I think the christian right will vote for anyone who claims to be against abortion, christian or not.
I take your point but I don’t believe Jesus intended to make any distinction concerning the mechanisms by which a society manifests its christian duty to care for all and he certainly would not have considered ‘it’s mine, all mine, mine I tell you’ conservative response to taxation. Camel thru the eye of a needle, prodigal son etc. He expects us all to care for one another, by whatever means necessary consonant with his message.
If he came back now and saw the millions without health insurance, or the homelessness, the millions of kids in poverty, the millions dying each year from lack of clean water - while those that have the resources to address the issues in the most phenomenonally wealthy societies ever - say ‘no’ we only give what we want to give - well I think we’ll see the biggest hissy fit since he dropped in on the temple money-lenders.
He expects us to embody his message in our lives and that includes our votes. There is no distinction between the personal and the political. Voting out of pecuniary self-interest rather than what is best for all is fundamentally Unchristian IMHO.
A good argument by Renob. However, Christ does not tell us to forgive others that do not seek forgiveness. As individuals, our sins may be forgiven if we seek forgiveness from God. Every day courtesy demands that if someone apologizes, you accept it and forget the transgression. Osama bin Laden clearly does not seek our forgiveness and capturing him and crippling his organization is entirely justified. If al Qaeda offered to rebuild the WTC, pay for the Pentagon repairs, and make restitution to the families of the victims then it would be a different story entirely. Since he has not done so, we have no reason to turn the other cheek. We recognize that governments have a duty to protect their people. When attacked, counterattacks are justified. I don’t see this as inconsistent with Christian beliefs.
Treatment of the poor is something else. I believe we do have an obligation to help the less fortunate. I believe Bush falls short in this regard.
Forgive the partial sentences, preview should be my friend but I keep forgetting to answer the phone. :smack:
I agree. God doesn’t seem too hot on cheek-turning when ordering the Israelities to commit genocide on all those inconvenient prior occupants of the Promised Land. I don’t think Christian = Pacifist but I do think Jesus’ message pretty explicitly rules out the ‘rather a dozen civilians die than one allied soldier gets a scratch’ approach to warfare that the use of massive firepower in urban areas seems predicated on.
Jesus would not consider lopping a 1000lb bomb onto a suspected safe house on the off chance you might hit a bad guy, but with the certainty that a few dozen civilians will be shaking hands with him soon, a Christian act.
I don’t think that Christ was speaking to society; Christ was speaking to individuals. He said that we should care for the poor. He didn’t say that we should force others to care for the poor. As a Christian, it’s my duty to help those who are less fortunate. I try to do that, but I have no duty to force anyone, Christian or not, to help the poor. And if you’re not a Christian, then you have no “Christian duty” to hlep the poor. Do I believe that if you’re greedy and refuse to help the poor you are not following Christ’s teachings? Yes, the Bible certainly seems to indicate that. However, that does not mean I should use the government to force you to be more Christian. Any more than I should use the goverment to force adulterers to quit being adulterous or gay people to quit being gay. It’s not government’s place to enforce religious strictures.
Yes, I think He would berate those who are Christian and refuse to help the poor. However, does that mean He would advocate using the government to change the world into a Christian society? I don’t think that’s a logical leap.
Of course, that comes down to what you believe is best for all. Many Christians, myself included, do not think that govenrment anti-poverty programs are good for the poor and that high taxes are bad for everyone. So by your logic I think that if anyone votes for a Democrat they are being unchristian. Of course, I don’t really think that, since neither political party has Jesus on their side. Jesus is above politics – He does not endorse candidates. And a Christian can just as easily be a Republican as a Democrat. It’s all about how you think His teachings should be applied to politics.
Is Bush an old testamente Christian ? Can old testament christians follow those eye for an eye judgements ?
I think the distinction between the individual and society is false. Christ expects us to always act in a Christian fashion and for me that implicitly means, not voting ‘Selfish Bastard’. He most certainly would not support an argument that by voting for the ‘to the rich, more’ party because therefore you’re not oppressing people into caring when they don’t, you are performing your Christian duty.
I don’t really care as I don’t need God or Jesus to tell me I have a responsibility for my fellows. I’m just amused at the theological gyrations conservative christians go through to suggest that adequate welfare and health provision by the state is by definition wrong. Seems like specious self-justification for selfishness to me (not addressed to individuals in this thread).
Seems to me Christians should welcome higher taxes for humane welfare systems and in their absence should be giving well beyond the hurting point.
Seems to me there’s always an excuse that makes greed good.
But then we get into how do you define “selfish.” For example, I do not view government policies that allow people to keep more money to help their family, to give to charity, to create jobs that employ the poor, etc., as selfish. It seems that you do. That’s fine, but I think it’s a bit short-sighted to say that only the policies that you support are “Christian” policies, but the policies that I support are not. My Christian faith informs my politics just as much as I assume your faith does yours. We come to different conclusions about what policies to support, however. So is one of us justified in saying that the other is unchristian?
I don’t think you know what argument He would support. No one knows that.
However, since the greatest anti-poverty program is getting a job, then perhaps He would support policies that allow businesses to grow in order to give more people jobs.
Of course, I think if He came back he would be totally unconcerned with politics. He lived in a time with an oppressive government that had policies that were certainly worse on the poor than we have now. Did He try to change the government then? No. He preached to individuals, telling His followers to help the poor, among other things.
And it amazes me what theolgoical gyrations liberals go through to suggest that these wasteful government spending programs that only victimize the poor are, by definition, required by your faith.
In fact, I don’t think that these programs are necessarily immoral and thus no Christian can support them. I do not, however, think that these programs are mandated by the Bible. And since they are not mandated by the Bible, then we can discuss them without invoking the name of God. Only then can we sort out whether or not these programs are useful or even necessary. I think that’s a very open question.
You are making the assumption that the only reason people oppose these programs is out of greed. That’s simply not true. There is ample evidence that these programs actually hurt those they purport to help. A person, like myself, can think that these programs are wasteful, inefficient, and that they hurt the poor, while still supporting private charities that do a much better job of actually alleviating poverty. Supporting government programs is not the sign of a generous person. Supporting government programs is only a sign that you want to force everyone else to subsidize programs that you believe in. There is no virtue in forcing others to give money to the poor. There is only virtue if you yourself help the poor.
Jesus said pay your taxes. He said give everything you own to the poor. He said rich people can’t go to Heaven. He didn’t say make santimonious judgements about how people should get jobs" in order to avoid doing your Christian responsibility.
Never mind the pacifism, Jesus’ renunciations of materialism are the most ignored parts of his teachings. All conservative Christians do is look for loopholes in that stuff. If the poor can be blamed for their own condition (and we can always find a way to blame them) then we don’t have to take responsibility.
Guess who’s the first prez since the Depression to preside over a net loss in jobs.
I think that a lot of conservative Christians ignore Bush’s un-Christian policies because they aren’t really that concerned about Jesus’ teachings to begin with. They are driven in large part by social issues like abortion and gay rights both of which they oppose with a hostility bordering on mania (and neither of which has any reference in the Bible). These issues and a few others (SOCAS issues, the death penalty) are what really drives them.
I would argue that policies contrary to the teachings of Jesus are not that important to the Christian right because they’ve never followed those teachings to begin with. They follow a hybrid of Pauline salvation theology and regional American traditionalism.
Yes, I wanted to focus solely on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. I’m not sure how my original post could have been read to imply that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
But primarily I was noting, as others have said more clearly, that actions you might take as an individual are not appropriate for a government. A completely pacifist country wouldn’t last a second in the real world.
And I agree wholeheartedly with Renob’s position on charity. I don’t see how Christian teachings could be construed as “tax the rich to feed the poor”. You might be able to establish other reasons to support that position, but not in Christian terms.
Try reading the Gospels. Find out what Jesus said on these matters.
It’s not a sanctimonious judgement; it’s a fact – if you don’t want to be poor, you generally need a job. Even if I sold all of my stuff and gave it to a poor person, that is merely a temporary remedy for that person. We Christians should indeed help the poor, but if you’re looking at a long term solution to poverty, there needs to be jobs available.
The fact is, there are many factors that go into being poor. Some are indeed self-inflicted. That’s not assigning blame – that’s a fact. You don’t have to be judgmental about it, but you do have to realize it and deal with it. It’s not “blaming the poor” to point out that some people can’t hold a job because they are a drug addict. You can have compassion for this person and recognize the fact that they are creating their own problems at the same time. You, as a Christian, are obligated to help this person. And the only way to help them is to recognize their problems and help them overcome them.
I’ve read the Gospels, and I come up with a much different conclusion than you do.
I’ve read the Gospels. I find some what Jesus said to be good and useful, and some of what he said to be unuseful. And I’ve found NONE of what he said that I would take into advisement for running a government.
But what’s your point about this anyway? Are you advocating a Christain Theocracy for the US? 
Well, the leave it to charity approach is working so well at the moment, why change it. Richest nation, deep and abiding poverty, tens of millions without effective health cover. I don’t for one second believe Christian conservatives would hand over their money to charity if it wasn’t taken in taxes and so, yes, I believe they are just rationalising their own greed behind their oh so righteous ‘we don’t want to force people to be caring’ speil. Unconsciously or not.
People are selfish bastards given any sort of chance and at the moment in many areas including health a large government provision component of welfare provision is the only alternative to not caring. And if that means higher taxes on those who can afford it (like me) then that’s fine.
donations as proportion of income (in UK)
Can’t find anything on the USA where I’m sure charitable donations are higher but excluding the super-rich outliers like Gates and Turner I’m willing to bet the wealthier you are the more of your proportionate income doesn’t obtain.
But who knows, maybe if income tax was slashed, the state provision of welfare abolished we’ll all be falling over ourselves to voluntarily give it all back to good causes? Or maybe we’d spend it all on firearms and the added security of gated communities.
I know which outcome i’d bet on.
What loopholes have the Kerrys found, to allow them to pay taxes at such a low rate. And if rich people can’t get to Heaven, how can these folks get there with their multiple estates, servants, Gulfstream jets, $500,000 powerboats, and $8,000 bicycles?
Are you excusing this, yet faulting Bush for similar failures, Diogenes.
I can’t know Kerry’s heart, nor God’s will. None of us can, and that goes for President Bush as well.
Vote for whom you wish, but calling either candidate un-Christian is not proper politicking, in my book.
People are misunderstanding me. I’m not saying the US government should (or could) be run according to the teaching of Jesus. Neither candidate really follows Christian philosophical ideals.
I was trying to make a point about the hypocrisy of the religious right inserting religiosity into a political system which would never be able to accomodate the core teachings of their religion as a practical basis for government.
I’m also making a point about how selective the Christian right can be in deciding which ideals are important.
For some mysterious reason, the fundies in this country have decided that GWB is the “Christian” candidate. He isn’t. Neither is Kerry. Neither was George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln. I’m not saying that christians should only vote for candidates who embody pure Christian ideals, I’m saying that they shouldn’t pretend a guy does that when he doesn’t.
Far be it from me to understand the thinking of the “Christian right”, but perhaps many of them consider Bush, in his private life, to be the more Christian of the two candidates, and that is what informs their decision. They’re voting for the man as much as for any given policy. I don’t know exactly how one would make that evaluation, but Bush does talk about religion as being central to his life much more than Kerry does.
That’s an exceptionally stupid reason to vote for somebody.