how do your beliefs impact who you choose as a presidential candidate?

I can tell you that I am less inclined to vote for a person who jams their religious views down my throat. If a candidate is religious, cool. If candidate is not religious, cool. I just want the president, whoever it is, to run the country like he or she knows what they are doing! Religious beliefs need to be kept as far away from politics as possible.

Just my two cents.

how does some of the moral issues that politics take up play into it? such as being pro-choice or pro-life? for or against same-sex marriages?

if you are a christian and you vote for someone who supports a view opposite of what the Bible teaches, how does that impact our spiritual walk?

i bring this up because a colleague of mine are discussing whether you can be a democrat and a christian. he is hard-core no, you cannot be a democrat and call yourself a Christian. that just sounds rediculous to me.

i fully support the separation of church and state because of this.

Actually, this is a fairly recent mindset of Americans on both sides (and 3rd party folk too). There was a time when people could support different parties and policies but still get along with each other. Now, there's no respect for the other side. People don't want to even try to understand why someone could hold a different position than they do. I'm not really sure why that is or when it started...

I agree with the foregoing points.

By way of background: I was raised in a Lutheran household where I went to church every single Sunday, no exceptions. Bible Study every Wednesday. I would pray at least 5 times a day, usually more. I now rarely go to church, married a Catholic and belong to a church that runs a halfway house for gays dying of AIDS which has made the local arch diocese threaten to excommunicate us. Overall, I am not a fan of organized religion.

That said, does your co-worker not read the New Testament? If he did, and actually understood what Jesus taught about caring for those that are less fortunate, he should be voting Democrat, not Republican.

I don't want to know about a politician's personal religious beliefs. I care about their moral character. Morality and religiousity are not interdependent. One can be moral and an atheist or agnositic. Likewise, one can call themselves "religious" and be immoral (see e.g. Ted Haggert, Jim Baker).

Do you think that an atheist or agnostic could be elected President today? Could a presidential candidate that refuses to discuss his or her beliefs be elected? Could Lincoln be elected today?

that's exactly what i tell him. our job as christians is to show love to everyone, no matter if you agree or disagree with their choices.

that's a good question. i don't know if they could. on the other extreme, look at how many presidents we've had from the more devout denominations. i think kennedy is still the only catholic. in the current crop of candidates, you always hear about romney being a mormon and what states that will help or hurt him.

I'm going to get involved...I hope you don't mind.

I think the crux of the issue is virtue. Can one be virtuous without religion, and how dare someone be religious without virtue. Jesus teaches that we are to be loving above all things. And, I agree totally - we do have a difficult time accepting an opinion different than our own. But, I have an idea why that might be so.


We are in the middle of a shift. The same sort of shift that happened between the age of antiquity and the Middle Ages and between the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment and between the Enlightenment and the Modern Age.

We are moving into a new age. This new age doesn't support the beliefs and ideas of the Modern Era. This new age is not local, but global. This new age is less about ritual and more about authenticity. This new age is about connection, conversation, conversion, and relationship.

The fact that you and I cannot stand someone who cannot accept our viws the way in which we accept theirs is a prime example of this. We are tired of the in-grouping and out-grouping. We are tired of not merely toleration, but a total lack of acceptance. We are tired of "that's the way we are supposed to behave/think/act. We are looking for Truth with a capital T. We are looking for Love with a capital L. We are looking for authentic relationship, not onyl with God, but with others, and indeed ourselves. We find that the old ways do not work. We want them to, but they do not. So...we are also angry.

We are angry because we have nothing to fall back on. Our experience and reason onyl limit us in this new era. Systematic thinking leaves us cold, with no hope or reality. And we want both Hope and Reality.

So, we want Presidential candidates to be real...and to be like us. We want them to seek the Truth in all matters, do the right thing all of the time, and speak the Truth to us in Love. In some ways, we want to see Christ in our President...and we get offended when we don't. I'm not sure that we are not expecting too much from the office and not enough from ourselves.

Ghandi had a quote that went something like "If you want the world to change, you must BE that change." In other words, WE are what we want the country, or our state, or our city, or even our church to be. We are that instrument of change. But, as Paul said, if we have not love, we are better off spitting in the breeze. At least we would get our faces washed.

Ultimately, you have four groups in the country. Those that want change for the sake of change, those that want change only if it is warranted, those that do not want change, but will eventually okay it, and those that DO NOT want change no matter what.

It's pointless to say that the first and last groups get the most airtime, leaving us with an amazing urge to choose sides, to cast some out, to become "us and them." We like "us and them." We like to be on a winning team against a common foe. And, some people in the media, the religious circles, and the political realm enjoy using that fact to their advantage. It's time the silent embraced the fringes in love and acceptance. But it's hard. Those that really want change and oppose change are like a wounded animal: we try to love them they WILL bite. And hard. It's up to us to accept it and keep trying. It sucks to be here. But think of a buggy manufacturer in 1911. He was making his best buggies, but it didn't really matter. The car was tearing him up. Same here. We can stand by ideas and issues that have been around for years, but ultimately with every passing day they become obsolete. Speaking the Truth in Love. That's where it's at.

By the way, I am soon to be working on a Masters of Divinity or a Masters of Theological Studies. I have filled pulpits in my area. I don't like the religious people either. Needless to say, not many like me, either.

Hope I didn't go too long.

Jake

Jake,

Thanks for sharing. I commend you for your decision to serve God. Unfortunately, or maybe not, I no longer believe in God. Part of me still wants to for the comfort, but the logical side of me thinks that it is a complete waste of time and anti-humanist to believe in a God that would condemn gays to hell, those that have abortions to the 7th circle of hell and those that have immoral thoughts about big breasts to the 9th circle of hell. Seriously though, I was raised in a very strict Christian family. You probably read about how I used to pray at least 5 times and usually more a day. I don't know what happened. Perhaps it is because I am estranged from my mother and father. Perhaps it is because I married a Catholic and had to sign my kids' souls over to the Pope. I don't know. Convice me I'm wrong.

Not to present the counter argument here, but his attitude begs the question: how can you be a Republican and be a Christian? If you really believe in Christ and living walking Christ's walk while on the earth, how can you sit there and justify the rich keeping their money and you not giving all your wealth to the poor? Please explain this is fascinating.

Two words: Christian Coalition

Fascinating.

I'm going to get into trouble here, and please do not get angry at me if those reading are evangelical fundamentalists...


How can God condemn gays? If Scripture is THE authority, then we must admit, from a Christian perspective, that sin is sin...it misses the mark. According to Scripture, no sin is greater than the other unless God makes it so. (I'm recalling David, Bathsheeba, and David conducting a census. The census was more of a sin because God told him not to count his men)

Anyway, if we are to believe no sin is greater than the other, how do we achieve this hierarchy of sin? Through men. Who is the only group Jesus condemned to Hell? Well, let me back up. He condemned a rich man that ignored a beggar and the religious authority for making religious "laws" that no longer fit with society.

No longer fit with society.

We are there today. People are too busy condemning those that don't act or behave the way they do. Have a tattoo? You're out. (Okay, this was a 50's/60's thing, but it still goes on in some communities) Have a baby out of wedlock? We'll look down our nose at you. And so on and so forth.

What did Jesus do when He was around the "outcast" least of these? Well, the woman at the well He happily accepted and told her how to receive a whole life. The prostitute brought before him by the religious authority, the one THEY wanted to stone, Jesus did not condemn, but set free.

I agree with you. If I must fall in line with my parent's or grandparent's faith/belief system, I would rather be an atheist. I guess I am in that sense.

Jesus was not about rules, regulations, and which sin is greater. He was all about the love. In a lot of ways, Christianity is a social reform movement, not a club designed for fire insurance where we gather every Sunday to say "Praise the Lord" then spend the rest of the week cheating, lying, being rude and hateful to our families and strangers, all the while wondering how much we can get by with and still get into heaven. It's BS.

HOwever, knowing that those things are not for us, and closing our minds off to other possibilities is wrong, too. What if God does exist, and it is more logical and less spiritual than we could ever realize? What if the philosophy found throughout the Bible was and is the main point, and most are missing it? ULtimately, your belief system is YOUR belief system...not your parents, not the scientists', not the theologians', not anyone but you. But, not believing in God IS a belief system...just wanted to point that out. It doesn't make you a "non-believer."

So many people have screwed up so many things for the generations to come. And I'm sure I will play my part in screwing up things for the generations to follow. If I get one thing right, just one, my life will have been worth it.

Now, I don't have the answers. But I know that modernity doesn't have them either. If God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, etc. do you truly think He wants what He is seeing in His church today? If He is Just...in a way that we can only know through analogy, don't you think there must be something next? Instead of turning to atheism, what if that discontent within you is God's Spirit calling you to be an instrument of change? An intellegent, logical instrument of change. A modern Luther, or Aquinas, or Augustine, or Erasmus?

I would ask you to read "A New Kind of Christian" by Brian Maclaren. It's better than it sounds and he doesn't give the fluffy answers. It's about his struggles with modern Christianity. It will make you think.

Another good book is "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell. It's a ride, though. Cool, but a ride.

These guys gave me a new but damaged hope. I limp because of my faith. Actually, I was asked the other day about an issue (can't remember what it was) and was asked if my religion allowed it. my answer was yes "MY" religion allows it.

I would also turn you toward Aquinas, Luther, and those mentioned before. You are on an awesome journey. Don't decide yet. keep an open mind. The universe may just surprise you.

jake, thanks for contributing. i think that's an interesting pov about how the social culture is changing, and one that i've thought about before. politics and religion have a choice, they can embrace this change or they can hold onto the traditions of the past.

i think we do have something to fall back on, though. the Bible and the constitution are the ultimate references for the two entities. they were written with the ability to be applicable to the lifestyles of the times they were written and in current times.

the very book that a lot of the 'religious right' use as their back up on arguments is the book that actually supports both sides. Jesus doesn't want us to willfully sin, but he never said we can't be Christians because we are sinners. think of the story of the woman by the well. Jesus didn't tell her to keep being a prostitute, but he didn't tell her she wasn't welcome to follow him because of her lifestyle.

on the argument of basic human rights, isn't denying homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals pretty much the same as denying black people the right to vote?

i think the problem some people have is that by embracing the change, they feel they are 'going with the flow.' you don't have to agree with a lifestyle, but you do have to accept the reality of it. issues that used to be hidden and out of sight are all around us and, because of the way the world is changing, are forcing us to deal with them.

Dude.

10 beers.

8 for you. 2 for me. All high alcohol content.

Me listen to you philosophize and eat crackers.

Aquinas and Luther have differed from the journey I think you have endeavored. Please elaborate and tell me where I am wrong. I am, unlike the other numbskull republicans who are diehard dittoheads, listening.

Aquinas and Luther have indeed strayed, but they are a good place to start contemplation. For Luther, it's not so much his writings as his social or eclesiastical variation. Sometimes you have to break from the pack in order to induce positive change. I think Luther is a decent example of this, and Aquinas is sort of the same way, he way in which he wrote the Summa T. Very confident, very different...although he leans toward Hegel a little.

I'll take the beers, but they aren't needed for me to ramble endlessly about these things...trust me. My wife and friends hear my diatribes often.

I would write more, but I must study Hebrew...and compose an essay discussing Erasmus and Luther. In their discussion concernig Free Will, what wsa at stake? What are the similarities and differences in the same debate today? What does their debate do for us today? This is where I'm going with it, anyway. We'll see how it turns out.

I'll write more later.

Jake

I'm an Independent and I call myself a Christian. I believe the constitution states that there should be
no "religious" test. I could Google it but I'm sure it's there. Anyway..WWJD? I doubt that he would
participate in the political arena for his kingdom,like our's,is not of this world. We can and should
participate in the political arena but it's important not to confuse the kingdom with our world.

We are a long long way from a theocracy but to be honest,I could never vote for a candidate
who has been ordained! A theocracy does not just happen over night. A theocracy must have
a beginning phase and some of the things I see today make me a "tad" nervous!

Separation of church and state..what does it "really" mean? I think it means Christians and
other faiths should be free to participate in the process but no one religion should control
the state!

I'm sure our founding fathers used more "flowery" words to define what they meant but I think
common sense and respect for "all" religions cuts to the chase!

"When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

I think you're right in asking WWJD...but I must admit a more pressing question is WWJHUTD? What Would Jesus Have Us To Do? Today. At this very moment in time. It's safe to say that we can figure out through Scripture what Jesus would do. But what does He want us to do in this world today? That's a tougher question. And that's a question I struggle with everyday, but I have a few ideas.

1) Be more accepting. People today bring litigation and offense anytime they feel the least bit wronged, without a true conversation with the person they are upset with. We need to speak the truth. We need to be honest. We need to be in conversation. AND, we need to realize that everybody else is just trying to do their best, just like we are.

2) Be a friend. The word 'friend' is used too casually today. A true friend cares, reaches out, is there for the good and bad times, and, if you are down on your luck, gives you all that he can to help you. To be a friend is to be charitable, kind, loving, gentle, and supportive. We need more friends. All of us. We need to be better friends. Every last one of us. If we were friends the way Jesus was a friend to John, the issues of the world would be different. Much different.

3) Taking care of the poor, widows, and orphans. This comes right out of the Bible, but it's something people and the Church are forgetting about. The emphasis that was placed on this action in Jesus' time versus today is sad...very sad. The Church was created to help those that are struggling, lost, alone, and hurting. The Church was designed to be a place to question Truth, to learn about life, to fully realize and experience commnity, and to be made whole. What is it today? Do we see these things going on today? If we did, the Church would have a different reputation,


Okay...I'm stopping there. You had some really good things to say, and I appreciated them. I guess I just needed to rant. Let me end by saying that I think we are right about what the Chruch 'could be'...and others are right in what they see the Church 'to be.' Bridging that canyon is what I'm all about. There are ways to take the Christian Ideals and put them into practice. If only people would. If only I would.

I agree with both of you on your major points and the challenge we, as believers, have before us. Jesus "went about doing good" and commanded us to love each other as He has loved us. This command went beyond the golden rule or even "love your neighbor as yourself". Essentially, this command means that we love each other with a FATHERLY love, an unconditional love, as opposed to mere brotherly love. That's why he said that if we follow this command "people will know that you are my disciples". That's a tall order, but Jesus imparted this instruction to us, so it is quite possible to achieve, but only through focusing on God's love as opposed to brotherly love, which can be far from unconditional or worldly altruism.

Now, stay with me...

The question "what would Jesus do" begs another question, and that is "WHY would He do what He does". It's the motive, the condition of the heart, that separates those who would do what Jesus would have done and think thereby they have fulfilled their "duty", from those who have had a personal encounter with the type of love Jesus implies, which is a love that only a parent can impart. Having experienced this love, the latter person will reach out and help, because he/she can see themselves in the person(s) in need. They won't wait around for a program to be set up to aid these unfortunate ones, they will initiate the "program" themselves, or find someone who can help them do so. Or they will simply, without fanfare, reach out and impart love. Like a parent who doesn't wait around for someone else's blessing before they reach out to take care of the needs of their child. They act like parents - they just do it!

Now, some questions to consider: Did Jesus force anyone to "do good, or else!" ? Did Jesus command us to work through government to set up social programs in His name? What did Jesus mean when he said things like: "Come unto me, all you who are weary laden and I will give you rest."? What did Jesus mean when he said:" Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's" in the context of the circumstance in which he said it? Did he imply, in any way, that Caesar (and the government he represented) should be brought into submission to God before it was a valid government; or, on the other side of the coin, that God (and those who believe and serve Him) should submit to the ruling party of the time in things that belong to God?

I believe that Jesus believed and taught that the two are separate and need to remain separate as entities, as realms (and made a forceful statement to that effect in the cleansing of the temple, where the Jewish rulers were trying to mix the two). However, it is essential for both to co-exist together and not persecute each other but see the value in each other. I don't recall, for example, Jesus ever calling down the government for meting out justice to criminals, according to the laws put in place by that government. He made a total distinction between His mission and those of, say, the Zealots, who wanted to overthrow the government. At the same time, He did not condemn the Zealots (as a group) for what they were trying to do, because he fully understood the suffering of the Jewish people. He made a clear distinction between the rights and duties of the individual and the rights and duties of the collective government. Each has a role.

We have churches from whence to dispense aid and comfort to those who are in need. We can, and should do that with the vehicle that has been provided. In my (strong) opinion, it is NOT the role of the government to do that for us. The government should steer clear from charity work and, instead, focus on the things that make for a stronger economy (improved and balanced trade) for all, a strong defense for the security of the people it serves, and law & order. the Church should be on the forefront of taking care of more local needs outside of the parameters of government. It's when either one (Church and State) imposes itself on the other that we have problems; i.e. the government making rules that oppress religious involvement or when religions attempt to hijack and impose their religious views on all people through the vehicle of government.

We need to focus on politicians who happen to live by Christian or religious values, instead of Christian Politicians. The church will exist with or without government (look at China, or the early Christians, or the Jews in Europe throughout the past 2000 years). It is not, and should never be, dependent upon government for its validity. A good, sound government, that is built on the foundation of law and order, and that strictly takes care of government affairs, can exist with or without Christianity or any religion (look at the Scandinavian countries). It is not, and should never be, dependent upon religion for its validity. But when both can co-exist and compliment each other, then you have an unbeatable partnership, with each fulfilling its designed role. Our constitution provides us that roadmap and has been astoundingly successful in guiding us for over 200 years now. We have not always followed that roadmap faithfully but, overall, successfully.

No political party should be the "Christian" party. In my church, we cover the entire spectrum, politically speaking, but when it comes to reaching out as a church to render things to God which are God's(going about doing good, loving others as Jesus loved us), then we are amazingly on the same page. We don't talk much about it - when we see a need, we jump into action. Not by following the dictates of the government or deferring to a government program, but by following the dictates and example of our Spiritual Head of State - Jesus Christ. We also don't go about letting people know that "the State loves you" but, rather, that "Jesus loves you" through our actions and through walking the walk. But we also don't imply that "if you belong to a specific political view, then Jesus loves you and fully blesses you". How absurd and how demeaning to the true cause of Jesus.

Jake, you are not alone in the "diatribe" arena . I, for one, enjoy the exchange and love to see people such as yourself write with passion. Thanks for your thoughts. They invoke contemplation.

If what I wrote is confusing, please accept my apologies.

"Not perfect - just forgiven"

Very nice discussion, and it's good to see civil, thoughtful discussions. After all, the great commandment says we are to love the lord our God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind. One of the things I see today, and something I was guilty of myself not too long ago, is people seeking to know about God rather than seeking to simply know God, and more interested in being right than being loving.

So when we can have these kinds of civil discussions, seeking to love God with all our mind, I think we are all better for it. Anyway, just wanted to thank you guys for the tone, since there's not much more I can add to what's already been said.

G.

Thanks for your insight, Gene. i think this would be a great discussion over in the "Christian Thoughts" section, so I want to jump this over to there. The Question to explore: How do we go about loving God in these three different arenas? How did Jesus go about it?

Anyway - see you over there!

Sounds good, or maybe even start a new topic to explore that question. You can fire first by simply phrasing the question as we want it answered and go from there.

G.

http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/c...14-0de0b8177927

"God is not Mentioned in the Constitution": A Slam-Dunk for Secularism?
Posted by gfigurelli at 2/29/2008 3:20 PM CST

One of the most oft-repeated premises used to support the argument for a strictly secular view of American government is the noticeable lack of any specific mention of “God” in the U.S. Constitution. To be sure, the Constitution includes only two direct mentions of “religion” (see here, and here) and just one rather oblique reference to Christianity (here).

That’s it. No direct mention of “God” “Jesus” “Christianity” or even “oppressive right-wing dictatorial theocracy.”

Many wish to take this apparent silence as dispositive evidence that the Founders intended a purely secular government not only divorced from the institutional church, but sealed off altogether from the philosophical or theological influence of the church, religious persons, or anything resembling traditional Christian thought. But is that really the case?

Dr. Derek H. Davis (B.A., M.A., J.D., Baylor University; Ph.D., University of Dallas), a scholar well-known for his vigorous defense of the separation of church and state, explains how the Founders’ decision to not place the government instituted by the new Constitution directly under divine authority “was never intended to negate or minimize religion.” [all references here to Davis are from Derek H. Davis, “The Classical Separation Perspective,” in P.C. Kemeny, Church, State and Public Justice (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 94-95)]

The fact is, as Davis notes, “the kind of constitutionalism conceived by the founders was infused with a divine imprimatur – a necessary advantage to obtain and sustain the support of the Constitution in the hearts of the minds of the people. Thus the Constitution was never presented as a completely secular document; the idea of the providential hand of God was consistently retained.”

Indeed, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, argued in Federalist XXXVII that, “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it, a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical states of the revolution.” Leading clergymen of the day, such as Congregationalist minister Abraham Williams, agreed: “Government is a divine Constitution founded in the nature and relation of things. God is the head…and supreme governor.” As Davis notes: “Williams thanked the ‘great governor of the world’ for ‘placing us under a government so wise and good in its constitution and administration.’”

The American government was the product of a unique coming together of traditional Christian theology and an Enlightenment view of self-government, with philosopher and Christian apologist John Locke being perhaps the greatest of influences on the principles adopted by the Founders. Davis observes this felicitous fusion in the American experiment:

Actually, the apparently secular nature of the new Constitution rested to some degree, for many of the leading thinkers, on the way that God was thought to govern the universe. With the spread of Enlightenment rationalism, the pervading theological metaphor for God’s method of controlling the universe was a constitutional paradigm. This provided the political leaders with a vocabulary they could use to express the new concepts of a federal constitution government.

Is it any wonder then why the Supreme Court, nearly two centuries later in a time very near the zenith of secular philosophy, would famously say that “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being”? (Zorach v Clauson, 1952) That is, just five years after Justice Hugo Black helped erect the “high and impregnable wall” of strict separationism (Everson, 1947), the Supreme Court still could not deny that the American system of government was utterly incomprehensible apart from reference to the influence of Christian thought on the Founders.

To be sure, the Constitution did not establish a Christian government. That much is indisputable. Equally as clear, however, is that the Founders did not intend a purely secular government insofar as the principles imbedded in the Constitution be scrubbed free of any theological influence.

The fact is that the Constitution prescribed a system for uniting the several states that was very much in keeping with the same theistic philosophy which impelled those several states to mutually declare independence from Great Britain a decade earlier. No, the Founders had not abandoned their conviction concerning the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Upon drafting the Constitution in 1787, they had not drifted from their firm belief in the self-evident truths that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

In fact, if we are to believe Abraham Lincoln, then we must conclude that the Declaration of Independence, with its strong theistic language, should be included right alongside the Constitution as America’s two founding documents, divergent in purpose yet complementary in philosophy. How is we know that this was Lincoln’s view? Just do the math: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Fourscore and seven equals eighty-seven. What document was penned eighty-seven years prior to 1863, the year in which Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address? The Declaration of Independence.

Thus, in Lincoln’s mind, it was the Declaration with its theistic worldview by which “our fathers brought forth…a new nation.” The Constitution did not subsequently abrogate the Declaration, but “merely” provided a much better form of union “to secure the blessings of liberty” than did the weak and ineffective Articles of Confederation. Thus could Lincoln unite the theistic principles of the Declaration with the Enlightenment principles of the Constitution with his hope that “this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

The very Founders who crafted an allegedly “godless” Constitution also believed, as Davis puts it, “that the imago dei stamped upon every human being is the basis of the dignity and worth of every person.” That is, the very right to self-govern is a right granted to not by those so fortunate to be self-governed. Far from denying this foundational conviction, the Constitution provides the very means by which to secure the truth that, as John F. Kennedy once put it, "the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

Perhaps government should just back off.


Big Red

I have a bad feeling that within the next 2 years or so this subject is going to hit home with EVERYONE, not just Christians