is it unethical that evangelicals try to influence politics when politics is not allowed to do the same. the government is not allowed to meddle in the affairs of religion but evangelicals like are very own sandy seem to think evangelicals have a god given right to dive right into politics as a religion. i don't see how that is ethical
is it unethical that evangelicals try to influence poltics when politics is not allow
- Thread starter pjdude1219
- Start date
the whole intelligent design fiasco
example...example...with sources
do you live in the us?
I live with you...I will hold your hands' cold...warmth of my heart will make you understand my lack of love. I live here and now...in a country that dared call itself under agenda of liberty
What about unions influencing politics?
What about criminal aliens voting for democrats?
What about terrorists/terror supporters?
What about criminals influencing politics?
What about money influencing politics?
You have MUCH bigger problems than the Christians.
And I NEVER said I "think evangelicals have a god given right to dive right into politics as a religion." Where the hell did you get that?
I'm not even an Evangelical. What about unions influencing politics?
What about criminal aliens voting for democrats?
What about terrorists/terror supporters?
What about criminals influencing politics?
What about money influencing politics?
You have MUCH bigger problems than the Christians.
And I NEVER said I "think evangelicals have a god given right to dive right into politics as a religion." Where the hell did you get that?
one it is not against the constition for the others. and 2 yes you are an evangelical. you are a non denomanatioial evangelical. born agains are by definition evangelicals. i never said you think like but you do act like it
1. unions tend to fight the good fight so i am ok with that.
2. the only reason you view that as a problem is they vote democrat, if they voted for republicans you wouldn't give a shit
3. you mean like the people guilanni does buisness with.
4. less of a problem than it was it is practically a non issue.
5. i do have a problem with it
No. I am NOT an Evangelical. I have no label so don't try to put one on me.
1-Unions suck. They reward losers.
2-I DESPISE criminal aliens. I want them gone!
3-No. I mean groups like CAIR and liberals
5-No broke loser will EVER be POTUS.
No. I am NOT an Evangelical. I have no label so don't try to put one on me.
1-Unions suck. They reward losers.
2-I DESPISE criminal aliens. I want them gone!
3-No. I mean groups like CAIR and liberals
5-No broke loser will EVER be POTUS.
yes you are evangelical that is how your religious beliefs are classified get over it.
1. if it weren't for unions we still have the robber barons.
2.doubt it.
3. showing bigotry and stupidity
5. yes because the current system doesn't give them a chance.
Yeah, like that Martin Luther King guy. He should have stayed the hell away from politics! And the Quakers. What business did they have injecting their religious opposition to slavery into society at large?
the difference was they were not advocating rules based upon their religion like the evangelicals. religion influenced them but was not the primary drive for them to go political.
YES THEY WERE! The whole civil rights movement was based on the idea that we are all God's children and deserving of equal rights. The same thing with opposition to slavery.
um the civil rights movement was based on the phrase all men are created equal
Oh yes, all are are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Creator? Was Jefferson injecting his religious belief into the Declaration of Independence?
He was hardly alone among the founding fathers in looking to religion for moral guidance. George Washington said, "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
And, to refresh your memory, Martin Luther King was President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The SCLC was a major force in organizing the civil rights movement. It was created by him expressly for that purpose.
It is absurd to expect people to not draw upon religion when deciding issues of morality, be they public or private. The left had no complaints about this when religion was on their side. Now that that's no longer the case, suddenly religion must be banished from the public square.
they never tried to put there beliefs above other people that is the key difference
Notes Around
I think your question exemplifies a problem of perspective we often suffer when considering historical issues. Had Jefferson a twentieth or twenty-first century perspective, then yes, he would have been injecting his religious beliefs into the Declaration of Independence. However, attempting to identify such a notion in such a manner as to justify Christian evangelism in politics is simply inappropriate.
Look, man ... all our disagreements aside, what am I or anyone else supposed to think when you put this kind of argument forward?
Would you assert that King was attempting to compel the government to enact specifically Christian legislation? Would you compare the civil rights movement of King's time to attempts by Christian groups in later years to compel state governments to declare creationism a science, or to disenfranchise homosexuals? Are we actually supposed to believe you're honestly comparing Dr. King's work to creationists in Kansas who feel discriminated against because they feel their beliefs should be treated as a science despite being unable to present their beliefs according to the scientific method? Are we supposed to believe you're honestly comparing Dr. King's work to a bunch of bigots in Oregon and Colorado who sought to censor library books, fire state employees, institutionalize discrimination, inform medical students, and challenge the authority of the state to prosecute the killings of homosexuals, all because they said the Bible says so?
Are we really supposed to believe that's what you're saying? Because those are the implications when we compare your statements to history.
My advice is to leave that point aside.
Calm down, Sandy. Most people consider CCRs evangelicals, since that's how most CCRs identify themselves. For you to get indignant and insist that you have no label is dishonest; you have repeatedly given yourself a label—CCR.
If you would like me to put on my green hat and tell you to take your trolling elsewhere, I will be happy to.
I think one of the things we have to recall here is that, while Congress has the right to investigate whatever the hell they want, churches are resisting an attempt by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley to look into potential abuse of their nonprofit status. What is the defense put forward by the churches? The government hasn't a right to interfere with church business. It's an attempt to hide behind an asserted technicality: Congress, according to the churches, hasn't the right to investigate them; that is the dominion of the IRS. And the IRS won't investigate them because they have no cause. The reason they have no cause is that these churches don't feel they have to make any sort of accounting of their finances if they don't want to. And why not? Because that would violate the separation of church and state.
In contrast to this demand for separation, religious entities have attempted to influence public education in Oregon, Colorado, Kansas, and other states. They demand that in order to pledge allegiance to the United States of America, you should have to acknowledge God. And most recently, a bunch of them threw a tantrum because nine members of the House of Representatives voted against a feel-good "Merry Christmas" bill. Oh, my, the Christians feel slighted. They feel they have been discriminated against, treated unequally, because nine members of Congress voted against a bill that was not, in fact, the equal of others they'd voted for. The sitting President of the United States, a Christian, has noted that God told him to invade Iraq, and at least one GOP candidate for the office has said that Christianity should be a prerequisite for holding the office.
A Seattle-area preacher went abroad and, quite literally, made informational demands of foreign governments while representing himself as an envoy of the current president. The White House denied that they had given the preacher that status, and the preacher claims to have proof that he refuses to show anyone.
We are currently fighting over whether or not to enshrine gender discrimination as part of our lasting federal legacy because a large number of politically-conservative Christians demand it be so, yet at the same time the very immorality and disgusting behavior that these folks decry seems to permeate their own camp. If I theorized that such sexual deviance is the result of the religion, could we have a nationwide, public discussion with federal politicians weighing in on whether or not any given religion is healthy for society? After all, the law does not extend to protect the killing of humans as a religious practice. It does not protect blatantly religious use of peyote or marijuana. If a religious practice is shown to have a correlation to rape, ought we not consider that? Oh, right ... such consideration would be persecuting Christians.
The topic question, while perhaps recklessly constructed, does touch on valid considerations. Frankly, I'm surprised at the degree to which the response seems uninformed. I was under the impression that we were supposed to believe y'all were paying attention. If you're not, quit trolling this thread and others with baseless opinions. And if you are and have been paying attention to religion and politics in these United States, it shouldn't be too much to ask that you don't pretend such condescending or, as one case has it, complete ignorance.
Madanthonywayne said:
I think your question exemplifies a problem of perspective we often suffer when considering historical issues. Had Jefferson a twentieth or twenty-first century perspective, then yes, he would have been injecting his religious beliefs into the Declaration of Independence. However, attempting to identify such a notion in such a manner as to justify Christian evangelism in politics is simply inappropriate.
Look, man ... all our disagreements aside, what am I or anyone else supposed to think when you put this kind of argument forward?
Would you assert that King was attempting to compel the government to enact specifically Christian legislation? Would you compare the civil rights movement of King's time to attempts by Christian groups in later years to compel state governments to declare creationism a science, or to disenfranchise homosexuals? Are we actually supposed to believe you're honestly comparing Dr. King's work to creationists in Kansas who feel discriminated against because they feel their beliefs should be treated as a science despite being unable to present their beliefs according to the scientific method? Are we supposed to believe you're honestly comparing Dr. King's work to a bunch of bigots in Oregon and Colorado who sought to censor library books, fire state employees, institutionalize discrimination, inform medical students, and challenge the authority of the state to prosecute the killings of homosexuals, all because they said the Bible says so?
Are we really supposed to believe that's what you're saying? Because those are the implications when we compare your statements to history.
• • •
PJdude1219 said:
My advice is to leave that point aside.
• • •
Sandy said:
No. I am NOT an Evangelical. I have no label so don't try to put one on me.
Calm down, Sandy. Most people consider CCRs evangelicals, since that's how most CCRs identify themselves. For you to get indignant and insist that you have no label is dishonest; you have repeatedly given yourself a label—CCR.
1-Unions suck. They reward losers.
2-I DESPISE criminal aliens. I want them gone!
3-No. I mean groups like CAIR and liberals
5-No broke loser will EVER be POTUS.
If you would like me to put on my green hat and tell you to take your trolling elsewhere, I will be happy to.
(1) That's not a rational argument. It's inflammatory trolling.
(2) Given that they have not been convicted of any crime, it is inappropriate for you to call them "criminal aliens".
(3) PJdude is correct: Rudy Giuliani has taken money from known Al Qaeda supporters. Calling liberals and Muslim civic groups terror supporters without any rational basis is inflammatory trolling. Either build a rational argument to support your assertion, or drop it.
(5) Why complain? Oh, right, because you get to call someone a "loser" and roll your eyes.
(2) Given that they have not been convicted of any crime, it is inappropriate for you to call them "criminal aliens".
(3) PJdude is correct: Rudy Giuliani has taken money from known Al Qaeda supporters. Calling liberals and Muslim civic groups terror supporters without any rational basis is inflammatory trolling. Either build a rational argument to support your assertion, or drop it.
(5) Why complain? Oh, right, because you get to call someone a "loser" and roll your eyes.
• • •
I think one of the things we have to recall here is that, while Congress has the right to investigate whatever the hell they want, churches are resisting an attempt by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley to look into potential abuse of their nonprofit status. What is the defense put forward by the churches? The government hasn't a right to interfere with church business. It's an attempt to hide behind an asserted technicality: Congress, according to the churches, hasn't the right to investigate them; that is the dominion of the IRS. And the IRS won't investigate them because they have no cause. The reason they have no cause is that these churches don't feel they have to make any sort of accounting of their finances if they don't want to. And why not? Because that would violate the separation of church and state.
In contrast to this demand for separation, religious entities have attempted to influence public education in Oregon, Colorado, Kansas, and other states. They demand that in order to pledge allegiance to the United States of America, you should have to acknowledge God. And most recently, a bunch of them threw a tantrum because nine members of the House of Representatives voted against a feel-good "Merry Christmas" bill. Oh, my, the Christians feel slighted. They feel they have been discriminated against, treated unequally, because nine members of Congress voted against a bill that was not, in fact, the equal of others they'd voted for. The sitting President of the United States, a Christian, has noted that God told him to invade Iraq, and at least one GOP candidate for the office has said that Christianity should be a prerequisite for holding the office.
A Seattle-area preacher went abroad and, quite literally, made informational demands of foreign governments while representing himself as an envoy of the current president. The White House denied that they had given the preacher that status, and the preacher claims to have proof that he refuses to show anyone.
We are currently fighting over whether or not to enshrine gender discrimination as part of our lasting federal legacy because a large number of politically-conservative Christians demand it be so, yet at the same time the very immorality and disgusting behavior that these folks decry seems to permeate their own camp. If I theorized that such sexual deviance is the result of the religion, could we have a nationwide, public discussion with federal politicians weighing in on whether or not any given religion is healthy for society? After all, the law does not extend to protect the killing of humans as a religious practice. It does not protect blatantly religious use of peyote or marijuana. If a religious practice is shown to have a correlation to rape, ought we not consider that? Oh, right ... such consideration would be persecuting Christians.
The topic question, while perhaps recklessly constructed, does touch on valid considerations. Frankly, I'm surprised at the degree to which the response seems uninformed. I was under the impression that we were supposed to believe y'all were paying attention. If you're not, quit trolling this thread and others with baseless opinions. And if you are and have been paying attention to religion and politics in these United States, it shouldn't be too much to ask that you don't pretend such condescending or, as one case has it, complete ignorance.
Last edited:
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Evangelicals are people and people get to try to influence politics in a democracy.
Governments certainly meddle in the affairs of relgious people and everyone else all the time. And non-religious people get to influence the rules of this meddling.
Not that I am thrilled in any way shape or form about what evangelicals are trying to accomplish on a polictical level.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
I think this is a perfectly solid point.
We cannot judge the source of someone's ideas and then claim that they have to lose their rights to participate in a democracy.