Red, Blue, separation of church and state, who did you vote for and why?

[nicolakirwan]

I could not vote for human life, since I did not believe either candidate would actually do anything to stop abortion. I refuse to be made a fool of any more by the GOP by telling me they are pro-life to get my vote, then not doing anything significant about it time and time again.

This is my biggest issue with the grip the GOP seems to have on the Christian political conscience. It’s lip service, as demonstrated by Romney suddenly discovering that he was pro-life after governing a state as a pro-choice Governor.

We have to be wiser than that.

 

[Izdaari]

Anyone on the ballot has a chance to win, if people vote for him. I’ve never really cared about the chance to win argument, heard so often on supposedly conservative talk radio shows like Michael Medved. I do like the George Washington quote that the US Taxpayers Party referred to in their literature, “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.” I vote for the person whose views I can most honestly support, including the platform of the party he’s affiliated with. For the past 20 years or so, the best Presidential candidate has not been on the Republican party ticket.

I’ve either lost it or loaned it out and didn’t get it back, but the best book on federalism I’ve read is Felix Morley’s Freedom and Federalism. I’m thinking of ordering another copy, but have you any other suggestions along these lines?

And Romney had zero chance to carry my state, Washington. While I agree he was preferable to Obama, so far as my state’s electoral votes, voting for Romney would have been just as much a futile protest vote as my LP vote… with the difference that I agree with Gary Johnson a whole lot more than I do with Romney, and I think he was well qualified to be president. If I lived in a swing state, I probably would have voted for Romney.

 

[jrtrent]

And Romney had zero chance to carry my state, Washington. While I agree he was preferable to Obama, so far as my state’s electoral votes, voting for Romney would have been just as much a futile protest vote as my LP vote…

I guess I’ve just never seen my vote for a particular candidate to be a protest of any kind–I simply vote for the person whose views (and history of decision-making or legislative voting record, if any) I am most in agreement with.

Washington is also my state. Shall we all begin our state song?

Washington, My Home

This is my country; God gave it to me;
I will protect it, ever keep it free.
Small towns and cities rest here in the sun,
Filled with our laughter, “Thy will be done.” . . .

 

[Kal2012]

Nonsense. A theocracy is a cleric-run state. A laity-run state where Catholicism was the official religion would be confessional, not theocratic.

Given the religious diversity in the US, I don’t want to see a theocracy.

I think it’s crazy how people assume that if a candidate, like Rick Santorum, gets elected, then somehow America will become a theocracy. I lost a friend because I just wouldn’t go accept the premise and down that road when the race was Romney/Santorum and apparently, this was a deal-breaker for the guy. I haven’t lost any sleep over it. It’s just disturbing to me that being overtly religious somehow makes someone unqualified for public office.

I’ve seen way too many people make this weird leap and assume that someone who has religious values can automatically dismantle the current structure of government, so that they can impose a theocracy on the rest of us.

I find myself wondering if they are just reflecting their desire for a secular dictator because the assumption that someone who is faithful can just ‘impose’ their will is crazy - especially if they believe in the American system of Government.

As if their version of a secular dictatorship is so much better than their imagined theocracy.

As someone who has studied politics and has worked in government, I find our current President/situation disturbing & ironic on so many levels.

I’m not hopeful for 2014, given the current state of the Republican Party. As a member of the Party, I don’t say that lightly either. Trying to predict 2016, at this point, is a bridge too far. I don’t think that the Party will continue w/its current coalition, unless some major changes and realizations are made.

I can’t seriously vote for the Democrats, except on the local level and if it’s abundantly clear that the Republican just isn’t qualified for the position they are seeking. It’s rare, but I have voted for Democrats (just not on a national/state level).

On a state level, 3rd parties have a better chance (especially in smaller states), but we fundamentally have a 2-party system.

3rd Parties usually take over one of the major parties when that party fails to represent the people and their issues.

Yep…my 2 cents.

 

[Izdaari]

I think it’s crazy how people assume that if a candidate, like Rick Santorum, gets elected, then somehow America will become a theocracy. I lost a friend because I just wouldn’t go accept the premise and down that road when the race was Romney/Santorum and apparently, this was a deal-breaker for the guy. I haven’t lost any sleep over it. It’s just disturbing to me that being overtly religious somehow makes someone unqualified for public office.
.

Right, Santorum wouldn’t have single-handedly been able to turn America into a theocracy. No more than Obama has been able to turn it into a European-style social democracy. But I still don’t like either man’s attempts in those directions.

He wasn’t a deal-breaker for me politically, but he was religiously. Seeing the extent of support for Santorum within Evangelicalism exacerbated my feeling of being culturally and politically alienated from it to the point where I felt I could no longer remain within it. And so, early this year, I jumped ship for the mainline.

 

[Izdaari]

I guess I’ve just never seen my vote for a particular candidate to be a protest of any kind–I simply vote for the person whose views (and history of decision-making or legislative voting record, if any) I am most in agreement with.

Washington is also my state. Shall we all begin our state song?
Washington, My Home

This is my country; God gave it to me;
I will protect it, ever keep it free.
Small towns and cities rest here in the sun,
Filled with our laughter, “Thy will be done.” . . .

I do sympathize with that view, and share it to some extent. But I’ve been involved in top many political campaigns to not consider the electoral strategies and practical results as well.

:tiphat: to a fellow Washingtonian.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I voted for President Bush both times. That should tell you where I stand. I am a moderate Republican with Catholic morals. Now I am not a “party” man as my grandfather who votes strickly down the red side. I tend to vote for the person rather than the party. Although my views are that of the Republican party, if a Democrat is a just a moral person, I will vote for them rather than a Republican who is not. With that said, I voted for neither Romney or Obama. I reframed from this election because I believe neither one was morally sound. :twocents:

 

[Izdaari]

I voted for President Bush both times. That should tell you where I stand. I am a moderate Republican with Catholic morals. Now I am not a “party” man as my grandfather who votes strickly down the red side. I tend to vote for the person rather than the party. Although my views are that of the Republican party, if a Democrat is a just a moral person, I will vote for them rather than a Republican who is not. With that said, I voted for neither Romney or Obama. I reframed from this election because I believe neither one was morally sound. :twocents:

I respect that view because it has integrity. But so far as practical results, it has problems. Jimmy Carter was/is a just and moral man. Bill Clinton was/is not. But of the two of them, Clinton was by far the better president.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I was once an officeholder in the Dem party. I resigned and stopped supporting the party when i realized that abortion was its only consistent value or policy. One can now add homosexual marriage to that. I did not become a Repub. I’m just myself.

I voted for Santorum in the primary and Romney in the general. Why did I vote for Romney? Because he was the only alternative to the radically pro-abortion, pro-homosexual “marriage” Obama. I also believe, as I still do, that Obama and his people are going to destroy this country economically. But I would still have voted against him even if I thought he was good for the economy.

I reject the term “right wing”. That’s nothing but a pejorative term liberals use to smear anyone who is not a liberal. I also reject (for myself) the term “conservative” because I do not share all the views of those who self-describe as conservatives. I actually do believe in providing better support for the truly poor…those who cannot help themselves. Neither party, however, does that. Neither party has done anything for those most desperately in need since the Earned Income Credit decades ago, and that was Reagan’s.

I am, however, “conservative” in most other ways, at least by today’s yardstick. I haven’t really changed my views since I was a Democrat activist. It’s just that the party has now rejected its historical positions in favor of gender politics. JFK, for instance, could not even win a Democrat primary now. Nor could Truman, Jackson or even Humphrey.

“Separation of Church and state” is a meaningless term presently, because a) it isn’t in the constitution at all notwithstanding that people think it is, and b) it means different things to different people.

I would not favor a theocratic state unless, perhaps, it was run by the Pope himself. But that’s manifestly impossible. At one time mainline protestantism was practically the “state religion” in the U.S. I lived with it in my earliest years and did not find it terribly offensive because it was not strident or insistent.

Since all laws ultimately derive from the religious views of the populace (study history well and you’ll see that it’s true) I believe actively seeking to ensure total separation of religious views from the laws is doomed to failure and likely to be pernicious. One way or another, we will be ruled by religious values, even if they’re pagan values, which are presently in the ascendency.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I respect that view because it has integrity. But so far as practical results, it has problems. Jimmy Carter was/is a just and moral man. Bill Clinton was/is not. But of the two of them, Clinton was by far the better president.

I think history would agree that Clinton was the “better” president. But how do we judge on how good a president is? I am a Bush supporter, but believe he spent too much money for my liking. As for morals, in my opinion, was great.

The problam we run into is how do we judge the president? If I cannot vote in good conscience for a candidate, then I will reframe from voting at a certain level, rather its local or federal. We can vote for a “Carter” type of president and pray that God guides them.

My father believes that just morals leave the politician the moment they take the oath of office lol. He believes that one cannot present morals to an immoral society and get win the next election. I believe the jury is still out on that theory but time will tell.

 

[Tampa_Rays]

I supported Romney and I support the tea party movement EXCEPT on immigration. On immigration I support the Rubio plan, to give a guest worker program and permanent residency to illegals while securing the border. However I believe we have to stick with the GOP and that forming a third party will just divide us and give the dems total control at the federal level.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I supported Romney and I support the tea party movement EXCEPT on immigration. On immigration I support the Rubio plan, to give a guest worker program and permanent residency to illegals while securing the border. However I believe we have to stick with the GOP and that forming a third party will just divide us and give the dems total control at the federal level.

I disagree with you for simply being a Tampa Ray fan. VOTE FOR THE RED SOX lol…

Being serious now…you bring up a good point on the third party. Isn’t the Tea Party kind of a “third party” though?

 

[devoutchristian]

Right, Santorum wouldn’t have single-handedly been able to turn America into a theocracy. No more than Obama has been able to turn it into a European-style social democracy. But I still don’t like either man’s attempts in those directions.

What could possibly indicate to you that Rick Santorum (a lay person) wants the holding of public offices restricted to clerics?

 

[Izdaari]

What could possibly indicate to you that Rick Santorum (a lay person) wants the holding of public offices restricted to clerics?

He doesn’t. Calling him a theocrat is hyperbole. But he’s in favor of a lot less seperation of church and state than I am.

 

[devoutchristian]

he’s in favor of a lot less seperation of church and state than I am.

Good for him.

 

[Izdaari]

Good for him.

Alrighty. Obviously we have different views on the matter, and that’s cool. :egyptian:

 

[Kc906]

Living in the Reddest of Red states (Texas,) I reluctantly voted for Romney. I describe my political views as Libertarian, as such I really would of loved to see Ron Paul as the canidate. The “platform” of the Democratic party is Abortion; all one had to do was tune in to their convention to see this very obvious fact. God’s platform is life, and thanks to the Affordable Care Act that will NEVER be repealed (name one entitlement that has been,) all Americans will now be subsidizing contraception and abortion inducing drugs for the rest of our lives.

We lost our Freedom of Religion with Obama, because I can’t practice mine the way I want to anymore. I, and all Americans, are now forced to fund these items for women who quite honestly need to keep their legs crossed if they can’t afford these items or a child on their own.

I totally agree that Romney would do nothing for the current abortion laws, the guy was a supreme flip flopper. But he was the only chance of repealing a bill that will only increase the rate that children will lose their lives in the mothers womb, and as a child of God, I am truly sorry that we have let things get this out of control in this land that “used to be free.”

 

[JonNC]

Right, Santorum wouldn’t have single-handedly been able to turn America into a theocracy.** No more than Obama has been able to turn it into a European-style social democracy**. But I still don’t like either man’s attempts in those directions.

Well, he’s gotten pretty close, but then he also had a lot of help from former presidents such as Wilson and FDR.

Jon

 

[nicolakirwan]

Right, Santorum wouldn’t have single-handedly been able to turn America into a theocracy. No more than Obama has been able to turn it into a European-style social democracy.

Well, he’s gotten pretty close, but then he also had a lot of help from former presidents such as Wilson and FDR.

And what Obama and FDR have in common is that both were given the task of addressing serious economic problems in the country that weren’t caused by their policies. So…

 

[Ridgerunner]

And what Obama and FDR have in common is that both were given the task of addressing serious economic problems in the country that weren’t caused by their policies. So…

And both, by nutty policies of their own, made their respective downturns last much longer than they should have, and otherwise would have.