Voting your moral values.

[Albion]

If you think so.

But OTOH, he did nominate Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and he's universally considered to be anti-abortion.

 

[Albion]

Whether or not abortion is murder is kind of the whole point of the discussion.

Well, no, it's not. But that aside, it looks to me that we've drifted far from the main point of this discussion. Using abortion as an example probably wasn't a good idea because, although a valid example, it made the discussion all about abortion rather than about the law forcing someone to violate his religious conscience (whatever the issue might be).

I don't see how I'm missing the point. If the employer funds an insurance policy that may pay for an abortion how is that any different to funding a member of staff who may pay for the exact same abortion, or indeed to fund a member of staff who would then buy the insurance policy the employer wouldn't buy on her behalf?

The difference is quite apparent IMHO. In the one case, the employer is required to pay for insurance that covers abortions whereas the other situation is of someone else choosing to have one, using his own money.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you think so.

But OTOH, he did nominate Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and he's universally considered to be anti-abortion.

Maybe Gorsuch is and maybe he isn't "anti-abortion". Time may tell depending on the cases brought before the Supreme Court in the USA.

 

[Albion]

Maybe Gorsuch is and maybe he isn't "anti-abortion". Time may tell depending on the cases brought before the Supreme Court in the USA.

That's safe to say, isn't it? But it still cannot be denied that if the question is asked about where the President stands on abortion, the fact that he appointed a person to the Court who is believed for all the usual reasons and by friend and foe alike to be pro-life speaks for itself. If the President were NOT interested in pro-life decisions being handed down by the court he would obviously have nominated someone else.

Time magazine--no friend of conservatives or of Trump--noted, that in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, he sided with religious organizations that sought an exemption from the Affordable Care Act mandate that said companies must cover contraception and that in Judge Gorsuch's own book, he opposed assisted suicide as immoral and a violation of the Constitution.

 

[J.Money]

I know of many people who voted for Trump because they feel like they had to. Likewise with Hillary. It is sad to me that the political system in America makes citizens feel forced to side with the left or right. A lot of people disregarded third parties for numerous reasons even though their political and moral beliefs aligned more with those third party candidates. It is this kind of stigma I wish would change in the political sphere. A vote for a third party is not a vote for the left or right, it is a vote for the third party. I really wish more people would take a stand and entertain the idea of voting outside the two major parties in the US.
As far as Christian morals go, that is a difficult subject. It seems as if during election time, tensions rise, people care about social issues more, although it is not from a Christian perspective, in my opinion. They care about social issues because they believe something should be done, but they think ultimately it is the political party that will get the problem fixed. My perspective is that when we end up believing more in political party to do the work for those oppressed and ostracized than our own community of faith, that is a core problem.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

I know of many people who voted for Trump because they feel like they had to. Likewise with Hillary. It is sad to me that the political system in America makes citizens feel forced to side with the left or right.

Democrats are not "left". They are quite far to the "right" in world politics. Much further to the "right" than all of the main political parties in Australia. That is why the Affordable Care Act is so bad. Even the Democrats in the USA can't bring themselves to have a single payer system of health insurance/cover. But a great many USA folk appear to see anything that isn't stupidly "right wing" as "communist".

The Republicans are not really "right" either. They are just deeply into taxpayer subsidies to large banks and large corporations. I guess that is a kind of "socialism" - a welfare system for company board members and shareholders.

A lot of people disregarded third parties for numerous reasons even though their political and moral beliefs aligned more with those third party candidates.

Amen. But people did that as an excuse for voting for immoral candidates because deep down their politics matters way more than their moral values. Winning at the polls matters way more than the moral virtues espoused by Jesus Christ. That is why they vote for "somebody who has a chance to win" rather than voting for somebody who stands for good and against wickedness. Mind you, even the "third party candidates" are likely to be problematic on some issues. Christian values are not adhered to by many Christians and even fewer who are not Christians so virtually all of the candidates hold views and espouse values that their electors like.

It is this kind of stigma I wish would change in the political sphere. A vote for a third party is not a vote for the left or right, it is a vote for the third party. I really wish more people would take a stand and entertain the idea of voting outside the two major parties in the US.

Amen again.

As far as Christian morals go, that is a difficult subject. It seems as if during election time, tensions rise, people care about social issues more, although it is not from a Christian perspective, in my opinion. They care about social issues because they believe something should be done, but they think ultimately it is the political party that will get the problem fixed.

Amen about the thinking. Voters do appear to think that the solution to social and political issues is getting the right politicians into office. They leave no room for God in it. They do not think God will do much of anything. That is a bit like the unbelieving towns that Jesus visited and where he did no miracles because of the unbelief of the people there. Maybe it is the same in politics - no miracles because no one believes. They talk about God a lot in USA elections but nobody wants God to be involved, not really.

My perspective is that when we end up believing more in political party to do the work for those oppressed and ostracized than our own community of faith, that is a core problem.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

I know of many people who voted for Trump because they feel like they had to. Likewise with Hillary. It is sad to me that the political system in America makes citizens feel forced to side with the left or right.

It's true; facing a choice between a Socialist party and the So-So Republican Party that hasn't distinguished itself much of late, it would seem that the voter would have something else available, practically speaking. However, that's the system we have and, perhaps as important as that, it is what both of the major parties have insured -- by legislation -- will remain almost invulnerable to any third party challenges.

 

[J.Money]

Democrats are not "left". They are quite far to the "right" in world politics. Much further to the "right" than all of the main political parties in Australia. That is why the Affordable Care Act is so bad. Even the Democrats in the USA can't bring themselves to have a single payer system of health insurance/cover. But a great many USA folk appear to see anything that isn't stupidly "right wing" as "communist".

The Republicans are not really "right" either. They are just deeply into taxpayer subsidies to large banks and large corporations. I guess that is a kind of "socialism" - a welfare system for company board members and shareholders.



Amen. But people did that as an excuse for voting for immoral candidates because deep down their politics matters way more than their moral values. Winning at the polls matters way more than the moral virtues espoused by Jesus Christ. That is why they vote for "somebody who has a chance to win" rather than voting for somebody who stands for good and against wickedness. Mind you, even the "third party candidates" are likely to be problematic on some issues. Christian values are not adhered to by many Christians and even fewer who are not Christians so virtually all of the candidates hold views and espouse values that their electors like.



Amen again.



Amen about the thinking. Voters do appear to think that the solution to social and political issues is getting the right politicians into office. They leave no room for God in it. They do not think God will do much of anything. That is a bit like the unbelieving towns that Jesus visited and where he did no miracles because of the unbelief of the people there. Maybe it is the same in politics - no miracles because no one believes. They talk about God a lot in USA elections but nobody wants God to be involved, not really.

Sure world scale Politics is much different than solely considering the US, I agree. Also, not all third party candidates are better moral choices, I agree. I think my way of thinking isn't necessarily that Christians should vote third party because they are morally better, I don't think any one politician or political party would be a moral choice. I'm under the impression that church and state should remain separate because neither have the same end goal. A political end goal seems to focus around economy, whereas the Christian end goal, I would suggest, is to follow Christ.

I don't think that politics and religion mix well. Sure there can be similarities and arguments supporting why religion and politics could work. But I think it is very difficult to say that both can accomplish the same goal, because their goals are different.

I'd love to hear further thoughts.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[J.Money]

It's true; facing a choice between a Socialist party and the So-So Republican Party that hasn't distinguished itself much of late, it would seem that the voter would have something else available, practically speaking. However, that's the system we have and, perhaps as important as that, it is what both of the major parties have insured -- by legislation -- will remain almost invulnerable to any third party challenges.

This is exactly why I wish people would entertain the idea of voting third party. We have this notion that the 2 party system will never be broken. I don't think that's true. I would even suggest the majority of Americans don't align with either major party, they just recognize the names so that's how they vote.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sure world scale Politics is much different than solely considering the US, I agree. Also, not all third party candidates are better moral choices, I agree. I think my way of thinking isn't necessarily that Christians should vote third party because they are morally better, I don't think any one politician or political party would be a moral choice. I'm under the impression that church and state should remain separate because neither have the same end goal. A political end goal seems to focus around economy, whereas the Christian end goal, I would suggest, is to follow Christ.

I don't think that politics and religion mix well. Sure there can be similarities and arguments supporting why religion and politics could work. But I think it is very difficult to say that both can accomplish the same goal, because their goals are different.

I'd love to hear further thoughts.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Religion in general and Christianity in particular lend themselves to making the populace contented and docile so because of that politicians like the dominant religions in their lands. They can rest assured that as long as they do not rile the population too much and cause too much pain and difficulty they will be safe and enjoy the fruits of "the political system" to their own benefit. That is why bribes, excellent pay in after-politics jobs, gifts, and all manner of things are passed on to politicians either directly or through their "foundations". The asset and income rich of this world know how the grease the wheels of "democracy" and gain the favours that they want. It's always been that way. Even in Ancient Israel the kings and nobles (the wealthy of the land) made alliances with corrupt priests and ear-tickling prophets so that they could manipulate the populace into accepting their corruption. It got so bad in ancient Israel and Judah that God used external powers - Assyria and Babylon as well as Egypt and the Philistines - to chastise the errant Israelites. The lessons never sank in until after the exile in Babylon. And even after that the people quickly came under the influence of corrupted priests and teachers who sided with oppressive Kings and nobles again. So when John the Baptist preached against the powers of his day he was arrested and executed. Jesus too was arrested and executed for preaching a message that the high priests, king Herod, and the Roman governor would not tolerate because it was a message about goodness and genuine freedom under God. Nothing much has been learned since those days. We still have wealthy and powerful leaders working with corrupt religious leaders to cement themselves in positions of unassailable power. But we do have more personal freedoms now than then, maybe, and are fairly well off if we have a job and live in the right neighbourhoods.

 

[J.Money]

Religion in general and Christianity in particular lend themselves to making the populace contented and docile so because of that politicians like the dominant religions in their lands. They can rest assured that as long as they do not rile the population too much and cause too much pain and difficulty they will be safe and enjoy the fruits of "the political system" to their own benefit. That is why bribes, excellent pay in after-politics jobs, gifts, and all manner of things are passed on to politicians either directly or through their "foundations". The asset and income rich of this world know how the grease the wheels of "democracy" and gain the favours that they want. It's always been that way. Even in Ancient Israel the kings and nobles (the wealthy of the land) made alliances with corrupt priests and ear-tickling prophets so that they could manipulate the populace into accepting their corruption. It got so bad in ancient Israel and Judah that God used external powers - Assyria and Babylon as well as Egypt and the Philistines - to chastise the errant Israelites. The lessons never sank in until after the exile in Babylon. And even after that the people quickly came under the influence of corrupted priests and teachers who sided with oppressive Kings and nobles again. So when John the Baptist preached against the powers of his day he was arrested and executed. Jesus too was arrested and executed for preaching a message that the high priests, king Heron, and the Roman governor would not tolerate because it was a message about goodness and genuine freedom under God. Nothing much has been learned since those days. We still have wealthy and powerful leaders working with corrupt religious leaders to cement themselves in positions of unassailable power. But we do have more personal freedoms now than then, maybe, and are fairly well off if we have a job and live in the right neighbourhoods.

I'd say we are leaps and bounds better off now. A book titled "Life in Year One" by Scott Korb is a very good book that explains the common person's life in the first century world. A vast array of tensions arose, people were taxed out of their mind, all inevitably leading to rebellion. Jesus came in as a disruption teaching a message so radically different to what was known at the time. Very interesting stuff. I recommend it to anyone who wants a little more insight on that time period.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'd say we are leaps and bounds better off now. A book titled "Life in Year One" by Scott Korb is a very good book that explains the common person's life in the first century world. A vast array of tensions arose, people were taxed out of their mind, all inevitably leading to rebellion. Jesus came in as a disruption teaching a message so radically different to what was known at the time. Very interesting stuff. I recommend it to anyone who wants a little more insight on that time period.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Yes, right now wealth is more evenly distributed but that is changing rapidly and the wealth held in the hands of a few is so great now that even governments - with all the money that taxation gives them - are growing fearful of the concentration of power that it gives. God gave Israel laws that regularly redistributed the land and the wealth that land ownership gives every 50 years. Those laws were soon ignored and the people lost their lands and wealth and the families of kings and nobles gathered it into their hands which led to oppression and poverty for the nation's people. One of the reasons that the Prophets of God gave for the Babylonian exile was to "give the land it sabbaths" and when the people returned 70 or so years later the land was redistributed again. But that state didn't last long either, after Persia fell the Greeks ruled and became oppressors and then when the Maccabees overthrew the Greeks in Judah they became oppressive rules themselves. Then came Rome and we know the story of client kings and governors in Judah and Galilee at the time of Jesus Christ. But Christians have a hope that such oppressive power will not always exist and God does act in world history to change the powers. Voting one's moral values has to mean voting as best one can even if the candidate "has no chance" because they are not a "major party candidate". And Christians know - deep down - that politics and politicians will not solve the world's problems nor end oppression nor bring lasting peace.

 

[Albion]

This is exactly why I wish people would entertain the idea of voting third party. We have this notion that the 2 party system will never be broken. I don't think that's true. I would even suggest the majority of Americans don't align with either major party, they just recognize the names so that's how they vote.

Believe me, I hear you. The fact remains that the system has been jiggered by the two main parties to make any third party effort very unlikely of success, except for a spoiler role if the votes fall just the right way (as, for instance, it was argued that the Nader candidacy brought about in Florida during the 2000 election that featured Bush, Jr. and Algore).

But anyone who wants to work to change that situation, somehow or other, has my respect.

 

[Josiah]

Believe me, I hear you. The fact remains that the system has been jiggered by the two main parties to make any third party effort very unlikely of success, except for a spoiler role if the votes fall just the right way (as, for instance, it was argued that the Nader candidacy brought about in Florida during the 2000 election that featured Bush, Jr. and Algore).

But anyone who wants to work to change that situation, somehow or other, has my respect.

Good and valid point, and I agree....

BUT we still have the probability that even if TEN candidates were running, all with equal change of winning, we may still find that NONE of them "match" our values. In a lot of ways, Trump "fit" my morals BETTER than Clinton but it was far, far, far, FAR from a perfect fit. George Bush Jr. was a fairly good fit but he was pro-death penalty and a number of other moral issues where I don't agree. I generally like the stance of Newt Gingrich but I know about his past marriage situations and he too is pro-death penalty. Point: It's not REAL likely that a person will be running for president, have a solid chance of winning, and is a perfect fit for my morals. It's likely ALWAYS to be a case of "the lesser of the evils" or to put it positively, "the BEST fit." And for many Christians, that probably was Trump.


Now, I began a thread related to this back during the primaries for the 2016 election, asking why "Evangelicals" were lining up behind Trump when several of the other 17 Republicans running had morals and values FAR closer to their own than Trump. In the primaries of the Republican party, right up to the end, Christians had a choice... the last man standing against Trump was a man of strong Christian convictions and pretty solid Christian values - and with a life pretty consistent with such. But..... SOMETIMES, we do have an opportunity for our values to be influential - even if never a perfect fit. But when it came to the general election.... wow. A lot voted for Trump simply on the abortion issue, and I can understand that (taht was the case for a lot of Catholics I know).

 

[MoreCoffee]

dot dot dot dot

dot dot dot

Is it time to impeach yet?

:smirk:

 

[Albion]

The very LAST thing I'd do, is make my decision on the basis of that guy's ravings.

 

[Albion]

BUT we still have the probability that even if TEN candidates were running, all with equal change of winning, we may still find that NONE of them "match" our values. In a lot of ways, Trump "fit" my morals BETTER than Clinton but it was far, far, far, FAR from a perfect fit. George Bush Jr. was a fairly good fit but he was pro-death penalty and a number of other moral issues where I don't agree. I generally like the stance of Newt Gingrich but I know about his past marriage situations and he too is pro-death penalty. Point: It's not REAL likely that a person will be running for president, have a solid chance of winning, and is a perfect fit for my morals. It's likely ALWAYS to be a case of "the lesser of the evils" or to put it positively, "the BEST fit."

That is certainly true. I don't put much stock in the claim that we simply cannot vote for someone who doesn't fit every one of perhaps fifteen items on our "perfect candidate" checklist.

Now, I began a thread related to this back during the primaries for the 2016 election, asking why "Evangelicals" were lining up behind Trump when several of the other 17 Republicans running had morals and values FAR closer to their own than Trump. In the primaries of the Republican party, right up to the end, Christians had a choice... the last man standing against Trump was a man of strong Christian convictions and pretty solid Christian values - and with a life pretty consistent with such.

However, he had almost no chance to win in November. I do not know how that issue could fail to be on every voter's checklist.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The very LAST thing I'd do, is make my decision on the basis of that guy's ravings.

He is a comedian not the citizen's advice bureau

 

[Albion]

Alas, he THINKS he is the citizen's advice bureau, just as Jimmy Kimmel thinks he is also.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Alas, he THINKS he is the citizen's advice bureau.

And you know what he thinks by what means?