I have always heard that religion and politics are topics we should avoid. I have never understood that, and being the opinionated person that I am (grin), I don't shy away from discussing any topic. I believe that people can love and respect each other while holding different views in matters of religion and politics. When we discuss these sometimes sensitive topics, we are telling the person we are talking to that we trust them enough to share a very personal part of ourselves with them. So here is my question:
Can a Christian align themselves with the modern-day Democratic Party? While this debate is not new, I affirm that he cannot for the following reasons.
I do not consider myself Republican or Democrat, although I am registered as a Republican because this party represents more closely my political views. Neither candidate for the upcoming election is appealing to me, but I will have to chose the lesser of two evils, and that will be McCain. I know what Obama wants to do, I know his beliefs, and I know his platform. His views politically are dangerous because when enacted, they destroy the economy, punish those who work hard while rewarding those who REFUSE to work, and promote dependence on government rather than hard work and God.
From a purely political standpoint, the Democratic beliefs often violate our Country's Constitution, such as their call for a ban on handguns and support for illegal immigrants. Obama's views come straight out of Marxism, which history has shown to be dangerous to freedom, antagonistic to Christianity, and fiscally UNsound.
Today's Democratic party believes it is the government's job to take care of the individual from birth to death, including Hillary's proposed "baby bonds," government-paid day care, and health care.
From a moral standpoint, much of what Democrats support and uphold is condemned by God.
For example, Democrats do not promote a strong work ethic, while God does.
Consider what God says about a good work ethic:
"For even when we were with you, we comanded you this: If anyone WILL NOT WORK, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, NOT WORKING AT ALL, but are busybodies" (2 Thessalonians 3:10-11.)
"Let him who stole steal no loner; but rather, let him LABOR, WORKING WITH HIS HANDS what is good, that he may have SOMETHING TO GIVE HIM WHO HAS NEED" (Ephesians 4:28).
"Yes, you yourselves know that these hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me" (Paul in Acts 20:34).
"The lazy man wil not plow because of winter; He will beg during harvest and have nothing" (Proverbs 20:4).
"He who has a slack hand becomes poor, But the hand of the diligent makes rich" (Proverbs 10:4).
"And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men" (Colossians 3:23). [Some translations read, "Do your work heartily..."]
God tells us to work in order to provide not only for ourselves but to also have something to share with those in need. Those who REFUSE to work should not receive any assistance. The Democrat party promises assistance to those who REFUSE to work. Not only that, they promote taking money away from those who work hard and giving it to those who don't. This is unscriptural! I see nothing wrong with helping those who are truly in need after doing all they can to support and help themselves.
The Party platform calls for abortion on demand, which is sinful. And the Party supports ungodly behavior such as homosexuality and homosexual marriages.
How can a Christian adamantly align themselves with an organization that takes these positions? I CANNOT support this party nor its 2008 presidential candidate because of what they stand for. To do so is to condone sin and to PARTICIPATE in such when we put a piece of paper in a ballot box that says, "This is what I want, too!"
"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret" (Ephesians 5:11-12).
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
May I suggest that you sit yourself down and actually read the Constitution, including the Amendments, from beginning to end.
There's no mention, whatsoever, of any gods in it, nor are there references to your scripture. Those omissions were debated and intended by the Founding Fathers.
You're free, of course, to use your Christianity as a criterion for deciding whom to vote for.
But you should realize that it's completely silly to say something like the Democratic beliefs often violate our Country's Constitution.
What does violate our Constitution -- blatantly -- is the current Administration's refusal to obey the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment. If you take the time to read those Amendments, you may find yourself proud to live in a country set up with a real Bill of Rights for all people -- including homosexuals, atheists, Jews, Muslims, immigrants, and anyone else you happen to dislike.
If the Democrats punish those who work hard while rewarding those who refuse to work, then the Republicans simply ensure no one works since their policies benefit corporations who outsource jobs or move factories and offices overseas. Democrats give tax breaks and incentives to the poor and middle class, which aside from simply being the morally superior thing to do, also is more of a guaranteed investment in the American economy since those people will spend nearly every dollar they can right here in America. Contrast that to tax breaks and incentives to wealthy individuals who routinely buy foreign products, invest in foreign exchanges, put money in foreign accounts, and are the ones owning the companies which outsource and/or buy materials and supplies from foreign sources.
Republicans like Phil Graham favor deregulation of businesses, which has lead to fiascos like Enron, Bearns and Sterns, IndyMac, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, the entire mortgage and foreclosure crisis and perhaps things yet to come to light. More details can be found in this video clip. Phil Graham, who also recently claimed all our economic woes are merely psychological and those of us complaining about it are just whiners, is McCain's economic advisor. Sadly, we can't just put faith in the wealthy and business to do the right thing, and what's best for America, for they show, time and time again, their sole motivating factor is self interest, and often that self interest is at the expense of others like you and me.
Now be careful citing the bible for justification of your hard heartedness and selfishness. What of those who benefit from the less fortunate and worse, claim justification for it from the word of God?
""The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds." Jeremiah 14:14
"If Moses and Samuel stand before my face in their behalf, I will not hear them" Jeremiah 15:1
“Pray thou not for this people, and do not ask mercy for them, and do not intercede with me for them, for I will not hear thee.” Jeremiah 7:16
Of course there's that misconception of giving to those who "refuse" to work. Now it has been a convenient lie the Republicans have convinced some like you of to ease your conscience and dissuade from rightful responsibility. First of all, there are plenty of textile workers who would like to work, but thanks to granting favored nation status to China, we no longer have a textile industry in America. And what of those who had their jobs outsourced to India? Should they move to India to work? No there are plenty of people who would not only love to work but who do in fact work, sometimes multiple jobs, and still can barely get by while those who have grow richer and fatter at their expense. Is that what passes for morality today? For justice? Is THAT what you find to be more in line with Christian teaching? What does the Bible say about helping the less fortunate?
“When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest… Leave them for the poor and the alien” Lev 19:9-10
"If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you" Leviticus 25:35
"In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive." Acts 20:35
"But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind" Luke 14:13
"Blessed is he that considerth the poor: the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth: and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies." Psalm 41:1, 2
And of course...
"Riches profit not in the day of wrath; But righteousness delivereth from death." Proverbs 11:4
"Better the little that the righteous have than the wealth of many wicked" Psalms 37:16
So beware of false prophets, of those who would convince you with lies to do that which is immoral and unChristian. Look at who stands to benefit and who stands to suffer by McCain's and Obama's economic plans and ask yourself what's the right thing to do, the moral thing, the Christian thing to do? It should be clear as day to you, lest your heart be so hard as to blind you.
Nicely said Pastor Chief.
You're not a democrat because you have convinced yourself that there are people who are trying to take from you what is rightly yours, and the Republicans have convinced you that it is people like immigrants, welfare cheats and homosexuals that threaten your way of life. Maybe they are, (I'm not convinced but I probably won't convince you either) but just remember, when you vote for a Republican, you are decidedly not voting for your own economic self-interest, you are voting for the economic self-interest of people who have no intention of sharing their gains with you.
For a good discussion of how you can be duped into such self deception, read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?
To "the exterminator": The Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. The Democratic Party has a history of attempting to enact gun control and remove the ordinary citizen's right to keep firearms in their homes.
Remember the focus of my discussion. It's to answer whether or not a Christian can be a Democrat and support the Democratic platform. My use of Scriptures is to help us determine whether or not a Christian who believes the Bible is God's word can support a party that condones unscriptural practices, such as abortion and homosexual behavior.
To Spanish Inquistor: I don't expect nor demand that anyone "share their gains with me." I don't have a right to benefit from the hard work of others by "taking" their money away from them simply because they have it and I don't. Thanks for pointing out so well why I am not a Democrat!
To Phillychief: Do you understand what happens when the government raises taxes on corporations? The cost is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. And corporations hire fewer people and/or cut back on job training. When taxes are increasingly raised on "those evil rich people," small business owners are left with fewer resources for hiring. I don't know of any poor individuals who hire employees, do you? Furthermore, the top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of taxes! And Dems want to increase that. Liberals want to raise taxes on those who already pay the majority of taxes and give tax breaks to those who either pay very little in taxes or none at all.
Regarding "selfishness," you assume that the government taking money from us is the only way to practice benevolence. The Scriptures teach that it is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility to help those in need. I quoted one such passage that instructs us to work in order that we may have something to share with those in need (Ephesians 4:28). Your idea of "sharing" is for the government to take money out of our pockets and spend it for us.
Your question as to who will benefit under McCain vs. Obama is typical of a liberal. You assume that whether or not we prosper is the GOVERNMENT's responsibility! Every person in this country has the same opportunity to get an education in order to secure a job that will bring in enough money so that an individual can provide for his own needs (and share with others, which I've already discussed). The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republican recognizes this opportunity while the Democrat makes excuses and pegs everyone a victim of circumstances with no hope but for a government bailout.
Kim said:
The Democratic Party has a history of attempting to enact gun control and remove the ordinary citizen's right to keep firearms in their homes.
Untrue. The people who are in favor of gun control -- not all of whom are Democrats, and who do not necessarily represent the entire gamut of Democratic thinking on the issue -- don't want to "remove the ordinary citizen's right to keep firearms in their homes." Some of them want people who have criminal backgrounds or psychiatric histories to be prevented from owning firearms. They want to investigate whether the "right to keep firearms in their homes" -- again, please do read the Second Amendment because you haven't got it right -- allows your people to purchase whatever firearms they wish, or whether there's some justification for saying that one's lunatic neighbor cannot buy AK47s to his or her heart's content. Also, what do you think Jesus's stand on firearms would be? Do you think he'd be gung-ho about having a well-armed populace? Maybe you should reread the New Testament as well as the Constitution.
My use of Scriptures is to help us determine whether or not a Christian who believes the Bible is God's word can support a party that condones unscriptural practices, such as abortion and homosexual behavior.
Scripture has no place in American jurisprudence. If it did, it would appear in the Constitution. Homosexuals are protected by the same Bill of Rights that you are. The fetus has no rights; it's not a person in the Constitution.
You may not like what the Constitution says, but you ought to familiarize yourself with it. Put down your bible and learn a little bit about American history -- not just from your pastor but from real historians. America is most decidedly not a Christian nation, and it's not obliged to kowtow to your idea of what your particular god wants.
Sorry, but that's the way it is. I urge you -- yet again -- to read the Constitution. And then go check out what Jesus said about people's moral responsibility to keep firearms in their homes.
The Scriptures teach that it is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility to help those in need.
So does that mean you're against government support of Faith-Based charities? I think that's the logical conclusion, isn't it?
Please note: I will remove any comment that focuses on insulting the person rather than the argument.
PhillyChief, you made a comment regarding the disparity between the top 50% of wage earners and the lower 50%. It is not the government's responsibility to distribute or redistribute wealth. If you do not like what you are earning, do something else.
The Exterminator,
I agree that America is not a "Christian nation." That was not the point of my entry. If you are not a Christian and do not believe the Bible is God's word, this discussion as to whether or not a Christian can identify themselves with the Democratic party is moot to you. Based on my study of the Scriptures, I understand that killing an unborn human being (abortion) is murder, and that homosexual behavior is sinful. The question is whether or not I can support and identify myself with a political party that condones these actions. I have concluded that I, as well as anyone else who claims to be a Christian, cannot. "For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them" (Ephesians 5:8-11).
The purpose of the Constitution was not to DEFINE "personhood," nor does it do so. I'm not going to begin a debate on the morality of abortion. Suffice it to say, I understand abortion to be the intentional murder of an innocent human being and, therefore, do not support the Democratic party's call for abortion-on-demand.
You asked would Jesus be "gung-ho about having a well-armed populace?" Jesus doesn't discuss the right to bear arms; however, his apostles carried weapons. We have no record of Jesus condemning them. When Jesus was arrested, Peter drew is sword attempting to stop the process. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword - not because he shouldn't own one - but because Jesus' arrest was part of God's plan: "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given me?" (John 18:11).
I realize that many who profess to be Christians rely on what their "preacher" or particular denominational handbook have told them to believe. That is not the case with me. I am responsible for my own understanding of the Scriptures and study for myself. The Bible, rather than man, is the only authority for what I believe and practice.
And, yes, I am against government-supported faith-based charities.
Kim:
I give you great credit for being consistent and opposing government support for Faith-Based Initiatives. And I also believe that you have a right to vote your conscience, wherever your moral system is drawn from.
I am responsible for my own understanding of the Scriptures and study for myself. The Bible, rather than man, is the only authority for what I believe and practice.
I think your statement is inconsistent. First, you say that you -- an individual human -- are responsible for your understanding of the written word. In the very next sentence, however, you say that the bible, not "man," is the only authority for what you believe and practice. Since the bible is open to many interpretations, how do you know that your interpretation -- that is, an understanding of the text by a single person -- is the correct one?
Throughout history, humans have argued, ostracized others, killed and tortured one another, over interpretations of that book. I'm not saying that your personal response is incorrect, but how do you know it's right?
It is not the government's responsibility to distribute or redistribute wealth. If you do not like what you are earning, do something else.
I think you've been reading a bit too much Ayn Rand and/or listening too literally to the Libertarian siren song.
Just FYI: I, too, am a libertarian (but please note the lowercase "l") of sorts. I think it's impossible to be a freedom-lover if one is determined to follow arbitrary rules set down by desert dwellers thousands of years ago. You would probably disagree. But I urge you to read the bible in its entirety (not just the passages that conform to your idea of morality), and to do so with a critical mind.
It's blatantly clear that Jesus, as depicted in the bible, would disagree with you about the distribution of the nation's largesse. You don't need to pore over every chapter and verse; just reread the Sermon on the Mount and the passages in which Jesus responds to the moneychangers.
I'm guessing that you're a young woman. The facts of economic life, you'll find out, are not as simplistic as you think they are. To say, as you did, If you do not like what you are earning, do something else is unrealistic and uncaring. It's un-Christian, you might say.
Many people are born into circumstances over which they have little control. There are vast differences in opportunity, and those differences begin at birth -- perhaps, for you who imbue the fetus with "personhood," even before birth. If you look at our current president realistically, for instance, you'll see a man of no discernible talents or abilities, no intelligence, no scruples or apparent conscience -- who has been fed with a silver spoon from the moment he entered the world. He didn't get where he is by hard work (the guy failed at almost everything he ever tried to do on his own), but rather by wealth and family connections. You, Kim, don't have a chance to compete with someone like that, and neither do most of the rest of us. Is George W. Bush's position a result of his triumph at trading in the free market of ideas? Hardly.
Yes, as a libertarian, I don't like the idea of redistributing wealth. But the entire society suffers if there's a huge, hopeless underclass that cannot even dream of getting a decent job -- much less becoming president. The fincancial top 5% are entitled to their positions, but not at the expense of the rest of us. It's immoral to force citizens to fight a war for the benefit of oil companies, unconscionable to favor the pocketing of grossly inflated salaries by corporate officers whose piracies have ruined the economy for everyone, inexcusable to turn a blind eye to business practices that favor the whims of the privileged few over the country's best interests.
The big businesses in this country didn't get where they are through a free market. They've been sucking on the government teat for decades. The money they've been given comes out of your pocket, my pocket, the pockets of most of us, in fact. If you're against socialism -- as you seem to be -- you should be against all variants of it, including corporate socialism. That's what we practice in this country: government aid to the wealthy.
In the end, I don't care if you vote for a Democrat or a Republican. But do chew on the food for thought I've fed you. Knee-jerk slogans right out of the right-wing playbook are not substitutes for genuine thought, and they seem somewhat beneath you because you appear to be a bright woman.
Think critically. Politicians of both major parties never encourage the electorate to do that. But I think it's our responsibility as American citizens.
You said, "God tells us to work in order to provide not only for ourselves but to also have something to share with those in need. Those who REFUSE to work should not receive any assistance. The Democrat party promises assistance to those who REFUSE to work."
To this statement, I say very clearly that you obviously have no idea about how the "other half" lives. There are millions of people in this country who were born into poverty, born to crack-addicted parents, born to incarcerated families. These people, yes, have the opportunity to go to high school, at least elementary and middle school. But what of the young people who courageously take care of their younger brothers and sisters who have no mother or father? What of the young people who have to drop out of high school to work two or three jobs to help support their family because their dad was laid off work? What about the young, middle-aged, or older adult American who has been diagnosed with a disease or medical problem and cannot work, or must two or three jobs against a doctor's order? You, from your comments, have no clue. Everyone in this country most certainly does NOT have the same opportunities as everyone else. That is a blatant lie.
You said, "The Democrat party promises assistance to those who REFUSE to work. Not only that, they promote taking money away from those who work hard and giving it to those who don't. This is unscriptural! I see nothing wrong with helping those who are truly in need after doing all they can to support and help themselves."
To this I say, yet again, you need to review the poverty level in this country and take a serious look at people who are supposedly "refusing" to work. There are millionaire's who don't work. They inherited the money they have from their parents who DID work. But I don't see you, as an (supposedly) middle class woman coming down on them for not working. Quite a double standard.
Another thing: you come down on Marxism like Karl Marx was a bad, horrible, sinful man. Apparently you have a warped view of what his ideas were, and what horrible communist dictators turned them into. You may want to read the Communist Manifesto just to find out, as you obviously don't really understand the concepts that he laid down.
After reading several of your blogs, comments made on them, and your replies, it is obvious to me that you are a "Christian" who is trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong. I have never been more flabbergasted by a so-called "Christian" as when I came across this blog on the internet. You obviously do not practice a tolerance of others (including their opinions) and do not seem to be an example that I would want my peers or children to be around.
Exterminator,
I want to take a few minutes to address some of your last comments, and then I would like to move on to my next topic.
You asked me how I know my "interpretation" of the Bible is "the correct one." How does anyone know their interpretation of anything is correct? Anyone who reads my blog or your comments has to interpret them. Believe it or not, I once wondered how anyone could know the truth (which I believe exists) when there are so many different religious beliefs in the world. They can't all be right because they contradict one another.
There are some common logical steps used when interpreting the Bible. Study all the Bible has to say on a particular subject. Study to determine truth, not to justify existing beliefs. Let the Bible mean what it says. Distinquish between figurative and literal language. Attempt to understand difficult passages in light of the easier, clearer ones.
Jesus promises that those who seek the truth will find it. I believe that. I've had to change my understanding of several issues due to further study, and I'm open to growing in my understanding as I grow and learn.
I believe the Bible is God's word, and that men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal it. The apostle Peter wrote, "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation [or origin], for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).
Regarding Jesus' approval of a nation distributing wealth, He doesn't address this at all. He did teach his disciples to render to Caesar what is his (taxes), and Paul, inspired by God, tells us to submit to the authority of the government, provided it does not cause us to ultimately disobey God. But Jesus did not come to establish a Utopian Earth. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs us how to live and treat others on an individual level (More about this in my next entry.). He overturned the money changers' tables because they were misusing the Temple - not because they were evil capatalists! He said, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of thieves.'"
Remember, also, that the words of the writers of the New Testament were also inspired and hold the same authority. Even Jesus claimed to speak what God told Him to, as to the other inspired writers. One of those inspired men, the apostle Paul, wrote "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Cruel, cold-hearted? No. God expects people to do what they can, and then trust Him for the rest. The Bible has plenty to say about the responsiblity of individuals to help out those who are in need and to "do good to all men as we have opportunity."
I wish I were a young woman :) But I'm rapidly approaching my 49th birthday, and do not mind admitting it. My economic status has run the gamut, so to speak. But I trust what Jesus says: those who seek His kingdom first will have their needs taken care of. I do not have a problem with the government providing assistance to those truly in need based on circumstances beyond their control. But I do not believe that throwing money at the problem is the answer. Help individuals get the training they need to have employable skills, etc.
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to think for ourselves and not let any political (or religious) organization tell us what to think or believe.
Anonymous,
I'm going to let your comments be the last published on this topic so I can move on to my next entry.
I am very well aware of how "the other half lives." I've been there, and there is always the possibility I will face similar challenges in the future. I've known people who have faced situations that you described, but they did not use that as an excuse to do nothing to help themselves. I am very sympathetic to those in need and see nothing wrong with helping those who are truly in need because of circumstances beyond their control. Not only should we as individuals be helping these people, but I don't have a problem with the government using some tax funds to assist (I said more about this in a response to The Exterminator.). However, this is not how our government currently operates. Democratic candidates consistently call for higher taxes to pay for more and more social programs for those who are not trying to do something about their situation. Those who are poor have a much better opportunity of getting free money for an education than the upper or middle class. An education is crucial to improving one's economic status, yet so many people fail to take advantage of that opportunity.
Let's look at the entire context of the passage that keeps coming back up: "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread" (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12).
Not only were these individuals not working, but they were acting as "busybodies." And evidently they were relying on eating someone else's "bread" because they could not afford their own. A millionaire doesn't have to resort to relying on someone else's resources because he already has money to provide for himself and his family.
Your comment about my views of Communism and Marxist theory comes straight from the liberal playbook. If I don't agree, it must be because I just don't understand it. I understand very well Marxism, and yes, it is evil and flat-out wrong. Why would I agree with an agenda that seeks to annihilate Christianity?
Regarding tolerance, you are somewhat correct. Christians cannot tolerate sin, but that is never a license to mistreat people. I will write more about how we are to treat others in my next entry, so I hope you will come back and read that. But let me ask you this: how tolerant are you of me and my opinions?
I have raised two children who have turned out to be excellent adults. They are kind - even to those who have mistreated them. They have never been arrested, never been involved in drugs or alcohol, a physical fight, nor acted up in school. Their teachers bragged about how well-behaved they were and never caused us any problems. While other kids their ages were running around late at night getting into trouble, they were attending Bible studies, singings, or watching movies at their friends' homes. Many years ago when I was a volunteer at my son's middle school, I took a young man who had been arrested for weapon possession and breaking and entering under my wings. While he was in jail, I corresponded with him, and he thanked for for caring. He was even contemplating suicide but the fact that someone truly cared about him made him rethink his decision. He got out of jail and finished school. I'd say I've been a pretty good example for kids. I'm sorry you feel differently.
Since McCain is running against Obama, as a conservative I have to vote for Obama.
Things will get worse with McCain.
Things will get much worse with Obama. And that is why I am voting for Obama. For things will only get worse with McCain but they need to get much worse for us to survive as a nation.
Of course a statement like that needs an explanation. And I will do so in the form of an analogy. Do you know how to cook a frog? Well, if you put it in a pot of boiling water the frog will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pot of water that is warm and turn up the heat gradually up to boiling the frog will just sit there not even realizing it is being boiled alive.
Obama is the one who puts the frog into the hot water and McCain is the one who turns up the heat gradually. With Obama his extremism will cause a backlash so great that America will start electing good leaders to oppose him. It happened in 1980 and it happened in 1994. And it will happen again.
But McCain he will really be the death of the Republican Party. As I said above things will get worse with McCain and therefore he and the Republican Party will get the blame. And then America will elect a Democrat in 2012 for President. And if recent history has shown us anything it has shown that the Democratic Candidate has been getting increasingly extreme. So I can’t tell you who the Democrats will put up that year but I can tell you that person will be as extreme if not more extreme than Obama. So, how long are we putting off having an Obama-like President? Four Years?
And meanwhile McCain has shown that he wants to drive conservatives and conservatism away from the Republican Party. For those of us who believes that the only solution to our country’s problems, it is unacceptable that neither of the two major parties represents conservative values.
So, I am left with the ultimate act of “tough love”. Not to say there aren’t hard times ahead for there is but that is true with McCain as well. But at least with Obama there is hope that things will get better after him. With McCain all hope is lost.
Anonymous
Define Conservatism.
You make some unsupportable and curious assertions:
(1) "Democrats do not support a strong work ethic" - Oh, really? My personal observation is most Democrats are much harder workers than Republicans. Wealthy individuals often inherit their money and do nothing productive to earn it. Paris Hilton is a good example - Steve Forbes is another. They are lazy and self-indulgent. Many Republicans also think passive income should be taxed at the same or lower rates as income earned from the sweat of your brow. Why? How does this support a "strong work ethic"? I think you are very confused. I'm guessing you hate people on welfare. You might be surprised that over half of the people in the U.S. on welfare are children. Should they be working harder? Are you in favor of child labor? I can cite you numerous New Testament verses where Christ says you must give away everything to be saved.
"To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and from him that taketh away thy cloak withhold not thy coat also." - Luke 6:29
(2) While Democrats may advocate aboriton on demand, I don't know of one who "advocates" abortion. They simply recognize that a woman should have the right to deal with her pregnancy without government interference. I thought Republicans didn't like government interfering in your business, I guess except when it involves a woman's womb.
I don't think Christ would be a Republican, since they support war, which is the ultimate repudiation of Jesus' admonition to "love one another as I have loved you". I see Republicans as advocates of greed, hatred, bigotry, war and selfishness.
Sorry, but you are simply dead wrong.
Post a Comment