Republican AND Christian...? How?

Well, the topic says it all...
How is it possible to be Christian and support politicians that seem to fight passionately against everything that Christ taught?

 

Impossible!

 

I tend to agree...

So why do so many people who claim to be Christians vote for Republicans?

Is it that their religious dedication is limited to lip service?

 

Don't seem to be getting any clarity here...

Perhaps this rightfully belongs in the forum relating to religion?
Perhaps it's a mystery to all (including those involved)?

 

We are against the government imposing things on us, even if it is our belief. Surveys show that rightwingers are much more charitable and giving than moderates or leftwingers. We obey Christ, we just don't want Christ's will subjected on others at gun point (aka taxation).

 

The question stands.
If it is acceptable for government to impose religious belief, why support the political party that consistently attempts to legislate religious belief?

As for "rightwingers are much more charitable", you are clearly including donations that result in the building of megachurches as "charity", whereas I classify such donations as a repulsive waste of resources.

 

Did you have any response that isn't solely made up of flame bait and insults?

 

Abortion is generally the dividing line. As long as Republicans stand against that one sin they will find support among evangelicals and real Catholics.
Real Catholics get reinforced by birth control policies of Democrats.
Christians forgive repentant homosexuals, but don't support Democrats endorsing their lifestyles.
Democrats also advocate atheism and want it publicly taught as normative in the guise of separation of church and state, misusing the phrase of their slave-owning deist, hypocritical founding father.
I don't see why any Christian remained a Democrat after the Trail of Tears (1834). Do you think Jesus approved of that?

 

If I see an obese person eating a box of donuts and decide that it's none of my business, would you say I am "endorsing" or "supporting" their decision - or just minding my business?

To say there are only two options (condemnation or approval) is a false dilemma fallacy.

As for what the Conservative party of almost 200 years ago did, and any notion that it is more relevant than what they do now... Well, that's simply foolish.


Oh, by the way... It's still unconstitutional to legislate one religious belief over another. So it would be unconstitutional to teach creationism as fact in schools. Teaching only what has been discovered through scientific process makes a bit of sense when talking about a science class. Duh.

 

Jesus condemned the Pharisees (religious hypocrites) more than any other group of people in his era. Today's Republicans are the heirs of those malefactors and will face a very harsh sentence on Judgment Day.

 

There's a difference between discovered and postulated. There's a difference between fact and religious belief.
My 10th grade Western Civilization teacher summarized the theology of medieval philosophers simply.
My hand moved the paper. Something moved my hand. Keep going backwards and there must be a god.
The biology teacher didn't explain evolution but defended the reasoning by noting that a human fetus looks like a pig fetus.
The physics teacher told the Baptist student he believes in evolution because he's bald.
It really is that simple no matter how you consider it. No one really wants to argue with children about these things. They just want their children not to assault their parents with accusations of abusive lying, because once your child thinks you've lied to them about some of the most important issues of life they'll never respect you again.

 

You act as if that's a new concept;

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi

 

I agree completely, which is why teaching religious belief instead of scientific process is not "promotion of atheism".

An oversimplified and obviously flawed assertion.

Then you had a poor biology teacher. What does that have to do with anything?

and on the basis of this (which is no more flawed than the argument presented by your Western Civilization teacher) you decided that you understand universal truth that the world's most brilliant minds have debated for thousands of years...?

Sure, people should be willing to admit that there are some things we don't have definitive answers to, and that we're free to have different beliefs... Of course (back to the topic) this doesn't fit the Republican modus operandi at all.

 

I don't recall indicating this was "a new concept", just one that hasn't (to my knowledge) been answered in terms of conflicts in the political dogma.

 

In regards to economics, Christ said you should give everything you have to the poor, not go around robbing the rich and forcing this conviction on everyone else. In regards to social policy they don't go far enough. Homosexuality should be illegal, as with most everyday activities prohibited in the Bible.

 

Hang on... You're saying that it's ok to force morality on people, just not if they're wealthy?

BTW, can you quote where Jesus spoke out against homosexuality? I believe he was far more vocal about the need for charity than the condemnation of homosexuality.
In fact, I don't believe homosexuality was much of a topic in the NT, just in the OT - along with a whole raft of things Christ contradicted...

 

I was referring to the old testament, which is just as important.

And I'm not saying that, what I estimate you're referring to is Jesus' insistence that you abandon your wealth and serve the poor. But he never proposed taking the property of others under threat of imprisonment. That's an entirely different proposition.

 

What Democrat has imprisoned the wealthy for not abandoning their wealth?

I can name several Republicans that have attempted to implement religious dogma as legislation, which would directly result in people being imprisoned for failing to adhere to specific religious values.

So, the original question still stands...

 

It's not exclusive to Democrats by any means, if you don't pay for their protection racket they'll throw you in prison.

Of course the Republicans and Democrats force their social views on everyone, where the Bible doesn't explicitly demand you take action against others, it's up in the air - unclear what you should do. Clearly it's not a great idea to run around summarily executing anyone who isn't a Christian.

 

Isn’t there a contradiction there? You shouldn’t force Christian economic policy on people but you should force Christian social policy on them?

 

I'm still waiting for the example where contemporary Democrats have forced values that didn't benefit the American public as a whole - which is pretty much the government's job description.

 

Could be, depending on the sort of social policy you're talking about. Certain things have punishments listed.

For instance,

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

So, clearly, blasphemy is not a personal issue. The same cannot be said for selling all your belongings and serving the poor.

 

Drug prohibition, shaky support of gay marriage, medicare, social security, the ACA, gun control, taxation, equal pay, the minimum wage, unions, anti-discrimination laws, tobacco laws, environmental policy, protectionism, their vast support for militaristic interventionism since Wilson, etc.

Whether or not it helps the collective is irrelevant.

 

I beg to differ, there are plenty of examples of Conservatives beinging idiots, all one has to do is read some of the posts here by Cons and you will come to realize that the Libs have no monopoly on Idiots.

- - - Updated - - -

So you believe all those things you listed are bad for the People as a whole? Really????

 

As I said, whether they help the collective is irrelevant, they're involuntary, and the Democrats (and Republicans) force them on others under threat of imprisonment. If you drop acid, off to prison. If you don't pay taxes for someone else's medicare, off to prison. If you purchase a full auto rifle, off to prison (unless you pay their fee under the NFA). If you want to refuse entry to your property for someone of a protected group, there goes your business license. If you trade with others around the world without paying the government's protectioniat tarrifs, off to prison. If you sell raw milk to an informed conaumer, off to prison.

These restrictions are every bit as involuntary as restrictions on consensual sex, abortion, or otherwise.