Republican AND Christian...? How?

I like how every example you provide is beneficial to the collective, then you claim this is irrelevant as if it isn't the role of any democratically elected government to protect the interests of their collective constituents (rather than multinationals that line their pockets with campaign funds).

 

i'd like to see more information please, with examples.

 

That's a surprise, I assumed folks new that Jesus
- fed the poor,
- spoke out against violence,
- healed the sick,
- preached tolerance, etc.

I also assume it's fairly obvious which political group in the US consistantly votes to
- cut food stamps,
- supports violent confrontation on the micro level - and war on the macro level,
- shut down the government to ensure widescale denial of health care, and
- consistantly marginalizes minorities as the "other" to be fought against.

 

If the point of Christianity is to serve as a cheerful giver, to act with love and charity,
this can be done better by free will through personal relations, institutions, and actions
and not rely on Government to mandate which negates the respect for freely chosen faith in religious service and duty.

the Bible already explains that the Courts will be given to 'secular authority'
and believers are to respect human institutions and civil authority.

the Govt is under Constitutional laws as the standard,
and the church members are under scriptural laws for their authority.

Just because people are against the Govt MANDATING a practice
does NOT mean those people are "against the practice"

I know Christians who believe in freely offering help in spiritual healing
to help anyone in trouble.

But it would be against the Constitution or govt standards itself,
to FORCE spiritual healing on all people.

Do you see the difference?

It seems contradictory to WANT 'separation of church and state'
when you happen to disagree with someone's religion
but then turn around and WANT to REQUIRE something of someone
when you happen to AGREE with a concept

in both cases, it is Unconstitutional to abuse GOVT to impose,
require or regulate/discriminate on the basis of religion or creed

so you would even be violating Govt or Constitutional laws
to start REQUIRING people based on religion

The Govt is supposed to be focused on Constitutional principles

 

Ok, then why vote for the party who hypocritically wants to legislate religious morality in relation to birth control, sodomy laws, etc?

 

More to the point, how can you be White and Republican when the party is so clearly anti-White?

 

Its at all levels of giving, not just church giving. In fact, conservatives even give blood and volunteer more than liberals.

We don't try to legislate religious belief. We try to legislate common sense and morally. (Morally does not = religious belief).

 

The war on poverty comes to mind. Didn't benefit ANYONE, even those who it was designed to help.

 

Taxes are not going away and they are not at gun point and you are represented so there ya go. Funny how you Cons say you are against the government imposing things on them then want to impose laws on others to stop them from doing things you disagree with. Give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers, ring a bell?

 

Yes you do by wanting to have Christian Prayer lead by public school teachers, you want to make laws that force others to abide by the religous beliefs of some Christians, that is legislating religous belief whether you admit it or not. Common sense, LOL, Moraity, whos, Yours?

 

I'd like to see a source supporting that claim that provides the donations in terms of per capita (or at least mentions % of population that is "conservative" in comparison to the % donated to non-religious charities).

Really? What's "common sense" about sodomy laws? How does non-religious morality support the conservative notion that rights in this country only apply to Christians?
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/th...epublican-party-came-to-embrace-bryan-fischer

 

Did you really just go back 40 years to find something?
In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.

Seems it worked a heck of a lot better than "trickle down", eh?

 

It is very easy to do....very few Christians bother to follow the tenants their Christ taught, why are Republicans any different?

 

Agreed, but it's one thing to personally fail to adhere to professed beliefs, and another thing altogether to actively support a group who religiously (pun intended) acts contrary to those beliefs.

 

Republican is antichrist, not Christian.

 

http://biblehub.com/mark/12-17.htm

 

I've never heard of Democrats endorsing any lifestyle, or advocating atheism. And the Democrats of the 19th Century would often find themselves at home in the GOP now. Liberals see to be more for liberty, and allowing
Woke to make their own decisions, than the wing nuts of the right do.

 

Hahahahaha! Pure leftwong humor.

 

No, but he said to pay your taxes, and do it willingly, like you willingly give your would to God.

 

Have any examples of these?

 

Corrected, because the forum won't let me correct the spelling mistakes my iPad makes.

 

I understand your point, but it smacks of uninformed chauvinism.
The Democratic Party formed in 1825 around the personality of Andrew Jackson.
He loved slavery. He wanted Native Americans dead or out of the country. He had no respect for any form of Hispanic. He hated the British. He killed his personal enemies in duels. He had a vendetta about the national bank. He broke the record for vetoes.
He was the closest thing America has ever had to Adolf Hitler.
The rival party, first National Republicans, then Whigs, had no moral high ground either. They just hated Jackson. They won only two Presidential elections, both with war heroes, not policy.
The Republicans started with one policy: free soil. That wasn't quite abolitionism, but the good Christian abolitionists could not consider the Democrats once any moral stand became the barrier.
The big question for Democrats was whether their belief in white male liberty included leaving the country. Most agreed it did. In 1864 the Democratic platform was to end the Civil War,leaving the Confederacy in place. Former Confederates after the war were all Democrats. Freed blacks were all Republicans, so they figured out how to keep them from voting for 80 years.
That meant non-racist white southerners became Republicans. They soon died or moved.
The other big thing the Republicans did was give poor farmers free land out west. Those states are still Republican.
Democrats were still looking for an identity. They found it with foreigners in big cities. Unions followed for some reason, and the party became associated with working-class urbanites. In 52 years that gave them the Presidency only twice: Grover Cleveland.
I don't believe in reincarnation, but if I did, the one case I'd be sure of is that Cleveland came back as Bill Clinton.
In 1896 William Jennings Bryan became the first openly nice Democrat. The slightly less nice Woodrow Wilson got two terms.
By 1920 morality was no longer an issue, except down south where the racists Democrats dominated.
In 1928 the Democrats advanced their niceness by nominating a Catholic for President. For the first time, white southern racists voted Republican.
Franklin Roosevelt was nice to everyone. Northern blacks turned Democrat. States turned blue for the first time.
The Republicans' limited response to the Great Depression made them seem cold and insensitive. Christians opted for the Democrats and they were dominating the country.
Like the Whigs, Republicans took the Presidency with a war hero, but lost narrowly on both ends.
The Democrats tried to monopolize the nice vote by letting southern blacks vote.
That turned the southern bigots Republican, but somehow turned the southern blacks Democrat.
Democrats always rely heavily on lack of information.
That's when Democrats started advocating freedom-like freedom to fornicate, visit prostitutes, abort, divorce, use drugs, flaunt bad lifestyles, demand special rights, stay lazy, have fun in prison and other things Christians detest.
As more Christians turned Republican, more Christian Republicans became prominent, including several hypocrites.
Hypocrisy has always been considered one of the worst things there is-especially by non-hypocritcal bad people.
Our last two Democratic Presidents are non-hypocritical bad people and the next nominee might be the second worst ever.

 

I know my US history and politics pretty well.

Well, I should have said that generally, in the last 50 years or so, Democrats are not pushing people away from Christianity, or towards living any kind of lifestyle. The GOP, in my view, has been trying to block people from living their lives if they view it as alternative to what they call "traditional". As far as going back to Jackson... It holds little relevance, particularly since the 1960s and 1970s ssaw the Democrats shedding most of the Jim Crow wing of the party, while the GOP was embracing those same people. Reagan's election sealed the deal, in some ways.

 

Answer one simple question: what policy could your party take on its nationalplatform that would make you switch to the other party?

 

Relevance? And, the GOP would have to offer up good policies, or at least the possibility of good policies, before I'd just jump ship from the Democrats if they took on a bunch of terrible policies.

I'd oppose the Democrats if they became mired in the kind of racial crap the Republicans trap themselves in. Or, I'd work to make it less racist.