clinics. Only 19.95 and get one abortion get another free on thursdays

[repentant]

Both sides have their anti-Christian philosophies. It depends on who the person in office of the particular party is, and his beliefs. My whole family is democrats, and I vote democrat usually. But if in 2008 John McCaine runs for president, he has my vote. He would make a great President.

[gzt]

No government and especially no modern American political party is completely in accord with the Christian ideal. I'm not about to defend the Democrat Party, I have liberalist leanings but their love affair with death is simply unacceptable. However, a lot of people self-identify as Democrats who dissent from the party on the issues where the Democrats are satanically deluded. ie, http://www.democratsforlife.org does so. Somebody saying, "I'm a Democrat," doesn't automatically mean one is in favor of polygamy, infanticide, and feminism.

Then again, I also don't see a problem with a Christian supporting affirmative action or the ACLU. I also fail to see how the Democrat Party is "tied" to NARAL and the ACLU, as they cannot endorse a party or candidate and the party has nothing to do with them.

[OnTheWay]

I agree. Also, Oswald was a great shot. One thing I found was a friend of his that knew nothing of his passion got him a job at the TBD 5 weeks before the route of the motorade was announced. This woman merely was a friend trying to help him out. If it was a conspiracy this seeming coincidence should not have taken place. Pure dumb luck and good fortune on Lee Harvey Oswald's part.

Why is it so hard for americans to believe coincindencies such as this?

kyril

Being an American I really don't want to offend anyone, so I hope no one is offended, but American is a society that loves entertainment. The fact of the matter is a big juicy conspiracy theory is just more interesting than some drunk who decided to "right" the combine failures of his life by shooting JFK. Granted his was a bit over the top, but end of the day lots of men and women do crazy things when their spouses leave them.

[OnTheWay]

Then again, I also don't see a problem with a Christian supporting affirmative action or the ACLU. I also fail to see how the Democrat Party is "tied" to NARAL and the ACLU, as they cannot endorse a party or candidate and the party has nothing to do with them.

Affirmative action isn't really an issue that is worthy of discussion here. On the other hand the ACLU is probably one of the most anti-Christian groups in the country. I really don't think any Christian could support a group that has a standing threat to sue any town, city, county, or state that has a Cross or Christian emblem on their seal.
The ALCU would find themselves right at home with the militant atheists of the USSR.

[Joykins]

I'm not Orthodox, but I've always thought the Christian position was fairly positive on reigning in corporate greed, preserving the environment, and peace in general. Which seems to be the province of the Democratic party right now.

Republicans seems stronger on areas of personal morality.

I guess it's a tossup as to whether governments ought to be focusing on personal or public morality.

[OnTheWay]

...

What exactly is the point in posting three periods?

[Joykins]

I posted something in the wrong forum and noticed right away, that was a placeholder until I could get the right post in the right place :blush:

Edited to add: if you edit something quickly enough and don't fill in the reason for editing, the little edit notice doesn't turn up...

[EricTheRed]

nvm

[Lotar]

To be truly Orthodox, one is obligated to be a Monarchist.


:P :sorry:





Actually, I do have a sort of romanticized idealism about monarchy...

[EricTheRed]

Monarchys work great untill all the in-breeding creates a physco that ruins everything the great ones worked for

[Prawnik]

I think one reason people readily believe in conspiracy theories is that it seems so much more sophisticated than simply accepting conventional wisdom. "Ah, that's what they want you to think..."

This is also why some people describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious". You get to sound like an evolved soul who is beyond the petty boundaries imposed by religion, and you don't actually have to answer for anything your church did in the past, or that you may want to do in the future.

[EricTheRed]

I should do that in school. "all mass has its own gravity no matter how small" Me: THATS WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK!!!

[OnTheWay]

I think one reason people readily believe in conspiracy theories is that it seems so much more sophisticated than simply accepting conventional wisdom. "Ah, that's what they want you to think..."

This is also why some people describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious". You get to sound like an evolved soul who is beyond the petty boundaries imposed by religion, and you don't actually have to answer for anything your church did in the past, or that you may want to do in the future.

That and there's always the social misfit factor. For a sociology class a few years back I did a reserach paper on the Neo-Nazi movement in the United States and Canada. Which are strikingly different from the ethnic nationalist movements of Europe.
Basically you've got various groups of people in the US that feel isolated from the mainstream and the fact they are isolated is because they are in some way superior to everyone else. Generally, the just need a "cult of personality" type to tell them why they are superior and who has entered into a conspircy to keep them "down." Thus general social rejection, instead of shaking their beliefs, only serves to reinforce them. In the case of the American neo-NAZI it's the international Jewish conspircy to kill all white people so they can domniate the non-white races. The same formula applies to any other number of groups. Pretty soon you have a person whose entire core identity is based around belief in this conspricy.

[Prawnik]

That and there's always the social misfit factor. For a sociology class a few years back I did a reserach paper on the Neo-Nazi movement in the United States and Canada. Which are strikingly different from the ethnic nationalist movements of Europe.

Most edifying. We've long known that the average US/Canadian neo-Nutzi is either not a great success in life and/or has a tenuous grip on reality, but how is that different from menbers of European nationalist movements?

I mean I just watched a Natalia Vitrenko rally, and it was like seeing "Weirdos on Parade".

[OnTheWay]

Most edifying. We've long known that the average US/Canadian neo-Nutzi is either not a great success in life and/or has a tenuous grip on reality, but how is that different from menbers of European nationalist movements?

I mean I just watched a Natalia Vitrenko rally, and it was like seeing "Weirdos on Parade".

Generally speaking the difference is usually given by the size of the movements. For example, Britain's BNP, Germany's NPD, France's FN, Beligum's VB, and so on have tended to 1.isolate their own fringe elements (ie the peer of the American/Canada goosesteper) 2.use popular issues to mainstream themselves. All these parties have stood and stand in elections, and increasingly they win seats. You'd never see a Nick Griffen or Le Pen with a Blutfahne and dressed up in a SA uniform.
So within the ethnic nationalist movements (perhaps not in public view so much as behind the sences or in the voting booth) normal Europeans will support these parties for vaild concern over issues like uncontrolled Muslim immigration, internationalizing of the economy, and lack of trade protection for local workers.

In eastern Europe is somewhat of different ball game altogether. You've got the Russian National Unity type skinheads that are basically the same thing as their western counterparts, only a bit more violent because frankly the can get away with it. Natalia Vitrenko is pretty much just a populaist, which of course means more than a fair share of wiedros because if the freaks will bulk up the numbers then they're just as invited as everyone else. Frankly, I can understand the concern of the Ukraine and Russia when it comes to the economic transition. Within recent memory they were locked in a death struggle with the US, and all of western Europe seemed within reach. Now they're looking at western Europe, and while there is economic stablity there that the people want badly, it also means becoming what western Europe is and that's an American colony. Somewhat more vocal now that the Red Army isn't at the gates, but in the end every bit as dependant on the US in any sort of conflict. So the movements across western and eastern Europe are a great deal more dynamic than the basic "we hate jews, blacks, and south americans" of your garden variety "I wish I lived in Nazi Germany" type.

If you've never been, I recommend attending a May Day celebration in Berlin. You'll see things you never imagined possible. It's a bit late and I have get to bed, maybe tomorrow I'll relay my story about the Russian skinhead with the German girlfriend, it's rather amusing.

[ufonium2]

Somebody saying, "I'm a Democrat," doesn't automatically mean one is in favor of polygamy, infanticide, and feminism.


But, at least where I live, one is expected to be by the Democratic party itself. For instance, I have a friend who, upon registering to vote as a Democrat, got a whole packet of pro-abortion stickers and stuff in the mail. She hates abortion, and shredded the stuff up and sent it back to them with a nasty letter. I've been a registered Republican for years, and have never gotten a sticker in the mail even for a candidate, much less a broad position like that.

It all goes back to my bumper sticker theory. I work on a college campus, so I see more than my fair share of bumper stickers. If a car has more than three bumper stickers, they will be selected from the following:

*one mocking religion or invoking paganism (or maybe a Darwin fish)

*one rainbow or "=" sticker

*something mocking the president, including vulgar puns on his name (and here I thought you had to be a grownup to go to--or teach--college).

*something vague about the environment, peace, or racism

*a classic like "If you're not completely outraged, you're not paying attention"


Only once in my whole life have a seen anti-Bush and anti-abortion stickers on the same car, and I almost wrecked because I couldn't believe my eyes.

The point is, I think the Democratic party puts a lot more pressure on its members to "tow the line" and support all of its platforms than does the Republican party. I've never been made to feel like less of a Republican for opposing the death penalty, and I know several republicans who are vocally atheist. It seems there's a lot more room for freedom of dissent, and quite honestly, thought.

[Prawnik]

Interesting observation. Wish I'd thought of it. Tom Wolfe teaches us that one of the unexplained phenomenon of modern meterology is how the dark night of fascism is always about to land in the US, but it only ever seems actually to touch down in Europe. David Duke tried to do a Haider or LePen and go mainstream, but so far it hasn't worked.

Here in Kiev, I can sympathize with the local nut fringe's economic concerns, and on the international scene, I don't think the West in general and the US in particular really means them so well.

However, upon reflection, I think that "losers on parade" is a more accurate description for the Vitrenko supporters I saw. 'Round here she is regarded as rather disreputable, however there was a time not long ago where she was probably the solitary honest (if malcontent) figure in national politics.

I have it from a well-placed source that she's no longer as honest as she was. She still likes to spout conspiracy theories, but I think her 15 minutes are mostly up.

[Joykins]

But, at least where I live, one is expected to be by the Democratic party itself. For instance, I have a friend who, upon registering to vote as a Democrat, got a whole packet of pro-abortion stickers and stuff in the mail.

That has not been my experience. I have never received such solicitations as a result of registering to vote as a Democrat. If you give money to the Democrats, however, your name and address is sold to every liberal cause out there. Even moreso if you subscribe to a magazine like The New Republic. I expect it's the same if you donate to conservative causes or subscribe to conservative magazines. If you vary your name just a little when you give it for donations and subscriptions (John P. Smith, John Philip Smith, J. P. Smith, J. Smith) you can track who is selling your name to whom.

And yes, I do get pro-abortion stuff, and yes, I do shred it too.

[MariaRegina]

Varying your name is interesting ....

Once we gave a donation to a charity and the clerk at the office substituted an /m/ for the /n/ in my name. We could see who sold the list to whom. And we are still getting solicitations with that error in our name.

[eoe]

"=" sticker
What are those?

[choirfiend]

No political party in the US (or elsewhere) is ever going to be a "Orthodox values" party. Orthodox Christian values pretty much do not correspond with functional politics (unless it was world where everyone was practicing Orthodox, which is basically the description of heaven;))So, whether you're socially, economically, and environmentally conservative, liberal, or moderate, you do not have to also be morally liberal just because the overall party is. People can hold democratic values on social, economic, and environmental issues and be more conservative than the Republican party on moral issues (which Orthodoxy is.)

Let's not confuse party lines with moral stances corresponding with life and sexuality. Republicans are generally pro-life, but also against limiting instruments of death and are pro-death penalty. I suppose those latter issues are debatable as to whether or not they fit in as a moral issue, but I think they fit. They want govt to have less interference with the population but they will interefere with prisoner's very lives...

Orthodoxy does not fit into the Party Box. Confusing Orthodoxy with a political paradigm creates a poor version of Orthodoxy.

[Xpycoctomos]

What are those?

it is to suppor gay marriage legislation.

it's a yellow equals sign on a blue background... usually seen on cars next to the rainbow flag and the "I love my daughter and I'm pro-choice!" and other sadly ironic stickers.

[OnTheWay]

Interesting observation. Wish I'd thought of it. Tom Wolfe teaches us that one of the unexplained phenomenon of modern meterology is how the dark night of fascism is always about to land in the US, but it only ever seems actually to touch down in Europe. David Duke tried to do a Haider or LePen and go mainstream, but so far it hasn't worked.

I've heard the theory that the US is on the brink of massive fascist, communist, ect.. political movements, but the truth is the US will never signifcally change it's government. We are a materialist society and that sort of governmental instablity simply isn't good for business. Europeans on the other hand, for better or worse, are concerned that they have the best possible government. Most of mainland Europe is on a proportional representation system, as I'm sure you know. So like the National Socialists did in the 30's it is possible for the dark horse party to get into European parliaments.
It suprises a lot of people to learn, but Sweden is generally accepted as the number one producer of "white power" music. In the 70's and 80's Ian Stuart popularized Oi skinhead rock with nationalist/racialist themes. In the mid-90's it started to grow quite abit and get more diverse, now you'll find everything from death metal, Oi, quasi-pop music, to folk music and ballads.
David Duke's ties to the Ku Klux Klan pretty much mean despite the new more friendly image he's never going to be a serious American politician. There was a bit of an uproar when he was selling his book in the Russian Duma.

Here in Kiev, I can sympathize with the local nut fringe's economic concerns, and on the international scene, I don't think the West in general and the US in particular really means them so well.

The people of the FSU would do well to remember that Lenin promised to fix the economic problems also. I know it's rather easy to say this setting here in the US or even my grandparent's house in Kiel, but the FSU countries just have to stay the course, deal with the problems that arise, and worry less about whether they're going to be in the "American sphere" or the "Russian sphere."

However, upon reflection, I think that "losers on parade" is a more accurate description for the Vitrenko supporters I saw. 'Round here she is regarded as rather disreputable, however there was a time not long ago where she was probably the solitary honest (if malcontent) figure in national politics.

It's hard to be an honest populist, you either have to become a lair to continue saying the things everyone wants to hear or take to a platform and lose populist status.
In the interest of being fair I have to note that whether it's parties that tend toward the fringe or mainstream, activist types tend to be the losers. Everyone else is too busy at work or school to be able to drop everything and attend this or that rally.

[OnTheWay]

Republicans are generally pro-life, but also against limiting instruments of death.

I think more than a little unfair and illogical to classify firearms as "instruments of death." People were killing eachother very well thousands of years before we had gunpowder. Anything with a sharp edge or heavy enough to break a skull can be an "instrument of death." Do you support bans on kitchen knives?

[OnTheWay]

it's a yellow equals sign on a blue background... usually seen on cars next to the rainbow flag and the "I love my daughter and I'm pro-choice!" and other sadly ironic stickers.

You've got to love those "every child should be a wanted child" bumper stickers. I was unaware that only people whom were wanted had a right not to be murdered.

[eoe]

it's a yellow equals sign on a blue background... usually seen on cars next to the rainbow flag and the "I love my daughter and I'm pro-choice!" and other sadly ironic stickers.
Not the one I was thinking of... What is the sticker that is striped black blue black or black red black?

[gzt]

Soon enough, they'll have, "Every elderly person a wanted elderly person," stickers. Given abortion rates in Russia, "Every Slav a wanted Slav," stickers, too.

[choirfiend]

I think more than a little unfair and illogical to classify firearms as "instruments of death." People were killing eachother very well thousands of years before we had gunpowder. Anything with a sharp edge or heavy enough to break a skull can be an "instrument of death." Do you support bans on kitchen knives?

When studying murder statistics, both here and in other countries, something does stick out. Our murder rate is absurd.

Statisticians have noticed that murders of passion are more likely to take on highly personal methods of killing (stabbing, smashing, etc) whereas gun deaths contribute to non-personal deaths (killing ppl you dont know for non-emotional reasons such as theft.) To kill someone with a gun is easy; you pull the trigger, and can do so from far away. To kill someone with a knife or a rock is harder; you have to get close to them and have the cahoonies to create a much messier death.

We should be interested in making murder less easy.

[OnTheWay]

When studying murder statistics, both here and in other countries, something does stick out. Our murder rate is absurd.

Statisticians have noticed that murders of passion are more likely to take on highly personal methods of killing (stabbing, smashing, etc) whereas gun deaths contribute to non-personal deaths (killing ppl you dont know for non-emotional reasons such as theft.) To kill someone with a gun is easy; you pull the trigger, and can do so from far away. To kill someone with a knife or a rock is harder; you have to get close to them and have the cahoonies to create a much messier death.

We should be interested in making murder less easy.

According to the FBI 99.9 percent of firearms purchased legally will never be used in the commission of any crime. Illegal firearms cannot be controlled by the law so it is silly to assume that you can make laws which will stop criminals from breaking them. If you're going to rob a bank or kill your drug dealing rival I don't think the fact you had to get a smuggled gun to do is going to impact your other choices.
We can divide the world into three spheres in relation to gun control laws:
1.Countries that premit the citizens to be armed with some restrictions (the United States as an example)
2.Countries that do premit some firearm ownership, but it is highly selective and very difficult to obtain legal firearms (Most of the European states would be fine examples)
3.Countries that allow no private weapons (China as an example)

The one thing that binds all three spheres is the fact that regardless of gun laws there are crimes committed with firearms. Arguing ease of operation is fairly silly. A single quick blow to the head with a bat will kill as quickly as a bullet. It hardly takes any great level of strenght to kill someone with a blunt object to the back of the head. The Swiss have universal firearm ownership, there's a military rifle in virutally every home and yet have very low rates of violent crime.
To maintian rational thinking, your fellow American's car is much more dangerous to you then his guns.

[ufonium2]

So far the dumbest bumper I've encountered involved a tag team of "It'll be a great day when our public schools have all the money they need, and the military has to have bake sales." right next to, "My Child is a Great Kid at So-and-so Montessori School." Right, you support public school so much you don't send your kid there.

I did, however, see one that said "6 Billion miracles are enough." So this person is the only anti-life person I've seen who would own up to the title. No new people! Yeesh.

[gzt]

Though, hey, their taxes go to the public school even if their kid doesn't.

[OnTheWay]

Soon enough, they'll have, "Every elderly person a wanted elderly person," stickers. Given abortion rates in Russia, "Every Slav a wanted Slav," stickers, too.

I think before we single out Russia, it would be good to remember American abortion rates are pretty much second to none. We also have the world's most liberal abortion laws. It's bad when we've gone in a direction the Dutch find distastful.

[OnTheWay]

So far the dumbest bumper I've encountered involved a tag team of "It'll be a great day when our public schools have all the money they need, and the military has to have bake sales." right next to, "My Child is a Great Kid at So-and-so Montessori School." Right, you support public school so much you don't send your kid there.

I did, however, see one that said "6 Billion miracles are enough." So this person is the only anti-life person I've seen who would own up to the title. No new people! Yeesh.

The American public school teacher does not believe in American public schools. I went to a private high school and 7 of my fellow students had one or two parents that taught in public schools.

[Llauralin]

The American public school teacher does not believe in American public schools. I went to a private high school and 7 of my fellow students had one or two parents that taught in public schools.
My father taught at a public school while my brother and I were homeschooled. :)

[Llauralin]

When studying murder statistics, both here and in other countries, something does stick out. Our murder rate is absurd.

Statisticians have noticed that murders of passion are more likely to take on highly personal methods of killing (stabbing, smashing, etc) whereas gun deaths contribute to non-personal deaths (killing ppl you dont know for non-emotional reasons such as theft.) To kill someone with a gun is easy; you pull the trigger, and can do so from far away. To kill someone with a knife or a rock is harder; you have to get close to them and have the cahoonies to create a much messier death.

We should be interested in making murder less easy.
It was interesting; I heard somewhere that the death rate is actually higher in some US cities than it is in Iraq during our current war. I'm pretty sure Philidelphia was mentioned.


:eek: :cry:

[ufonium2]

It's also worth noting that Washington DC, which has very restrictive gun laws and has for the past 25 years, is still one of the most dangerous cities in the country.

[Maximus]

When studying murder statistics, both here and in other countries, something does stick out. Our murder rate is absurd.

Statisticians have noticed that murders of passion are more likely to take on highly personal methods of killing (stabbing, smashing, etc) whereas gun deaths contribute to non-personal deaths (killing ppl you dont know for non-emotional reasons such as theft.) To kill someone with a gun is easy; you pull the trigger, and can do so from far away. To kill someone with a knife or a rock is harder; you have to get close to them and have the cahoonies to create a much messier death.

We should be interested in making murder less easy.

As a former police officer, I can tell you this: criminals don't generally buy their guns (not from legitimate dealers, anyway).

They obtain them illegally.

Making guns difficult or impossible for the average citizen to obtain will do next to nothing to limit or control the supply of guns to criminals.

Severe restrictions on guns will render the public more defenseless and therefore a softer target for criminals.

Guns are not evil.

[Maximus]

It's also worth noting that Washington DC, which has very restrictive gun laws and has for the past 25 years, is still one of the most dangerous cities in the country.

Exactly.

The bad guys still manage to obtain guns.

They would manufacture them themselves if they needed to.

The Israelis invented the Uzi in basement workshops when it was illegal for them to have guns in Brit-controlled Palestine.

Liberals want gun control so that no one who opposes their social engineering can actually do anything about it.

[OnTheWay]

Last year around this time Germany, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in Europe, arrested a number of members of a neo-Nazi group. They had managed to obtain everything from H&K-93's (popular European military rifle) to hand grenades.
The Chinese don't allow any private citizen any sort of firearm, and yet Chinese organized crime has grown to be some of the most violent in the world.

[Matrona]

Guns don't kill people--kids who play video games kill people.

[Maximus]

No government and especially no modern American political party is completely in accord with the Christian ideal. I'm not about to defend the Democrat Party, I have liberalist leanings but their love affair with death is simply unacceptable. However, a lot of people self-identify as Democrats who dissent from the party on the issues where the Democrats are satanically deluded. ie, http://www.democratsforlife.org (http://www.democratsforlife.org/) does so. Somebody saying, "I'm a Democrat," doesn't automatically mean one is in favor of polygamy, infanticide, and feminism.

A party's platform is the statement of its beliefs and principles, its creed, if you will.

The Democratic Party platform is consistently pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-radical feminism, etc.

Democrats who dissent from it yet who remain within that party are apparently not troubled by such things, at least not enough to abandon a clearly anti-Christian organization.

Then again, I also don't see a problem with a Christian supporting affirmative action or the ACLU.

"Affirmative Action" is unjust.

It seeks "justice" for theoretical groups through the denial of justice to very real individuals.

Ever been one of its victims?

The ACLU pursues a consistently anti-Christian agenda.

A Christian in the ACLU would flatline on an electroencephalograph.

I also fail to see how the Democrat Party is "tied" to NARAL and the ACLU, as they cannot endorse a party or candidate and the party has nothing to do with them.

Really?

NARAL is peopled with Democrats and always endorses Democratic candidates. Its banners and leaders are prominent at Democratic Party rallies and functions.

The ACLU upholds and endorses the same principles that are outlined in the Democratic Party platform. The ACLU may not be an official arm of the Democratic Party, but the two are linked by mutual viewpoints, goals, and to a large extent, a shared membership.

Here's Kerry with NARAL president Kate Michelman and Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt.

http://www.illinoisleader.com/content/img/f17323/kerry%20(2).jpg

[MariaRegina]

Exactly.

The bad guys still manage to obtain guns.

They would manufacture them themselves if they needed to.

The Israelis invented the Uzi in basement workshops when it was illegal for them to have guns in Brit-controlled Palestine.

Liberals want gun control so that no one who opposes their social engineering can actually do anything about it.

Exactly. The first thing that a dictator such as Hitler did in Nazi Germany was to make everyone register and/or turn in their fire arms. Those that register their weapons are giving notice that they have them. Then the government can come in and take those weapons too.

An unarmed populace cannot rise up against a dictator. Therefore, Hitler could do his heinous crimes against humanity and not fear any resistance except from his own military forces.

[MariaRegina]

Last year around this time Germany, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in Europe, arrested a number of members of a neo-Nazi group. They had managed to obtain everything from H&K-93's (popular European military rifle) to hand grenades.
The Chinese don't allow any private citizen any sort of firearm, and yet Chinese organized crime has grown to be some of the most violent in the world.

Yes, and the citizens are helpless because they don't have any guns to protect themselves from the criminals.

The criminals have all the guns.

[gzt]

No, American is not second to none in abortion rates. The American rate is 25%. Russia is around 65% and other former Soviet states are about the same. Hope that helps.

[Dust and Ashes]

They need Benny (http://gprime.net/video.php/bennythesupercop). ;)

[OnTheWay]

No, American is not second to none in abortion rates. The American rate is 25%. Russia is around 65% and other former Soviet states are about the same. Hope that helps.

Didn't know that, sad very sad. Though the stats I got off google where not quite that high, it's rather depressing.

[Xpycoctomos]

does anyone have a link to a good site with updated abortion stats for countries... and how they have increased or decreased over the years?

JOhn

[Xpycoctomos]

They need Benny (http://gprime.net/video.php/bennythesupercop). ;)

Forgiven, it's great to see you. Funny link!

[OnTheWay]

I know the Church has differing takes on abortion but I still have to believe that BC is a better solution than what is going on. http://www.mosnews.com/feature/2004/11/25/abortion.shtml

Use of abortion as birth control is simply unacceptable.

[OnTheWay]

A quote from the article:

Statistics, like women, are fickle; and yet whatever numbers you look at, the rates are staggering. According to a compilation from the Demographic Yearbook of the European Council and an analogous Demographic Yearbook by the United Nations, Russia is the only nation in the world where abortions consistently outnumbered live births by a ratio of about 2 to 1. In 1970, for example, there were 1.9 million births and 4.8 million abortions. Today, with more access to real contraceptives, that number has decreased: for every live birth there are between 1.3 and 1.5 abortions, depending on the statistics you look at.

[MariaRegina]

Many artificial birth control agents are abortive.

[Lotar]

That is so sad to read.

[OnTheWay]

Many artificial birth control agents are abortive.

I tend to think that pills and condoms would do a lot, and it would appear that they are. Abortion is decreasing in the FSU as access has increased. There are many conception prevention type BC methods. Really reading that article made it quite clear that many of the people getting abortions are married and simply can't afford the children. I can sympathize with not wanting to have children you can't afford to feed, not that it is an excuse for killing them. It rather seems abortion as the form of BC has simply become ingrained in FSU socities. I dare say the entire western world would be the same way if conception preventing BC wasn't readily at hand and abortion was.

[OnTheWay]

From a Pravda article as I really hate being completely negative:

However, there is some cause for optimism: the number abortions in Russia halved between 1990 and 2001 from 4,103,000 to 2,015,000, and went on down to 1,944,000 in 2002.

[OnTheWay]

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp

Wow, in 1998 the United States had 1.2 million abortions, in 1994 there were 1.4 million. The world wide rate is at a steady reduction, but still there were only about 500,000 Americans killed in WW2. We're still well over that mark yearly on abortions. Entire generations fall before they take a breath. May God have mercy on us.

[Maximus]

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp

Wow, in 1998 the United States had 1.2 million abortions, in 1994 there were 1.4 million. The world wide rate is at a steady reduction, but still there were only about 500,000 Americans killed in WW2. We're still well over that mark yearly on abortions. Entire generations fall before they take a breath. May God have mercy on us.

Which brings us back to the topic of the OP.

How can a Christian support or be a member of a political party that is Pro-Abortion?

In other words, how can a Christian be a Democrat?

[choirfiend]

Because sometimes, there are Democrats that are pro-life, and the more of those there are in the party, the sooner the Democrats turn pro-life as a party platform!!!

[Lotar]

If you live here in Cali, all the parties are pro-murder.

[MariaRegina]

If you live here in Cali, all the parties are pro-murder.

Yes, the Left Coast state filled with nuts and fruitcakes. If it's weird, you've seen it in California first.

My husband would have liked to leave California yesterday. He wants to move to Colorado.

[Xpycoctomos]

I think perhaps some people don't put much faith in politics. Menaing, they don't really feel that politics is ever goingt doanything to ameliorate the abortion problem here (although Bush with his appointees may prove that idea to be somewhat wrong). THey feel the abortion issue has been lost completely on the political front and that now it just needs to be fought on a social front. They may, however, feel that putting another president in that is "war-happy" (as many see him) is only creating more inevitable future wars (while others will qickly come back and say that he would be preventing future homeland problems) would be immoral and so votes democrat for that reason.

SO, it may jsut be something completely practical.

Personally, I voted for bush on the abortion issue (and I am happy I did seeing that Robertsona and possibly Alito are Justices on the S.C. But I was nt convinced of anything else and, being that he seemed quite lukewarm on the whole issue, I was not singing victory when he won in 2004... all I thought was 1) he better not let us down on this issue and 2) four more years of the same thing [staring into dead space]. So, I personally can sympathize with pro-lifers going democratic if they believe the abortion issue is completely lost in Washington. You and I may not agree with that, but that's a matter rather of education and perception (of what can be done) rather than faith and morals... IMO.

John

[Xpycoctomos]

Because sometimes, there are Democrats that are pro-life, and the more of those there are in the party, the sooner the Democrats turn pro-life as a party platform!!!

I hear that..

and Juliani is dubbed as a fav to run for President in 2008... a proud Pro-choice Republican (that is, unfortuantely not much of an oxymoron these days).

I forget if I have already posted the question, but are there any Republican presidential hopefuls (at least that Repubs hope will run) that are staunchly pro-life? I've heard of Condeleeza... any others?

[MariaRegina]

I hear that..

and Juliani is dubbed as a fav to run for President in 2008... a proud Pro-choice Republican (that is, unfortuantely not much of an oxymoron these days).

I forget if I have already posted the question, but are there any Republican presidential hopefuls (at least that Repubs hope will run) that are staunchly pro-life? I've heard of Condeleeza... any others?

Some people are saying that the next election will be Condeleeza versus the Clintons (you cannot separate that married couple - depending on what the definition of 'is' means).

That will prove to be a real hen fight. squak, squak, squak :eek:

[Maximus]

Because sometimes, there are Democrats that are pro-life, and the more of those there are in the party, the sooner the Democrats turn pro-life as a party platform!!!

Yeah . . . and the more Christians start joing Wicca covens, the sooner Wicca will be Christianized!

That's it! We'll "work from within" evil organizations!

We can subscribe to their anti-Christ statements without really believing in them, can't we?

What's a little pinch of incense before the statue of Caesar?

It's what's in your heart that matters!

Right?

[MariaRegina]

Fight fire with fire - but risk getting burned.

Right! :eek:

Here in Los Angeles, sometimes a shift of wind will turn a backfire into a major conflagration which can destroy companies of firefighters. That happened not to long ago.

Great post, Rich!

[Maximus]

I hear that..

and Juliani is dubbed as a fav to run for President in 2008... a proud Pro-choice Republican (that is, unfortuantely not much of an oxymoron these days).

I forget if I have already posted the question, but are there any Republican presidential hopefuls (at least that Repubs hope will run) that are staunchly pro-life? I've heard of Condeleeza... any others?

Of course, never mind the fact that in the OP I specifically asked that this thread discuss how a Christian can be a Democrat, not the pros and cons of the Republican Party, as if a Christian had to be one or the other.

Just the same, it is important to note that Giuliani, if he really is "Pro-Choice," holds that opinion in contrast and opposition to the official Republican Party platform, which is the statement of the party's beliefs and principles and which is Pro-Life (unlike the Democratic Party platform, which is Pro-Abortion).

A Pro-Life Democrat - as rare as hen's teeth - holds that position in contrast and opposition to his party's official platform, its statement of beliefs and principles.

This distinction is important. A Pro-Choice Republican is like a self-proclaimed Catholic or Orthodox who denies the resurrection: he is definitely out of touch with his own communion.

A Pro-Life Democrat is like an atheist who mumbles the Our Father before walking down a dark alley. It might make him feel better, but it's not going to do much to change the minds of his fellow atheists.

Besides, most so-called Pro-Life Democrats call themselves that to appeal to socially conservative constituents. They are careful to inform their more liberal followers that they "will not let their personal beliefs influence" how they vote or govern or enforce laws.

Sadly, some Republicans claim to be Pro-Life in the same way and for the same reasons.

But at least their party has a Pro-Life plank in its platform.

[Scholar in training]

I hear that..

and Juliani is dubbed as a fav to run for President in 2008... a proud Pro-choice Republican (that is, unfortuantely not much of an oxymoron these days).
Rudy Giuliani is also pro "gun control (http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/97a/me970302.html)" (and said that crime is down in NY -- yeah right. But hey, this speech was made in 1997). The fact that he associates criminals with firearms (and the canard on "assault weapons" -- UGH) leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. (While I have not researched his opinion on other matters) I fear it may be an indicator of his opinion on other matters domestic and foreign.

[gzt]

I mean, I do agree, in the end, which is why I refuse to ever call myself a Democrat, though I may plug things like Democrats for Life. But the thing is, get enough dissenters and the party line changes. The party lines thirty years ago aren't what they are today in either party. It isn't like there's a real overriding eternal philosophy behind both political parties.

[MariaRegina]

I mean, I do agree, in the end, which is why I refuse to ever call myself a Democrat, though I may plug things like Democrats for Life. But the thing is, get enough dissenters and the party line changes. The party lines thirty years ago aren't what they are today in either party. It isn't like there's a real overriding eternal philosophy behind both political parties.

You are right about the shift in politics.

The Republicans today are like the Democrats 30 years ago.

The Democrats today are in union with the Green Peace Party.

[Maximus]

I mean, I do agree, in the end, which is why I refuse to ever call myself a Democrat, though I may plug things like Democrats for Life. But the thing is, get enough dissenters and the party line changes. The party lines thirty years ago aren't what they are today in either party. It isn't like there's a real overriding eternal philosophy behind both political parties.

What will force a change in the Democratic Party if not a mass exodus from it?

If it becomes unable to win elections with its present anti-Christ philosophy, then it will be forced to change or cease to exist.

[Maximus]

Rudy Giuliani is also pro "gun control (http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/97a/me970302.html)" (and said that crime is down in NY -- yeah right. But hey, this speech was made in 1997). The fact that he associates criminals with firearms (and the canard on "assault weapons" -- UGH) leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. (While I have not researched his opinion on other matters) I fear it may be an indicator of his opinion on other matters domestic and foreign.

Okay, so we don't vote for Giuliani.

Why?

Because he's kind of like a Democrat.

[Lotar]

I just don't vote.

[MariaRegina]

I vote but often it's a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Like in the last Los Angeles mayoral election - both were democrats and both were diehard pro-abortion.

There was absolutely no choice when both are Pro-Choice.

[gzt]

Well, the sad thing is that the Republicans are slowly moving pro-choice and pro-death as well.

[MariaRegina]

Well, the sad thing is that the Republicans are slowly moving pro-choice and pro-death as well.

That is true -- read the former President George Bush, senior's lips.
His wife is pro-choice.

[OnTheWay]

Because sometimes, there are Democrats that are pro-life, and the more of those there are in the party, the sooner the Democrats turn pro-life as a party platform!!!

I'm sorry but that's just not logical. When you've got Howard Dean as head of the party it's pretty clear that the Democractic party is swinging left. It would be like standing in Germany in the 30's and saying if all of us non-rabid anti-Semities join the National Socialists we can moderate the party line.

[Scholar in training]

Okay, so we don't vote for Giuliani.

Why?

Because he's kind of like a Democrat.
According to the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/brookhiser/brookhiser200408310033.asp), Giuliani "presents conservatives with an unusual phenomenon — the politician who is both extremely liberal and extremely conservative. This is a very different thing from being a 'moderate' (which is almost always code for trending liberal). On social issues he stands with Barney Frank. On security issues he stands with Douglas MacArthur."

He is a good leader, and according to this PDF file (http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/99v05n3/9909glae.pdf), appears to have a mildly Reaganesque fiscal policy (strong on "crime", quite unfortunately on guns as well, with less focus on welfare. I am not certain whether the decrease in welfare roles during Giuliani's term is a result of conservative opinions on redistribution or the fact that he was preoccupied with "crime").

[Maximus]

Well, the sad thing is that the Republicans are slowly moving pro-choice and pro-death as well.

I don't see much evidence of that.

The Republican Party Platform remains Pro-Life, and most Republicans are Pro-Life.

But, even if that were true, why would a Christian want to be a Democrat?

Why can't we form our own party?

[gzt]

well, maximus, i think the only thing we agree on is pro-life, that's why we can't have our own political party.

have you been watching the wording of the pro-life republican plank and the debates about its inclusion in the last few elections? the increased prominence of certain pro-death republicans?

[Lotar]

If we made our own party, we would be just handing the Democrates power.

[OnTheWay]

I think perhaps some people don't put much faith in politics. Menaing, they don't really feel that politics is ever goingt doanything to ameliorate the abortion problem here (although Bush with his appointees may prove that idea to be somewhat wrong). THey feel the abortion issue has been lost completely on the political front and that now it just needs to be fought on a social front. They may, however, feel that putting another president in that is "war-happy" (as many see him) is only creating more inevitable future wars (while others will qickly come back and say that he would be preventing future homeland problems) would be immoral and so votes democrat for that reason.

SO, it may jsut be something completely practical.

Personally, I voted for bush on the abortion issue (and I am happy I did seeing that Robertsona and possibly Alito are Justices on the S.C. But I was nt convinced of anything else and, being that he seemed quite lukewarm on the whole issue, I was not singing victory when he won in 2004... all I thought was 1) he better not let us down on this issue and 2) four more years of the same thing [staring into dead space]. So, I personally can sympathize with pro-lifers going democratic if they believe the abortion issue is completely lost in Washington. You and I may not agree with that, but that's a matter rather of education and perception (of what can be done) rather than faith and morals... IMO.

John

Honestly, the first time Bush ran in 2000 was the first presidental election I could vote in and I voted for him because he wasn't Al Gore. Given 9-11 I'm glad Bush was in office because I don't think Mr. I invented the internet could have handled it.
In 2004 I voted for Bush because he wasn't John Kerry. Frankly, politics is just very reactionary. And it's not just here. In my reading on the abortion issue in Russia yesterday I found that has the Orthodox Church in Russia has started to grow and abortions have halved there are an every growing number of politicians that jump up and pretend to have opposed these social and moral problems as champions of the ROC from the get go. All over western Europe when anti-immigration canidates and parties when elections everyone else jumps on the immigration control issue bandwagon.
I don't see "going Democrat" because we will simply run into the same problem the Russians are dealing with, abortion is becoming rapidly as ingrained a part of our culture as it was a part of Soviet culture.
I know third parties have pretty much been a joke in the United States, but at some point we going to have to have a platform for people that don't believe in cut throat corporate capitalism and yet are moral people.

[Xpycoctomos]

Of course, never mind the fact that in the OP I specifically asked that this thread discuss how a Christian can be a Democrat, not the pros and cons of the Republican Party, as if a Christian had to be one or the other.

Thanks for not minding it Maximus, it made the post a little easier for me to write.

The thing is, while I think your question is fair, I think for some other parties such as... hmmm... what's the only other party that really even matters in the US??? .... let's try... the Republican party... anyway, I think some other conservative Chrsitians may feel that some issues are completely lost, like abortion (you and I can argue with that) and so they don't even see it as an issue in choosing the lesser of what is (in reality) two evils: Dem and Rep. (and sometimes there is a third one that is possible). They then find it morally reprehsible to support one party over the other due to other issues such as war,the death penalty etc.

Now, in regards to gay-marriage, while i do not support that in the public realm, I can see a conservative Chrsitian saying that since we are a Country that is not guided by the Scriptures (As a general rule) I have no right to see to it that my government imposes Christian morals on others. state marriages, in the eyes of some, are not more legit than a couple with live-in status. If it's not a marriage done in the Church.. then who cares? The state already abuses the word... so to them, the who gay marriage issue may not be an issue at all. Personally, I don't see it that way, but I do sympathize with it. I have heard compelling arguments against such a position but not everyone is convinced by the same things.

Just the same, it is important to note that Giuliani, if he really is "Pro-Choice," holds that opinion in contrast and opposition to the official Republican Party platform, which is the statement of the party's beliefs and principles and which is Pro-Life (unlike the Democratic Party platform, which is Pro-Abortion).

Unfortuanately I think that the party platform has become increasingly irrelevant (at least in terms of the abortion debate and other moral stances) in the US where we tend to vote for individuals and not parties

A Pro-Life Democrat - as rare as hen's teeth - holds that position in contrast and opposition to his party's official platform, its statement of beliefs and principles.

I' not goign to argue stats... but it is out there: http://www.democratsforlife.org
This may be a good place to do research on your question.

This distinction is important. A Pro-Choice Republican is like a self-proclaimed Catholic or Orthodox who denies the resurrection: he is definitely out of touch with his own communion.

I think it might rather be copmpared to the ELCA church... that communion will soon just simply change their stance.

A Pro-Life Democrat is like an atheist who mumbles the Our Father before walking down a dark alley. It might make him feel better, but it's not going to do much to change the minds of his fellow atheists.

Or it could be compared to someone who simply wants to change their party's platform on morals. I think the general shift of a certain prominent American party hs shown that moral platforms shift easier than fiscal platforms (wealth distribution) and so if they believe in wealth-distribution and are pro-life they may feel they have a better chance in the Democratic party than that other party.

Besides, most so-called Pro-Life Democrats call themselves that to appeal to socially conservative constituents. They are careful to inform their more liberal followers that they "will not let their personal beliefs influence" how they vote or govern or enforce laws. Sadly, some Republicans claim to be Pro-Life in the same way and for the same reasons.

True.


But at least their party has a Pro-Life plank in its platform.


To some, including me, it doesn't mean much. But.. I suppose it is worth something.

[Xpycoctomos]

I know third parties have pretty much been a joke in the United States, but at some point we going to have to have a platform for people that don't believe in cut throat corporate capitalism and yet are moral people.



Although I am very cynical (made obvious from my other posts) about third-parties... you may see me looking to them if not AT LEAST to not throw my vote to the devil's pawns and have that on my soul. So I agree with your statement even if in practice I don't support it (yet).

John

[Lotar]

I think the government should impose Christian morals on the population.

[Maximus]

I really strongly disagree with you on "gay marriage."

It is not a question of Christians imposing their morality on homosexuals. It is a question of homosexuals imposing their immorality on the rest of us.

Never before have homosexuals been allowed to be married. Such "unions" have never been regarded as normal or right. Even in ancient Greece and Rome, where such things occurred with increasing frequency as those societies destroyed themselves, such things were never seen as exactly normal.

Besides, we impose Christian or at least natural morality on others all the time. Take most of our other laws, for example. We prohibit child molesting, bestiality, and polygamy, all of which are advocated by some in our society. Is it okay to impose our morality in those cases but not in the case of the abomination of homosexual "marriage"?

What are we teaching our children when we allow homosexuals to marry?

I am sure the legalization of homosexual marriage is coming, but I regard that as a sign of the end - of the West at any rate, if not the world.

In this, the end of the world and the preparation of society for the acceptance of the Antichrist, the Democratic Party is in the forefront in the United States.

I personally could not be a Democrat because it would involve the betrayal of Christ.

[Xpycoctomos]

But Maximus... some might ask "Why woudl a Christian want to be a Republican"? You might be able to easily answer that... but I can't.

Platform, shmatform.. it doesnt mean anything when candidate doesnt follow it. Here, good or bad, we vote for the person, not the party. Sure, the party greatly influences our vote and the candidate... but they are still somewhat independent. The R party has proven that with abortion. I'm surprised you don't see it.

And maybe as a christian, one doesn't agree with the R platform entirely either (Especiallyt he fical part... which is never going to change)

I think what you are assuming is that one is essentially pro-choice if they vote democrat... and that is simply not always true. Last time, I almost voted for Kerry... and I didn't. BUt either way I would have felt bad about my vote. They were both Losers in my opinion for different reasons.

[Maximus]

But Maximus... some might ask "Why woudl a Christian want to be a Republican"? You might be able to easily answer that... but I can't.

Platform, shmatform.. it doesnt mean anything when candidate doesnt follow it. Here, good or bad, we vote for the person, not the party. Sure, the party greatly influences our vote and the candidate... but they are still somewhat independent. The R party has proven that with abortion. I'm surprised you don't see it.

And maybe as a christian, one doesn't agree with the R platform entirely either (Especiallyt he fical part... which is never going to change)

I think what you are assuming is that one is essentially pro-choice if they vote democrat... and that is simply not always true. Last time, I almost voted for Kerry... and I didn't. BUt either way I would have felt bad about my vote. They were both Losers in my opinion for different reasons.

But, John, you are committing the fundamental error I tried to avoid in my OP:
that if one says a Christian cannot be a Democrat (which is what I believe) he is automatically saying the Republican Party is A-Okay and 100% Christian.

I do think the Republican Party is the lesser of the two evils, but I can understand those who disagree.

But a Christian should still not be a Democrat.

The Democratic Party is fundamentally evil.

It promotes evil and revels in it.

[Scholar in training]

Platform, shmatform.. it doesnt mean anything when candidate doesnt follow it. Here, good or bad, we vote for the person, not the party. Sure, the party greatly influences our vote and the candidate... but they are still somewhat independent. The R party has proven that with abortion. I'm surprised you don't see it.
Then why has Bush nominated Alito to the SCOTUS?

[Maximus]

http://www.illinoisleader.com/content/img/f17323/kerry%20(2).jpgKerry and his pals, Kate Michelman of NARAL and Gloria Feldt of Planned Parenthood.

The platform does matter. It is the Creed of political parties.

And the presidential candidate is the party's flag bearer, its "Pope," if you will.

[Xpycoctomos]

Besides, we impose Christian or at least natural morality on others all the time. Take most of our other laws, for example. We prohibit child molesting, bestiality, and polygamy, all of which are advocated by some in our society. Is it okay to impose our morality in those cases but not in the case of the abomination of homosexual "marriage"?

This is true.... but prohibiting child molesting and besitality can be supported by secular reasoning in that it is protecting the innocent (yes, animal rights plays a part here)... polygamy probalby will be legal one day... give it a couple generations.


What are we teaching our children when we allow homosexuals to marry?
I worry about this too, (and by the way, I don't support legal gay marriage. I voted against it here in my State) but I think others would say we have to already be teaching them that it is the marriage in the Church that is sanctified and that is true marriage. It is a scarament... not a set of legal papers. The US government is a separate entity from the Church... it is influenced by the Church, but it is not the Church and over time in will decreasingly support the Chruch positions because Orthodoxy here is not a State religion.

I am sure the legalization of homosexual marriage is coming, but I regard that as a sign of the end - of the West at any rate, if not the world. That it may be... but I would suggest then that the coming of the age of reasoning and the French Revolution was an ever greater sign of the the End coming. It *******ized the Church and America has defintely been GREATLY influenced by that.

In this, the end of the world and the preparation of society for the acceptance of the Antichrist, the Democratic Party is in the forefront in the United States.

That and Wal-Mart.

I personally could not be a Democrat because it would involve the betrayal of Christ.

Good, and i understand where you are coming from. I just don't think that we can assume that just because one votes for democrats means they are pro-choice... they may just think the government is already lost on this one forever. RIght or wrong... some feelt aht way, but at heart they may very well be staunchly pro-life... agaisnt abortion, against the death penalty and against unnecessary money-driven wars (if that's how they view Iraq). Politics is crud.

[Xpycoctomos]

Then why has Bush nominated Alito to the SCOTUS?

This is why I said I am relieved NOW that I voted for Bush... because despite his being a polititian, he actually came through on his promise... kinda (After the conservative wing of the R party got mad at him from nominating the enigma of Herriet Miers). Bush actually has proven himself to be very pro-life... and he has actually said this in no uncertain terms. Increasingly other prominent Rs have touted themselves as Pro-choice or, at best, been very merky on the whole issue. I hope I am wrong, but I will be interested to see who the R candidate for president will be next election.

[Maximus]

The problem with lumping the death penalty in the equation is that Christians are not unanimous on that issue to the extent they are on abortion.

It is difficult to find patristic support for a strict anti-death penalty stance. The opposite is true with abortion, which is nearly universally condemned by the Fathers of the Church.

I do not believe there is a death penalty plank in the platform of either party, by the way.

[OnTheWay]

I really strongly disagree with you on "gay marriage."

It is not a question of Christians imposing their morality on homosexuals. It is a question of homosexuals imposing their immorality on the rest of us.

Never before have homosexuals been allowed to be married. Such "unions" have never been regarded as normal or right. Even in ancient Greece and Rome, where such things occurred with increasing frequency as those societies destroyed themselves, such things were never seen as exactly normal.

I have to strongly agree with you here. Homosexual activists couldn't care less about marriage. The average homosexual has more sexual partners in a single year than the average heterosexual has in a life time. Monogamy isn't on these people's minds. What they do want is offical recongizition of their sexual preferences by the state. The adovates of "gay marriage" will be the first to tell you that they don't want to allow ploygamy, so what it comes down to is not everyone's "civil rights." They simply want to be moved, in the eyes of the state at least, into being normalized.

As to the ancient Greeco-Roman world, there's a book everyone should read:
http://www.grecoreport.com/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm
It gives a much more accurate account of how exactly homosexuality worked in the pagan Greeco-Roman world.

[Xpycoctomos]

But, John, you are committing the fundamental error I tried to avoid in my OP:
that if one says a Christian cannot be a Democrat (which is what I believe) he is automatically saying the Republican Party is A-Okay and 100% Christian.

I do think the Republican Party is the lesser of the two evils, but I can understand those who disagree.

But a Christian should still not be a Democrat.

The Democratic Party is fundamentally evil.

It promotes evil and revels in it.

IO realize that in other posts I have deliberatly gone against your wishes not to fall into this error you mention... but here I am not doing that. I am not trying to make it about teh Republicans nor am I trying to say that if you are not Dem then you are Rep. But i think it is an eaier question to relate to than, "why can't you be Libertarian" as many here, icluding myself, are not sure what their platform is. My point is merely to say that if you can fairly ask that question about Dems... why can't we fairly ask that question oabout Ls or Rs?

The fact is that there are indeed many conservative (morally speaking) christians who DO vote dem. It happens and I don't think voting Dem leaves an indellible mark on your soul unless you voted that way BECAUSE you believed in the adavancement of abortion in america. Now you can point out how PRACTICALLY speaking that is indeed supporting abortion (assuming the Dem is pro-choice and his or her opinion on the matter even comes into play... had it not been for the two SC openinngs... which were expected, bush's POV wouldn't have mattered as much... although it still mattered in international aid), but we are talkina bout how one can be a christian... and I think what matters more in being a christian is what ones beliefs are and waht the INTENTION of their actions are. If the INTENTION of their voting for dems is not to support abortion but rather to support something distribution of wealth whcih that individual sees as a way of feeding the hungry and to avoid future horrible and unjustified wars (as he or she sees it) then the intention is indeed CHristian.

So, I suppose that's an answer to the OP in a way.

John

[OnTheWay]

This is true.... but prohibiting child molesting and besitality can be supported by secular reasoning in that it is protecting the innocent (yes, animal rights plays a part here)... polygamy probalby will be legal one day... give it a couple generations.

A couple of generations? In Holland a judge upheld that the country's civil union laws applied to ploygamous unions. As soon as any country allows homosexual marriage the flood gates will open.

[Xpycoctomos]

..

[gzt]

I really don't think that's a fair restriction in a discussion about politics in America.

[Xpycoctomos]

A couple of generations? In Holland a judge upheld that the country's civil union laws applied to ploygamous unions. As soon as any country allows homosexual marriage the flood gates will open.

You may be right.. I ws being conservative with my timing there. Didn't wsant to sound like an alarmist. :)

[Xpycoctomos]

I have to strongly agree with you here. Homosexual activists couldn't care less about marriage.



Actually they do care about this issue a great deal. It is not because they maybe want to get married... but they want to see their lifestyle as just as legitimate in the modern world as heterosexual relationships. Regardless of if they want to marry or not, it is to their benefit for this to pass.

What scares me the most is that as this passes the Church will begin to look like and instution that is as backward as a church today that might not grant "mixed marriages".

While I can easily support my view on abortion in a secular context... I cannot do so with gay marriage. I have to admit it is almost completely informed by what my church teaches and no reasoning of my own. Because of that i cannot expect non-Chrsitians to vote the same way becuase I can not give them non-Church reasosn. With abortion I can. sigh...

John

[Maximus]

I really don't think that's a fair restriction in a discussion about politics in America.

It depends on what one wants to discuss.

I did not want this thread to deteriorate into a debate between those whose parents raised them to be Democrats and those whose parents inclined them to be Republicans.

What concerns me is what the Democratic Party stands for, what's in its platform, and how those things - which are one and the same - are antithetical to Christianity.

I still wonder how one can be a Christian and yet support what the Democratic Party supports.

[gzt]

What I mean: many people define themselves politically by what they're not.

And, well, what does it mean to be a Democrat? Does it mean one often votes for them? Checks off hte box on voter registrations? Is a delegate to teh convention and toes the party line? You might be able to, in good conscience, in certain states tick the voter registration box because you want to have a say in which candidate the Dems put up for state legislature, and there it may be fully possible for a Democrat to be pro-life, and in local politics, every vote makes a difference. If you're in such a district, often voting for a Democrat wouldn't be a problem either, as most elections are local. Being a delegate to teh convention and towing the party line will, of course, be a problem. It really depends on what it means "to be a Democrat". The only possible consistent way of defining it is self-identification, which doesn't leave much steam in your argument.

As for platforms being creeds: patently false. They're voted on and changed every few years. They're compromise documents and few politicians in the party, much less supporters who identify with the party, support them fully. Yes, they're very important, but disagreement doesn't make one a bad Democrat.

[gzt]

That's different from the question you asked. "Supporting what the Democrat Party supports" - that is, gay marriage, recreational abortion, and the like, is certainly inconsistent with Christianity. But that's not what being a Democrat necessarily means, paradoxically. Being a Democrat is about self-identification more than anything else, and there are a variety of reasons people self-identify as Democrats. I, personally, don't.

[Maximus]

As for platforms being creeds: patently false.

No, that statement is patently false.

The parallel between a platform and a creed may not be exact, but it's close.

A platform is the statement of the party's beliefs and principles. That is what a creed is.

They're voted on and changed every few years. They're compromise documents and few politicians in the party, much less supporters who identify with the party, support them fully. Yes, they're very important, but disagreement doesn't make one a bad Democrat.

The two party platforms have not changed much - or at all - in their fundamentals for many years.

The Democratic Party has been the Pro-Abortion party as long as abortion has been a political issue. It has been the party of gay rights as long as that has been an issue. The same goes for affirmative action and radical feminism, as well.

Party platforms remain what they are intended to be: definitive statements of the beliefs and principles of the party.

Do you really imagine that it is likely that the Democratic Party is going to fundamentally alter its platform anytime soon?

[Maximus]

That's different from the question you asked. "Supporting what the Democrat Party supports" - that is, gay marriage, recreational abortion, and the like, is certainly inconsistent with Christianity. But that's not what being a Democrat necessarily means, paradoxically. Being a Democrat is about self-identification more than anything else, and there are a variety of reasons people self-identify as Democrats. I, personally, don't.

I understand that the human mind can perform all sorts of gymnastics to justify its points of view.

Those Christians who remain Democrats do so in the face of the evidence that their own party is anti-Christian in its stated principles and beliefs.

They must do so in the face of the evidence of recent history, as well, and in the face of the well-known statements of party leaders.

http://www.illinoisleader.com/content/img/f17323/kerry%20(2).jpg

[OnTheWay]

While I can easily support my view on abortion in a secular context... I cannot do so with gay marriage. I have to admit it is almost completely informed by what my church teaches and no reasoning of my own. Because of that i cannot expect non-Chrsitians to vote the same way becuase I can not give them non-Church reasosn. With abortion I can. sigh...


To deal with homosexual marriage in a secular point of view I deal with the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage has always been to create an estate and create legal heirs to that estate. Homosexual unions cannot create legal heirs to any produced estate.
Secondly, the reason we have a legal form of marriage is provide state assitance in rasing families. This is done through tax breaks, ensuring spouses and children can be added to insurance policies, and so forth. Homosexuals can never have children of their own, and only a tiny precentage of homosexuals have children through artifical means. Furthermore, outside of adoption there is no artifical means for male homosexuals to have children. The fact of the matter is that two adults of the same gender do not have children and thus their disposable income is much greater than that of heterosexuals. They don't need marriage tax breaks.
On the other side, in the case of family break ups adding homosexuals would simply open a pandora's box. In this country you do not have to pay child support to children that are not yours either biologically or by adoption. In the case of lesbian couples chosing to have a child "together" the legal fact is only the birth mother is the legal parent. Thus we have break up situations in which we either have lesbians that have no recourse in family courts for child support. Which I am sure would lead to endless protesting about equality there. Or we have a situation in which we create "step parent child support." Of course this cannot be applied only to homosexuals, so we'd be opening the flood gates with problems stimming from step parent child support suits. For example, "my child's natural parent doesn't pay much or at all, but the guy I am currently getting divorced from has a good job so I want child support from him instead, or in addition to, what I'm currently getting. That also means opening the door to hearing step parents filing for custody of step children that under the current law they'd have no grounds to do. As most state's require that a parent who is paying support to entitled (unless there's a vaild reason, ie the parent is a sex offender) to see the children. So we would be flooding the family courts with custody sharing or visitation scheduling.
Then it creates a situation in which single heterosexuals seeking to remarry are going to be in a position where its even more difficult to find someone interested in a person with children from another marriage. This leads to more children coming up in single parent homes, and as studies show it isn't good for anyone.
Whether it's the lack of seriousness towards monogamy in the homosexual community, the inability to have children, or the massive problems with homosexual "divorce" there are plenty of secular reasons to oppose gay marriage.

[choirfiend]

Orthodoxy doesnt subscribe to any political party. Republicans do not hold up all Orthodox values. Democrats do not hold up all Orthodox values. Both would appear to hold up some and then hold up values that directly contradict. It is narrowminded and blindsighted to completely accept either to the detriment of the other. I vote by issues, not by party lines, so I'm always going to be looking for the lesser of two evils. If my local mayoral election had a prochoice candidate but whom also supported every local initiative I was interested in, I might vote for them, because they're NOT going to have an affect on major abortion legislation (or even probably local ones). If I'm looking at who is going to appoint state judges, that would be another issue...Every election and candidate has to be evaluated separately. To just vote a straight party ticket is irresponsible and overly simplifying what are usually very complicated issues.

[Dust and Ashes]

Every election and candidate has to be evaluated separately. To just vote a straight party ticket is irresponsible and overly simplifying what are usually very complicated issues.

Boy howdy, ain't that the truth. I have relatives on my dad's side who are "yellow dog" Democrats. You run a yellow dog on a Democratic ticket and they'd vote for it. It gets downright sickening sometimes to listen to them gush about the glorious goodness of every Democrat alive and to denounce the evils of G.W. and rest of those anti-Christ Republicans. :sigh:

[OnTheWay]

Since we briefly touched on public schools I feel obligated to give my little rant before getting ready to go to Vespers.

This election, like virutally every other one, we had the usual levies for public schools right along with ads telling us how underfunded our public schools are. I help, as a volunteer, coach the line at my former high school. We play home games at the same stadium that the local public high schools play at so we often cross paths with them. Both of the public high schools have paid coaching staffs of eight. Seriously, eight paid coaches for high school ball. Whereas we alway get a little regular yellow school bus rental all of the public schools charter at least two of the Greyhound sized travel busses. Then there's the Nike uniforms and so on. When you figure this is running right along with soccer season and the dozens of other school sponsered sports (everything from water polo to golf teams) I'd venture to say that it wouldn't be unreasonable to think on sporting programs alone each public school is spending millions of dollars every year. I know there are smaller public schools that don't have all these frills, but still. For us to play we had to buy a 55 dollar ASB card and pay a 400 dollar football fee. If we wanted anything else, new practice jerseys we had to raise money for it. We spend all summer doing carwashes and this and that just to play night games.
So my position on public school funding has been this, if you want more money for academic programs then start cutting sports or making the players pay for it.
Which brings me to my second point. I never attended a public school in my entire life, during Jr. high I played football at one because we didn't have a time. However, my mother's tax dollars still went to that right along with the tax money of students who either didn't want to play or were cut. Which is really one of the bigger issues to me, in my case my mother could have chosen to send me to public schools so that was our choice. I don't have a problem with cuts, it's necessary and can be a good lesson for kids about life. What I do have a problem with is using tax money in an exclusive way.
/rant.

[OnTheWay]

To just vote a straight party ticket is irresponsible and overly simplifying what are usually very complicated issues.


I don't think anyone's advocating that, I do beileve the general idea is party membership and identification. The Democratic party's major platform is a morally bankrupt one.
Now within the Democratic party there are differing trends, and it looks like more and more every year the Democratic party will split along the lines of the economically liberal but socially moral trade unionist type and then the radical social leftists that look at the USSR with the same nostalgia neo-nazis look at 1930's Germany with.

[choirfiend]

Ok, well, I'm registered as a member of a certain party so that I could possibly affect primaries, but I do not associate myself as a "Republican" "Democrat" "Independant" "Socialist" or what ever party I might be a registered member of. I don't identify myself as a member of the "______ party, because I do not agree with their entire platform. Someone else may do the same, whether they are republicans or democrats, and still be very good Orthodox. The whole "How can someone be Orthodox and label themselves as democrat?" is a unnecessary question that will only serve to isolate and alienate anyone who believes in Orthodoxy and social engagement in the political arena, and only proves the "my way or the highway" attitude of anyone who asks that question(whether they be posters here or elsewhere. Please do not mistake that as an attack.)

[OnTheWay]

Ok, well, I'm registered as a member of a certain party so that I could possibly affect primaries, but I do not associate myself as a "Republican" "Democrat" "Independant" "Socialist" or what ever party I might be a registered member of. I don't identify myself as a member of the "______ party, because I do not agree with their entire platform. Someone else may do the same, whether they are republicans or democrats, and still be very good Orthodox. The whole "How can someone be Orthodox and label themselves as democrat?" is a unnecessary question that will only serve to isolate and alienate anyone who believes in Orthodoxy and social engagement in the political arena, and only proves the "my way or the highway" attitude of anyone who asks that question(whether they be posters here or elsewhere. Please do not mistake that as an attack.)

I don't identify either, as I said in my first post on this thread I equally dislike the immorality of the Democrats and the "let them eat cake" attutide of many Republicans. Some of this is regional as well. I live in the Seattle-Metro area, which is decidely more liberal than the rest of the US and the rest of the state of Washington as a whole. I've never ran into a Democrat that I could vote for in good faith. Someone that lives in the American south probably would find a good number of traditionalist Democrats that don't reflect many attitudes of the Democratic radical left.