Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich
Why the first two can't win, and why I hope none do.
As the presidential race heats up almost two years in advance, we find ourselves caught up in poles matching multiple candidates against each other to see who will win. Political analysts have made predictions, and already it seems that we have our candidates, or at least our front runners. Unfortunately, they're wrong.
The major problem with Giuliani and McCain is that they are not conservative (Romney could be included as well, but the Governor of Massachusetts is, ironically, still more conservative than these two and has a chance). Most importantly, the latter is moderately pro-life and the former is outspokenly pro-death (the opposite of pro-life). Giuliani is also pro-gun control, and McCain has a strong record of being "bipartisan," which means, of course, that he votes for liberal policies such as Campaign Finance Reform.
In fact, the only pluses that either candidate has with respect to the Republican Party is that there is a sense that they will be able to do good things with Iraq and will probably support some tax cuts. But pretty much every possible Republican candidate has a similar reputation on Iraq, except for Chuck Hagel, who himself is liberal in other respects. And who doesn't "support tax cuts"? Giuliani is also "tough on crime," which is good for a mayor, but does little for a presidential candidate save but perhaps a perception of being pro-military (which, again, almost all the Republican candidates do, and of which McCain probably has a better reputation).
The issue with these candidates is not the general election, but the Republican primaries. In fact, I think both would do quite well in a general election. As a result, I could see either of them as potential VP candidates for a strong conservative one. Which leads us to the actual conservative.
Gingrich did a good job in Congress, leading the conservative movement with strength and tact. He is respected amongst conservatives, and would certainly do well policy-wise as a President. Conservatives would be happy with his ideas, and he would be able to explain conservative principles clearly from the "bully pulpit." However, I hope he doesn't win the primaries. Despite the fact that I agree with a lot of what he says, he has had 3 wives, including at least one affair.
"But didn't Reagan have 2 wives? You'd vote for him if you could, wouldn't you?"
Yes, on both accounts. But Reagan's wife left him. Biographers have noted it wasn't his desire. Gingrich, on the other hand, by his own shortcomings, has been unfaithful and a willing participant in both divorce and adultery. I certainly believe in forgiveness, and don't think it is right, fair, or reasonable to hold every sin of a public figure against them. The fact that Bush tried drugs (he didn't admit it outright, but it was pretty strongly implied) or was an alcoholic when he was young has no bearing on my vote for him. It was done a long time ago and there was true repentance. His character as a leader, I believe, has been shown in the changes that came about in his life, and more importantly, his faithfulness to his family.
Gingrich has shown a lack of character in regards to his family. Just as the bible speaks of church leaders, if a man cannot lead, govern, and be trusted with the affairs (no pun intended) of his family, he should not lead, govern, and be trusted with the affairs of the country. Again, no one is perfect, and there is room for forgiveness. However, I believe that because of this single issue, Gingrich has gone beyond a point of acceptance.
"But you'd vote for him for Congress?"
Yes. But a Congresshuman ("Congressman" is sexist) is a representative sent to vote on our behalf. They lead, sure, but they are not figureheads. I don't see Jim Ramstad as a figurehead of the western suburbs of Minneapolis. He is my representative in Congress. I care much more about how he votes than I do about his personal life.
The President is different. He is a figurehead for the US, both here and around the world. He should be held to a higher standard in personal character. When Clinton committed adultery, it hurt this nation. Junior high kids were interviewed on Oprah about how they just had oral sex because it "wasn't sex." We want presidents who have good policies. But character is just as, if not more, important, since the role of President involves a great deal of leadership and moral courage. I believe most Americans, especially those who vote in the Republican primaries, have strong feelings about this.
For the same reason (beyond the others already mentioned), both Giuliani and McCain are bad candidates for the office. Both have had affairs and multiple wives, although McCain is probably a more easily forgivable candidate, being as a lot of it resulted from his 5+ years as a POW.
So all in all, no thanks. Of the three, Gingrich has the best chance of winning the primaries. But despite my support of a lot of his policies, I don't want him to be my President. I could see any of them as VP's, and don't think issues of extra-marital activities would hurt the presidential candidate (VP's are sort of glorified Senators... I don't think they need to be held to the same standard). It's so far out, though, that we have no idea who will win. Hopefully, some true conservative will take the lead. Right now, all is speculation.
However, I can say confidently that McCain and Giuliani will not be nominated by the Republican Party, and I hope Gingrich isn't. In the end, I'll probably end up voting for the Republican, because I'm somewhat of a pragmatist, and as my friend Jed says, "politics is about direction, not perfection." Here's hoping he's a true conservative who's got some balls when it comes to moral courage.
For more on Gingrich, here is the recent interview he had with James Dobson where he spoke of his shortcomings:
Gingrich Interview
posted by Chris Hill @ 3/13/2007 03:26:00 PM
64 comments
64 Comments:
Giuliani on Fox I
Giuliani on Fox II
I'd vote for him.
I really think voting for him is a mistake. Do you trust that he'll all of a sudden act like a conservative when he has consistently been liberal? Hannity has been supporting him recently, but that's because he's an anti-tax, pro-military Republican (the kind that is also big government). Regardless, he's not going to get the nomination.
On Abortion
On A Bunch of Issues - WATCH THIS!
In the second link, there's a split second of a quote from Hillary Clinton. If you pause it at the right time, you can read it. It says:
"So I'm always amused when I read these accounts of [Giuliani's] mailings trying to get people all agitated about the possibility of my running. There ought to be a big-print disclosure on the bottom that he agrees with many of the positions that I've advocated."
To clarify: Giuliani is an anti-tax, pro-military Republican. Hannity is socially conservative too, but seems most concerned with the issues that he agrees with Giuliani on.
Good analysis.
I have never been much of a fan of Hannity. Not sure why, but he seems like a lightweight.
Giuliani's view on guns is enough to vote against him. His view on abortion is enough to vote against him. His view on homosexuality is enough to vote against him. He was a great mayor for NYC and showed excellent leadership in ways that mattered following 9/11/01. That fact is not sufficient to make someone worthy of the presidency.
If someone doesn't understand the bill of rights he should not be president.
Chris,
Yes, I would trust him. Those links are put together in a very subjective manner, unlike the interview I posted. They're quite old for the most part and ignore context and audience. To be fair, candidates deserve to defend their own positions directly. Pointing at some clips pasted together with hidden undertones is really quite unfair. I like how Giuliani spoke in that interview on Fox. I think he would be 10x the president that W is and I really don't see anyone else I'd rather vote for, however, I'm always willing to change my mind.
Jordan,
The fact that he had an affair while he was married is reason to vote against him, too. So what's your point? Must we only vote for a perfect candidate? I guess I can't vote for anyone then. I think everyone should choose the issues that matter most to them and vote in favor of those. That's democracy 101; vote in light of what's important to YOU.
Honestly, I'm more apathetic than anything else when it comes to politics. I don't want the government forcing convictions on me any more than I want them to dictate my business practices. The way things stand, political parties are nothing more than giant machines. The wheels are turning and there is hardly a thing you can do to change them. I also find it very sad that so many people think they are taking a stand for God by subscribing to the ideals of a political party. I'd even be as bold to say that if you were truly living by the Word of God alone, you wouldn't even vote. Regardless, if I do end up voting, it will almost certainly be on the Republican ticket.
Dominic,
The clips I linked too are perfectly fair, especially the ones wrt the NY Senatorial Race. That wasn't too long ago, and Giuliani hasn't admitted having some drastic change of heart. He has only changed his rhetoric to appeal to the conservative base. John Kerry did this too. I don't trust those politicians. He might do some conservative things, but he doesn't believe in a lot of them. And when the poop hits the spinning turbine, he's going to make decisions that are anti-conservative. Bush is way more conservative than Giuliani, and Bush isn't even really conservative (I almost didn't vote for him).
You missed my point regarding adultery. I believe, on that issue alone, none of these candidates are fit for President. I made it quite clear (both here and elsewhere) that certain compromises must be made when voting. I've never voted for someone I agree with 100%. However, there are lines to be drawn. And, in addition to the adultery issue, I believe the lines that Jordan drew are also legitimate reasons to not vote for a candidate.
I agree that candidates must be looked at as a whole. So, for instance, if someone wanted to raise taxes slightly, but also supported getting rid of the Dept. of Education, supporting gun rights, abolishing abortion, and opposed gay marriage, they may be worth voting for. However, when we look at both Giuliani and McCain as a whole, they look even worse than if we take one issue at a time.
This:
"I'd even be as bold to say that if you were truly living by the Word of God alone, you wouldn't even vote."
I disagree with wholeheartedly. Not only that, but you said in one sentence that one thing is a sin and then in the next sentence, said you might do it. And it's not like you're talking about some addictive vice like drugs or sex.
Sorry, I have to respond to this too:
"[the links] ignore context and audience"
Well, then, that shows he is a chameleon, at least in regards to the latter point. Clinton (Mrs.) does this too. She changes who she is for different audiences. I don't think Giuliani does this as much, but I don't buy the idea that he is going to be more conservative than he really is.
Also, the context of both clips was clear enough for his positions. I don't think it usually fair to take 5 seconds of a speech from a public figure (since they say so much, it's easy to misconstrue), but when someone is very consistent in their views (as Giuliani has been - he is only now sounding different... although it's more of the approach he's taking - I at least give him credit for not all of a sudden saying he's pro-life, but he is trying to sound like he is), the sound bites merely reinforce something that is true. If nothing else, the clip with him and Tim Russert is compelling enough, especially coupled with that quote from Clinton (Mrs.).
Whoops... "clips I linked to"... wow... especially after a post about improper language...
And again, another point...
I didn't ask if you trust him, I asked:
"Do you trust that he'll all of a sudden act like a conservative when he has consistently been liberal?"
In regards to what you said, Chris, about being a 'chameleon politician,' I thought it was worth posting a link to this video. You've probably already seen it, but it's always funny to watch. Obama did the same thing, but at least he's half-black...
Whoops, video link didn't work...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UjzkyOf-fWM
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edited for typo:
Dominic,
You misinterpreted...I vote for people who I disagree with on a bunch of issues. That is obvious. That is the nature of politics. That said, there are issues that I will not compromise on. I imagine you are the same way. You said: "That's democracy 101; vote in light of what's important to YOU." Yes, exactly. That's my point. I will vote on what's important to me. I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Giuliani is one. I will not vote for someone who has made it very clear that he doesn't believe in the right to bear arms (the purpose of which is to overthrow tyrants--one who would stifle that right is highly suspect of being a tyrant). Giuliani has. I can go on but there is no reason to.
Regarding voting... it is clear that we are to be the salt and light of the world. I'm not sure why you think that applies to everything except the political process. Regardless, I know we have vastly different opinions on biblical interpretation (as revealed in our opinions of the Passion of the Christ). If this does turn into a discussion about whether or not it's biblical to vote I will not be participating, merely because I know the disagreement lies deeper than that particular issue.
Finally...saying the Giuliani quotes aren't valid because we're not taking into account who his audience is...well that seems rather crazy. Words are words. I don't care who it was who he told that we need federal dollars to fund abortions, I merely care that he said it (and that his policy, i.e. his actions, have supported those words).
Stephen,
Yes, I have seen that. It's pretty funny. Apparently, she was quoting someone, but still...
Wait, Obama's black? That's definitely a plus. I'd vote for him on that alone.
Chris,
Your clips are designed to convince you to think a certain way. It's painfully obvious and I don't like them. The clips I posted are much more objective and current. But you can think however you'd like, I don't really care. Based on the clips I posted and some things I've read on sites like ontheissues.org, I like his views. That's all the farther I care to look into it; I think he would make a good president.
The adultery issue is quite important in my opinion, also. I didn't know that until you pointed it out. However, that doesn't change the fact that I like his views as expressed on the clips I posted. As far as I know, that is the platform, or whatever, he's running on.
Here's what I mean by not voting. As a Christian, we are called to be separated unto God. If we are honestly seeking to be 100 percent sold out for Christ and His word, we should not be partakers of worldly activities and being engaged in politics is as wholly worldly of an activity as there is. Not voting would actually be an expression that we are indeed separated from the world and it's ways. The Bible in no way indicates that we as Christians should be engaged in political affairs. Voting is not a sinful act. That conviction lies between you and God.
Jordan,
Ok, sounds good.
Someday we'll know what kind of impact movies like the Passion and the Jesus Film truly had concerning the things of heaven and if those "tools" were really God's design.
And now that I think about it some more, being true salt would actually include not partaking in the political process. If the salt has lost its savor it is useless, that is, if it is allowed to sit out, exposed to the air, it becomes worthless. Likewise, a true disciple should be set apart from activities that would expose him to the "air" thereby assimilating him with the rest of the world. Salt, in the biblical context, is used as a preservative, not as a spice as many people have been led to believe. To be set apart or sanctified is what is meant by being the salt of the earth. Active involvement in politics compromises this.
I was going to say that I really liked the blog entry on Christian bookstores but it seems like that has come and past, oh well.
Jordan/Chris,
Enlighten me on this. "The purpose of which is to overthrow tyrants--one who would stifle that right is highly suspect of being a tyrant."
I've always thought the right to bear arms was more a statement of individual liberty. You could use a gun to kill just like you could use a car or kung fu to kill, however, the government has no right to impose regulations on responsible citizens. Because of that, large scale gun control is basically like the government telling its citizens they are unable to make responsible decisions so we will make them for you.
Dominic,
Please show me where any of the points made about Giuliani in those clips are wrong. He, himself, has not denied any of these positions. What he said on Hannity & Colmes (an admittedly conservative audience), must be taken in light of what he has said elsewhere. And again, he has not denied his position on abortion, gay marriage, guns, etc.
Chen,
Thanks for the compliment. The discussion, unfortunately, had to be cut off.
Dominic,
Regarding guns, yes you are correct about reasons for gun ownership. That's a good point. The point Jordan made about protecting against tyranny is true as well. Look at any tyrant, and one of the first things they did when they started becoming tyrannical was disarming the populous.
In addition, I really disagree with you on this:
"And now that I think about it some more, being true salt would actually include not partaking in the political process."
That's fine you believe that. I really don't know how to respond, except to say I think if we are truly called to be a light to the world, we must act in a way that is effective on the world. Voting is one such way. Do you really think America would be the largest missionary sending nation if it wasn't free (and it will only remain that way because of voting, which is a reflection of the views of Americans)? Sure, China has a growing number of Christians (because American missionaries go there), but it doesn't send out as many missionaries because they are not free. We, as Christians, have a duty to the spread of the gospel, as well as to our fellow man (as we are to do good to even our enemies) to vote in a godly manner. In addition, Christ calls us to be submitted to his will in all areas - a holistic gospel. This means voting too.
Also, I think you're being inconsistent when you speak of voting as not being "100 percent sold out for Christ and His word... being true salt would actually include not partaking in the political process," and at another point saying, "if you were truly living by the Word of God alone, you wouldn't even vote," yet you don't believe it is a sin.
"Someday we'll know what kind of impact movies like ... the Jesus Film truly had concerning the things of heaven and if those 'tools' were really God's design."
Here's the impact
Chris,
That's what I thought. Saying the primary reason we must protect the second amendment is to protect against tyranny seems silly. I think our country has advanced beyond conflicts of that nature.
Willfully choosing to take an active role in the political process is a wholly worldly endeavor. The Spirit of God will not lead a Christian to vote. That doesn't mean voting is always sinful, but it is certainly not a Christian's duty to be engaged in politics. Being part of a worker's union isn't necessarily sinful either, however, one could argue that this is being equally yoked with unbelievers. If your whole desire is to be separated to God you would not be involved with these kinds of associations. Politics are of this world, it is really quite simple. If you were trying to follow Christ and be separated from the things of this world and drawn nearer to God you would not vote. As it stands, our country is entirely free to pursue Godly activities. If this were not the case, I would probably agree with you. Many people are mislead in believing that they are somehow serving God by being active in politics, including voting. However, this idea is totally absent from the pages of Scripture. Voting, as it stands in our country, does not advance God's kingdom nor does is spread the Gospel. Inspired men and women led by the Holy Spirit spread the Gospel. I also think this is an arrogant statement "China has a growing number of Christians because American missionaries go there". China has a growing number of Christians because God is working there. These American missionaries are nothing but channels doing the work.
That's the impact, because God obviously measures success by statistics. More people signed up for a conference = more success by God's standards! Keep the mega-churches coming!
Correction: "That doesn't mean voting is NECESSARILY sinful."
"I think our country has advanced beyond conflicts of that nature."
Humankind has not 'evolved' to the point where tyranny cannot exist. That would be foolish to think otherwise. "There's nothing new under the sun."
"The Spirit of God will not lead a Christian to vote."
That doesn't make any sense, and I fully disagree. Who are you to judge the Spirit of God and what he wills?
"Being part of a worker's union isn't necessarily sinful either, however, one could argue that this is being equally yoked with unbelievers."
If it is "being equally yoked with unbelievers," then it is sin. Where is your moral conviction? If Christ says it is wrong, it is sinful. Everything not done in faith is sin (Rom. 15:1, I believe).
"If you were trying to follow Christ and be separated from the things of this world and drawn nearer to God you would not vote."
Then it's a sin.
"Many people are mislead in believing that they are somehow serving God by being active in politics, including voting. However, this idea is totally absent from the pages of Scripture."
So is Christian music... and nuclear physics... just because something isn't in the bible doesn't make it ungodly, wrong, or not from God.
"I also think this is an arrogant statement 'China has a growing number of Christians because American missionaries go there'. China has a growing number of Christians because God is working there."
It cannot be arrogant because it was, one, not done in a manner to make myself or America look better, and two, is true. Yes, certainly God is the one working there. I would hope that would have been clear, being as we are both firm believers. Please give me the benefit of the doubt. You don't do that enough.
"That's the impact, because God obviously measures success by statistics. More people signed up for a conference = more success by God's standards!"
Ok, well you got me there. The Jesus Film has resulted in BILLIONS of people being exposed to the gospel, and hundreds of millions publicly professing Christ. Numbers aren't everything by any standard, but still... I think at least a little fruit is there.
During the last election I was somewhat torn when it came to voting and ultimately decided that it really didn't matter, so I stayed home. However, my roommates came to me and said I needed to confirm that they lived here so they could vote, so I ended up taking them to the polls and voted a straight ticket. I figured that while I was there I would at least negate the vote of one liberal.
I believe it is a good testimony to abstain from the political process for the reasons I have listed. We are totally free in this country to live as Christians in exactly the way the Bible teaches; there's no need to get involved in politics. God calls us to be set apart to Him first and foremost and He has made abundant provision for that. If you choose to vote, fine, I'm not going to tell you it's wrong, but the Bible definitely does not teach we need to vote. I think you meant to cite Romans 14. Voting or not voting is a conviction, it really doesn't matter what you do, it is the spirit that you do it in. For some, voting may be sinful, for others, it is fine.
Maybe statistics should matter...
Yeah, it was Romans 14:23. I was one verse off. I just remember where on the page in my bible the verse is, thus the error of one verse but in a different chapter.
"If you choose to vote, fine, I'm not going to tell you it's wrong"
But you HAVE told me it's wrong, and haven't responded to any of my challenges regarding your inconsistency in this regard (or another other challenges, I might add).
"but the Bible definitely does not teach we need to vote."
It also doesn't teach that we should brush our teeth. My point is that while the bible is all good, not all good is in the bible. If so, there would be little need for the Holy Spirit. And, while I don't have the time to go through the analysis here, the bible does lead me to a conviction that I must vote, and I take that act seriously as a service to God. You see it as a worldly act. I see it as a manner in which I can positively affect this world in submission to God.
Lastly, that video is just a bunch of random facts. I'm confused. It doesn't have anything to do with the topic here, or at least I didn't understand how it does.
Out of all the candidates, I believe the most dangerous is Hilary Clinton, not because she's a Clinton necessarily, although that should give one great pause, but because she's a "woman." Female nature is prone to consensus building. Sometimes, quality leadership demands having to make unpopular decisions. Do we really think Hilary Clinton is capable of that? I don't.
Jed
I don't care about your "challenges," all I'm telling you is that voting today, in our country, is not something that is necessary for a Christian to engage in. If you believe you are being a disciple for Christ in every way you possibly can, you would almost certain have convictions about voting. I'm not making a claim that I'm trying to be perfect, I've told you I voted before. I'm only saying that total adherence to the Word would preclude taking part in political elections here and now. It is NOT God's desire for His people to be involved in political affairs. I firmly believe that if you were "perfected in the Word" you would not vote.
Your analogies seem to be misleading you again.
"I can positively affect this world in submission to God."
This is the fundamental reason why you and I disagree with so many things. I had a feeling you felt this way, I'm glad it has finally surfaced. To be continued...
The video was a joke, FYI.
Actually, before I write a book, I’ll ask you a question: In which scenario is God most glorified? In case one, 100 people are ordered to attend church services and the next Sunday they all attend. In the second case, 100 people are asked to attend church services but only 1 person attends.
"I don't care about your 'challenges,'"
Ok, but you've been inconsistent with what you've been saying. I think there are some legitimate issues you have yet to address (including, back to Giuliani, where I am wrong in saying he is anti-gun, pro-choice, etc.).
"all I'm telling you is that voting today, in our country, is not something that is necessary for a Christian to engage in."
But that's not what you've been saying. You've been saying it's against God's Word (you just said this again in your last post). That means it's a sin.
"Your analogies seem to be misleading you again."
I haven't used any.
"'I can positively affect this world in submission to God.'
This is the fundamental reason why you and I disagree with so many things. I had a feeling you felt this way, I'm glad it has finally surfaced."
It was never hidden. I've always been clear that I believe that we, as Christians, can cause changes in this world. We do this out of submission to God. God calls us to spread the gospel. In submission to him, we do, and it positively affects others. I don't see how this is somehow controversial. Perhaps you misunderstand what I was saying.
"In which scenario is God most glorified?"
Come on, Dominic, what do you think I'm going to say? I'd rather have people forced to go to church? That that would glorify God more? Of course not! That's so absurd, that it really makes me believe you don't pay attention to what I'm saying, and you don't give me the benefit of the doubt. I don't understand how this relates to anything.
Jed,
Good points.
Chris,
Do you realize that you are the one who made the inference that voting is a sin? That speaks for itself. If you honestly think you're following the Word in everything that you do, read I Cor 11. Since you're married, you are just as accountable as Katie is for obeying its teaching. I'm not going to say it is a sin to not wear a head-covering during biblical church functions, however, if you are living by the Word of God alone, 100 percent for Christ, you would also follow the teaching of this chapter without making excuse.
"The bible does lead me to a conviction that I must vote, and I take that act seriously as a service to God.”
The Bible doesn't tell us to vote, and it is a tragic mistake to think that political involvement is a service to God, but I know you'll argue those points until you're blue in the face so we must agree to disagree. This, however, is really what I was hoping to talk about from the start of this post.
"I can positively affect this world in submission to God."
This is precisely why I don't like the religious conservative agenda. Most staunch conservatives seem to think that they have a responsibility to enforce certain convictions on the rest of the country and think that they are doing God a service in the process. For a Christian, this is a hypocritical view and is actually in opposition to what God desires. No Christian has any authority to judge unbelievers or “outsiders” when it comes to personal decisions. This country was founded on an idea of liberty and freedom that allows every person to make their own choices, whether it is a religious practice or a consumer choice. To say laws must be in place to guide correct moral behavior is assume a role God says is His and is actually eliminating one of the very things God enjoys about His creation; a soul’s willful choice to obey Him. This is the point I was making by the previous analogy about attending church. Commanding someone to obey is giving absolutely no glory to God. He is only glorified when people willfully chose to obey Him. Trying to bring the world into submission to God is not man’s work in any way, shape, or form. That is exactly what the sphere of Christendom and religious conservatism is all about and I want absolutely no part of it. Of course, some laws are necessary if certain actions infringe upon the rights of others, however, many fundamental conservative stances go far beyond this. One of these is the “war on drugs.” Specifically, I’m thinking about marijuana but the idea can be applied to other things. Most people would agree, and even more Christians would, that smoking pot is bad. Because of this, they choose not to use pot. That is great, and I believe that is exactly what God wants us to do. However, is it really fair to criminalize people for choosing otherwise? Most people smoke for recreational purposes but I also know that many use it for medical and psychological reasons. I also knew quite a few saved individuals who smoke occasionally. Are we really doing God a service by sending people to jail that smoke? You are only fooling yourself if you think more laws will bring a sinner into repentance if that's what you think you're doing, the opposite is more often true. Let these people be convinced in their own mind by the Spirit of God that is continually at work in the souls of all men. This is a good example of how the atrocity that is Christendom operates. We could apply the same principles to things like abortion and civil rights but I think you get the picture. It is not man’s place to bring someone into repentance; that is 100 percent God’s work.
"Do you realize that you are the one who made the inference that voting is a sin?"
It seems like a fair inference to make from what you said:
"If we are honestly seeking to be 100 percent sold out for Christ and His word, we should not be partakers of worldly activities and being engaged in politics is as wholly worldly of an activity as there is."
"...being true salt would actually include not partaking in the political process..."
"...if you were truly living by the Word of God alone, you wouldn't even vote..."
I pointed this out, yet you still seem inconsistent. Is voting against the Word of God (a sin), or is it not against the Word of God?
If voting is not an area of our life subject to God, then we are not completely submitted to him. Thus, we must vote "as God would desire."
Also, your insistence that man cannot positively affect this world is the type of fatalism that existed in much of the Middle Ages. One of the major ideas that brought forth the Renaissance was the idea that man can do good and change history. We are created in God's image. To say we cannot do good is to say that God is not good. Yes, God uses man. But it is through man that he does good works. It's our choice to be used by him or not.
I've been torn on the drug issue ever since I started being interested in politics in high school. If in Congress, I would probably vote for the legalization of drugs.
If want to vote, go ahead and excercise your liberty as a Christian and vote. The Bible in no way indicates that you should vote and I believe you would not vote if you are being led by the Word 100 percent. I think I've made my position pretty clear.
I haven't said you can't do good things in this world, relatively speaking. I've said that the good you think you are doing in the context of religious conservatism is, in reality, NOT good.
Dominic, you asked:
Enlighten me on this. "The purpose of which is to overthrow tyrants--one who would stifle that right is highly suspect of being a tyrant."
Please read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or other founding fathers. The reason there is a second amendment is so that the citizens can overthrow the government if it becomes oppressive. That sounds extremist, but that's because the founding fathers were extremists.
Then you said:
That's what I thought. Saying the primary reason we must protect the second amendment is to protect against tyranny seems silly. I think our country has advanced beyond conflicts of that nature.
I'll let Thomas Jefferson answer you:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If you think we no longer need to protect ourselves from tyranny then you have a lot to learn.
To clarify, when I wrote "a lot to learn" I was thinking of the history of the 20th century, humanity's most violent, but forgot to make that clear. At the deepest level it is very clear that we have not "advanced" at all.
"If want to vote, go ahead and excercise your liberty as a Christian and vote. The Bible in no way indicates that you should vote and I believe you would not vote if you are being led by the Word 100 percent. I think I've made my position pretty clear."
Please explain how not "being led by the Word 100 percent" is not a sin.
Jordan,
I realize you understand your US history books much better than I do. Practically speaking, though, it seems rather absurd to think that an armed militia run by citizens will ever need to overthrow a tyrant in our country. It seems much more sensible to say the second amendment needs to be protected today because it is a statement of our individual liberty and the government has no right to infringe upon it.
Chris,
The wording of your question is awkward, but looking past the bad grammar, I still don't understand why you insist upon seeing voting as a black and white issue. I would imagine you don't practice what I Cor 11:1-10 teaches. Is that sin, too?
I'd still like you to comment on my response to this comment "I can positively affect this world in submission to God." Debating about voting and politics is relatively menial compared to the implications that could be drawn from that statement.
Dominic,
1. I did comment on that. Please read what I write.
2. There were no grammatical errors in my previous post. Bring it to an English professor if you would like. You did have a misspelling that I copied verbatim without a "[sic]" disclaimer, but I didn't think that would be a big deal as it was in italics.
3. You still haven't answered my question. I didn't say it was black and white. I pointed out that you think you can do things that that are contrary to being led by Scripture, yet they are not sin. I believe that is inconsistent, unless you do not find the bible to be morally instructional (which I'm quite sure is not the case). Please respond to that point and stop evading it.
Perhaps this is what you want me to respond to (although, ironically, I responded in the post previous to the one in which you made this point - PLEASE READ WHAT I WRITE):
"Trying to bring the world into submission to God..."
Why do you still think that's what I said?
I think that is what you are doing, even if it is not exactly what you said. Your actions and words are consistent with the idea that you believe you are doing God service by enforcing what you think God's will is on the world, namely through political involvement. Can you at least try to objectively respond to what I'm saying and look past the fact that I haven't responded exactly to every little picky word you have and have not said? You get so overly focused on these word games that you miss the big picture of the thought I’m trying to communicate. My bad if I have misinterpreted exactly what you've said. Maybe you can try to rise above my poor communication skills and humor me instead of being reduced to these petty excuses that result in worthless dialogue?
“Is voting against the Word of God (a sin), or is it not against the Word of God?” Yes, you did make it black and white but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about voting, I really have no more to say. If I keep telling you how things are you aren’t going to learn anything anyway. Here are some verses to get you started. I Cor 6:12 “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” Rom 14:14 “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” And here’s why I will not tell you that you are sinning, Rom 14:22 “…Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth.” These verses are also sufficient to answer your question in paragraph 3.
“Please explain how not "being led by the Word 100 percent" is not a sin.” I honestly don’t understand what you mean; it looks like a double negative to me. I guess my English skills are inferior.
I’ve asked you to comment on my paragraph about religious conservatism and you know that’s what I meant. I know it might be hard for you, but TRY to quit making excuses for responding to what I’m actually saying. You understand exactly what I meant, but you intentionally avoided the question and instead made an excuse.
"I think that is what you are doing, even if it is not exactly what you said."
Then why did you say that I did say it? You ignore what I do say, then come back with something that is completely different and expect me to defend against it.
"Can you at least try to objectively respond to what I'm saying..."
I've been trying to do that.
"You get so overly focused on these word games that you miss the big picture of the thought I’m trying to communicate."
Which is...? I've been trying to clarify, and you ignore my questions. Words mean things.
"Maybe you can try to rise above my poor communication skills and humor me instead of being reduced to these petty excuses that result in worthless dialogue?"
Where have my excuses been petty? I have answered what you said. It is a waste of time for me to rewrite it. If you are unclear about my explanation, please ask. But your response shows that you didn't even read my explanation.
"...but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about voting, I really have no more to say. If I keep telling you how things are you aren’t going to learn anything anyway."
That was kind of an arrogant statement. Dominic, I have drawn my own conclusions about voting. I don't see how that was unclear. Your point seems inconsistent. You are saying that not following the bible 100% can be something other than a sin. I want to know how you justify that.
"I’ve asked you to comment on my paragraph about religious conservatism and you know that’s what I meant."
No, I didn't know that. I've commented on what you wrote anyway. Regardless, it is not the discussion we are having, and is a tangent.
"You understand exactly what I meant..."
No I don't.
I'm going to go back to the original post and comment briefly on the hoopla over whether we should engage in the world or not.
Dominic, look at the 1st century gnostics and why they were condemned by the apostles and other christians like justin martyr (Yes that's his name) because that's where your beliefs are leading you. And if you don't know your history, brush up on it and read some history books, not wikipedia. The beliefs and values of America's founding fathers are not something to be ignored or lightly brushed over when comparing it to contemporary times. Their reasons for establishing this country should be taken into high regard.
Secondly, if you want to see the effects of bringing God's vision into the world, look at the life of William Wilberforce who abolished slavery in England before it was abolished in America. Because he followed God and cared for those who were made in his image he was able to save thousands of lives. Sounds like a christian to me. Finally, if you really doubt the veracity of a christian worldview in the secular arena, I encourage you to visit breakpoint.org daily and read Chuck Colson's commentary.
Back to the matter at hand, I think that the republicans are as leadership lacking as the democrats were position lacking in the 2004 election. At that time, the democratic mantra was 'we're not bush.' Now the republican leadership is, 'we're not a democrat.' Quite sad that they can't find a competent, moral leader. Just as the democrats took over the house in 2006, they look like they're going to take over the white house in 2008. And if Gore puts his hat in the ring, they might take the senate outright as well.
both clinton and obama are monogamous. oh, but i forgot, barack's a smoker and hillary's husband has an affair, which must mean that she's frigid or something, and the Bible says that you can't deny your husband sex, so that must have been her fault. i guess all liberals are morally corrupt, too.
whatever. in general, i think this: please don't argue against someone because he votes for something labled "liberal" (i.e. campaign finance reform) without qualifying why you disagree with that vote. stick to issues, or you undermine your own credibility as a thoughtful person. partisanship has never helped anybody.
Erik,
You're exactly right about slavery, it was offensive to God, all people are created in God's image and they were more often than not treated otherwise. What agendas in our contry today do you think God is calling us to change? I assumed Chris's reasoning for voting was to "bring the world into submission to God" which is not actually what he said. So, I'm trying to understand why God would want someone he has set apart for Himself to be brought under the yoke of something like politics. The political systems of this world allowed Jesus to be crucified. There's a general truth to be taken from that fact that should be applied to our thinking.
William Wilberforce sounds like a good man. Tell me which political movements of today you think are accomplishing the same kind of things for God.
Chris,
Your entire last post was all drivel, nothing of substance was included.
"then come back with something that is completely different and expect me to defend against it."
I asked you to COMMENT. You think you need to DEFEND yourself. Why? If you don't really think like that, why the defensive, evasive reaction? Some people vote for those reasons, I was under the impression you vote for the same reasons but maybe I'm wrong. We'll never know unless you actually address the comment.
Who here has said we can't vote for Obama because he's a smoker or Clinton because she's the wife of an adulterer? Rather, we ought not to vote for Obama and Clinton (or Giuliani) because they think it's ok to kill babies, are panderers, and trample on the bill of rights at every opportunity. As for McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, it's a rather blatant attack on the first amendment if you read the bill.
whatever. in general, i think this: please don't argue against someone because he votes for something labled "liberal" (i.e. campaign finance reform) without qualifying why you disagree with that vote. stick to issues, or you undermine your own credibility as a thoughtful person. partisanship has never helped anybody.
I don't think any of us has ever been unclear as to why we believe what we do. While in this thread of discussion it has sufficed to label things "liberal" as shorthand (because the word does mean something in the vernacular, after all) it is not an attempt to avoid having to justify our respective opinions on specific issues; it is simply to allow us to write "Giuliani is a liberal" and move on rather than "Giuliani supports abortion, gun control, and big government" followed by detailed descriptions of what all of those labels mean and why we believe the way we do.
"You are saying that not following the bible 100% can be something other than a sin."
If you want me to answer that, I asked you to answer a question. Do you think it is sinful if your wife doesn't wear a head-covering during church?
Renee,
Forgive me, but I really don't get your point. I don't support McCain or Giuliani because they have historically supported liberal policies that I disagree with. I could go down the list to define "liberal," but that's not for this discussion. You can just say that both candidates support principles that neither I, nor the Republican base, support (i.e., this was not a discussion on why CFR is a bad thing, only that it is against conservative ideas).
Regarding Obama and Clinton... sorry, I really lost you there. Clinton committed adultery. If he was running again, I would say that that would be a legitimate reason to not vote for him. It was not a legitimate reason for impeachment, but that was an issue of perjury, for which he deserved impeachment. Obama smokes... That's actually a plus in my book (I can explain why at a different time). Smoking and adultery have no similarity whatsoever.
Dominic, I asked you first. Now answer my question.
Here's your response:
"Do you think it is sinful if your wife doesn't wear a head-covering during church?"
That's an issue I am not completely sure about, to be honest. No, I don't currently feel convicted that it is a sin. The passage only speaks of a head-covering, which can include long hair. It's ambiguous to the point that I subject my heart to the conviction of God and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit that, if I am wrong, he will make it clear to me.
Long hair is definitely not what it meant by a head covering. Read verse 6, long hair and a head covering are clearly two different things; it’s not ambiguous. You just answered your own question by that response.
How is it that the Holy Spirit is telling you that you must vote?
And this doesn't really matter, but I lied about these two things. I should not have compromised what I believe for the sake of unity.
"The adultery issue is quite important in my opinion, also."
"I figured that while I was there I would at least negate the vote of one liberal."
Also, this statement "The political systems of this world allowed Jesus to be crucified." is horribly understated. The political systems of this world, democracy included, sanctioned the death of the Jesus. It was a very clear expression of how the systems of this world are absolutly opposed to God.
And speaking of lying...
"Bush isn't even really conservative (I almost didn't vote for him)."
I really, really, really doubt that.
Dominic,
Yet again, I cannot have a reasonable conversation with you. This one is, regrettably, over.
Any discussion by anyone else is still welcome.
Chris, if I were to describe you in 3 words they would be:
1) Republican
2) Stubborn
3) Cry-baby or Baboon (it's a toss-up)
(For the record, in 2000, I spent an abnormally long time in the voting booth debating between Buchanan and Bush [or possibly a write in... or maybe Libertarian (Brown, I believe) or Constitution (can't remember his name right now)...]. I had fought against Bush in the nomination process, opting for Keyes [or Forbes, if he had gone further and Keyes dropped out]. I ran as a national delegate in support of Keyes and almost won. He ended up getting some votes in the national convention, but in reality he had actually dropped out a few days before. Unfortunately, Bush was the nominee, and I didn't really have a choice for a more conservative candidate, since a realist knows they only truly have two choices in the end. I ended up voting for Bush because I couldn't bear to see Gore be in the White House.)
Dominic,
*Sigh*... I don't know what to say. You don't respect others or their ideas, and resort to petty attacks and name calling. I'm really sorry. I just can't have a discussion with you.
I was only pointing out that it is interesting that the top three republican candidates (at least according to polls) have rather sordid romantic histories and the democratic frontrunners are monogamous. I was speaking of Hillary Clinton, who has no personal scandals that I'm aware of, not the former president.
All I intended to say with my comment is that you often seem to word things in a way that sounds more partisan than anything else. I recognize that you have fully thought through many of your political beliefs and hold them firmly. This in itself, of course, is not a problem. Partisanship, however, is by nature divisive. It is important to recognize that Christians can hold a number of political beliefs. A liberal bent does not point to a lack of faith or obedience to the Bible.
You often sound as if your political philosophy is an absolute truth and the way you argue can alienate people who are, or could become, followers of Christ, which is infinitely more important and absolutely more true.
All I ask is that you be careful. Not wimpy. Not apologetic. Just careful.
Renee,
I don't think Romney has had issues of adultery or divorce, but I could be wrong. I believe he would currently be considered one of the "top 3." Regardless, this post was about Republican candidates. It was not intended to address anything regarding Democrats, Libertarians, etc.
You are right about Obama, Clinton, etc., at least with what we know. But the issue I have with them is other issues of character (i.e., Hillary panders like nothing else, and I have a problem with a woman President... another topic for another time), as well as the values and ideas that they hold.
I don't believe the bible is all encompassing regarding politics. A lot of politics involves issues outside biblical prerogatives. However, I do believe it is a vital base to start with - one I start with - and it guides me to my conclusions. Christians can disagree about certain issues, but the bible consistently calls us to seek wisdom. There are right and wrong answers to political questions. And to the extent that Christ is Truth, wise political choices are in line with God. Thus, I desire to find those ideas that are truly wise, and believe this to be a work of aligning myself with God's will. I don't believe politics is the source of salvation - I don't believe it is an end all pursuit. It does, however, involve ones worldview - how they see God and the nature of man in this world. And that is important. It also affects others in this world - something Christianity tries to do as well. Thus, my desire is not to say, "this is the Christian political view on x," but rather, "this is the right political view, because of x."
I do not wish to alienate anyone from the gospel due to politics. As such, in discussion with unbelievers, I do my best to not combine the two unnecessarily (something that does bother me when others do). I don't believe anyone has been alienated from the gospel by this post. I may also point out that, while we are called to seek unity where we can, the gospel itself is a very divisive message. I would rather have division than untruth.
Forgive me for assuming your motives, but I have experienced this many times before. Your admonition to "be careful" is along the lines of many who call for "less intolerant" and "less partisan" speech, which is often a way to say, "I don't agree with you, so I wish to silence what you are saying."
Chris,
I do respect Jordan and Erik's ideas and I do respect the fact that you are willing to put some of your own beliefs on the line. I don't respect the fact some of you use labels like "fatalistic" and "gnostic" simply to make your arguments easier. I know my ideas don’t stem from those philosophies and I hope you all are insightful enough to realize this. I also don't respect your constant assertion that your way of thinking is ALWAYS the right one. Your arguments are, more often that not, you defending your own ideas and manipulating words and such to prove that YOU are right. In other words, you're not coming from an objective perspective. I really don’t care if I’m right or wrong. I’ll gladly admit I could be wrong because I know God’s always right. I would much rather be proven wrong and learn from my error than to argue my position until I’m either forced to admit I’m a fool or end the conversation.
Here are some things you’ve said in the past:
“Is it unchristian that I sometimes worship God with secular music?”
“If so, there would be little need for the Holy Spirit.”
“…the bible does lead me to a conviction that I must vote..”
“You don't respect others…”
How do you worship God with secular music? How would that eliminate the need for the Holy Spirit? How is it that God is telling you that you must vote? How is it you feel justified to make that generalization about others?
Dominic,
I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if I'm shown that I am. You keep going all over the place, and assume that because I don't defend myself, that I I am wrong. To be honest, it seems unfruitful for me to make the attempt, so I don't. Calling someone a cry-baby or buffoon is simply childish, and I don't believe it is worth my time to respond to you. I don't mind thoughtful discussion, but I can't have this with you. I'm sorry.
"I subject my heart to the conviction of God and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit that, if I am wrong, he will make it clear to me."
Also respectable. If you believe you are subjecting yourself completely to what the Bible teaches, here's something else you ought to consider, believer's baptism. Acts 2:37-41.
Dominic,
I was baptized in eighth grade. What does that have to do with anything?
chris -
do you have an email address i could use? this thread has gotten ridiculously long, but the dialogue we started is one that i've wanted to have with you for a long time.
renee
Renee,
You can use my UofM address (hill0532@umn.edu), but to be honest, I don't have a lot of time for one-on-one dialog. I don't mean to blow you off - I rarely respond to emails these days with more than a couple sentences. I like the forum here, since it is one where others can share their thoughts as well (I like the format too... UofM email is annoying to use). Also, the discussion may be beneficial to others.
If there's anything you wish to share privately, feel free to email me. I just wanted to let you know I don't have a lot of time to respond to emails.
Post a Comment
<< Home