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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christian_Unity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We get what we deserve.
Agree. :mad:
Originally Posted by **Publisher **
I voted for President Obama. I am very much against a “theocracy” of any kind
Then, you assume O’Bama’s religious beliefs…whatever they are…are not affecting his policy. Go read about Jeremiah Wright…O’Bama’s prophet. There is already a theocracy afoot.
I am dead set against the incursion of religious beliefs dictating secular government policy.
So you are for “secular government policy dictating religious beliefs” because that’s what we have. :eek:
I voted for freedom of conscience and freedom of self determination.
Great, so stay out of my wallet. 😃 My freedom of conscious and self-determination tells me I’d rather donate my hard earned money to the Church and trust the Church rather than O’Bama, O’Bama Care and all his entitlements.
 
I voted for President Obama. I am very much against a “theocracy” of any kind. I am dead set against the incursion of religious beliefs dictating secular government policy.

The Tea Party is way too conservative form my tastes.

I voted for freedom of conscience and freedom of self determination.
Russian news service Pravda (“Truth”) agrees that America’s suffering has only begun. The crack high of “freedom” may lead to a real downer.
 
Red, Blue, separation of church and state, who did you vote for and why? Are you opposed to making our country a Christian theocracy? What do you think of the Tea Party movement, or the right wing conservative Republican agenda?
🍿
Take a look at Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt and then decide if we would be better off being a Christian theocracy. Our nation was based on freedom of religion for ALL, not just those who claim to be Christian. Which theology would we follow - Catholic, JW, Mormon, mainline Protestant or non-denominational?

As far as the Tea Party is concerned, they have shot themselves in the foot by “primarying” mainline republicans and nominating Tea Partiers who were unelectable. The hope is that the Republican Party will move back to the fiscally Conservative party they once were and leave the hot button social issues alone. After this election season. many American women will never vote for a candidate e en slightly related to the Tea Party.

Both political parties have to return to the practice of negotiation and compromise or we will forever be stuck in this quagmire.
 
I wish there was a Christ the King party. I believe in the separation of Church and state in as much as one’s sphere of authority is the temporal and the other the spiritual, but I also believe they should work together in harmony since they both exist for the good of man. Likewise, while I believe we must give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s, Caesar is not exempt from giving to God what is God’s. The state’s rule must be consonant with truth and justice and the rule of Christ the king. It is our job as Catholics, and especially as laity, “to infuse a Christian spirit into the mentality, customs, laws, and structures of the community in which one lives” (Vatican II, Apostlicam Actuositatem 13).

Back in the 1800s, Pope Bl. Pius IX warned what would happen if we repudiated religion from civil life–it seems our society has ended up as predicted:
Pope Bl. Pius IX:
  1. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?
 
I don’t vote in national elections because I oppose the system. Any vote is a vote for the system. I refuse to honor the illusion that we control the government.
Take a look at Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt and then decide if we would be better off being a Christian theocracy. Our nation was based on freedom of religion for ALL, not just those who claim to be Christian. Which theology would we follow - Catholic, JW, Mormon, mainline Protestant or non-denominational?
Freedom of religion is a nice phrase but what does it really mean? The US government has never allowed you to practice any religion you want. All religious practice is limited. If you want to practice child sacrifice, outside of abortion, you can’t. The government assumes some sort of moral code. Morality and religious belief, or lack of belief, are hard to separate. That moral code enforced by secular law can be Christian, Muslim, or even atheist. I’d prefer Christian. I think all this phrase ever meant was that you can practice your religion so long as you do not go against fundamental Christian belief. So Christian belief did and should influence our law.
 
John McCain said over the weekend that he thinks the Republican Party should not emphasize its anti-abortion position in order to attract more female voters. So much for being the party that defends life.

All along, though I do not support abortion, I have been a supporter of President Obama. I don’t think that, after Reagan began pandering to the Pro-Life movement, anyone thinks that the Republicans are any more likely than the Democrats to seriously deal with abortion. It would be interesting to see how the 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court deal with it should it ever come up.
 
Take a look at Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt and then decide if we would be better off being a Christian theocracy. Our nation was based on freedom of religion for ALL, not just those who claim to be Christian. Which theology would we follow - Catholic, JW, Mormon, mainline Protestant or non-denominational?

As far as the Tea Party is concerned, they have shot themselves in the foot by “primarying” mainline republicans and nominating Tea Partiers who were unelectable. The hope is that the Republican Party will move back to the fiscally Conservative party they once were and leave the hot button social issues alone. After this election season. many American women will never vote for a candidate e en slightly related to the Tea Party.

Both political parties have to return to the practice of negotiation and compromise or we will forever be stuck in this quagmire.
This is flawed reasoning.

Do you really think that if we had an official religion, like Catholicism or Lutheranism, that we would be living in situations similar to Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Italy had Catholicism as the official religion from 1929-1985, and yet, there have been no recorded hangings of heretics.

Several Northern Scandinavian countries have official churches, all Lutheran, and again, the non-Lutheran populations have seemed safe (even when these countries were devoutly Christian).

Yet, in the Soviet Union, and in China, countries that have proclaimed themselves as “secular” countries, Christians as well as those faithful to other religions have been massacred routinely. I find it quite interesting how much pressure there is against religion, and in the West against Christianity in particular, when in the last century, the greatest bloodshed was unleashed by governments with no official faiths.

As far as the Republican Party is concerned, if you really think they will benefit from avoiding all social issues, then you have another thing coming. What’s the point of even doing that? What would differentiate them truly from the Libertarian Party?

It’s not the social issues most people who vote against the Republicans reject - it’s their economic policies. Take a look at the most pro-Obama constituents - Blacks, Hispanics, single women. Why did they vote for Obama? Because a great percentage of these groups depend in some form or another on government assistance. A majority of Blacks actually agree with the Republicans on social issues like gay marriage or abortion. But most voted for Obama overwhelmingly (naturally because of race, and this goes for Hispanics as well).

The irony of this election campaign is that it was the Democratic Party that fueled the fire with social issues. Obama came out with the pro-gay marriage offensive, and it was the Democratic National Convention that paraded woman after woman spewing hatred on how the evil Republicans might force women to have back alley abortions, a completely absurd claim.
 
I reluctantly voted for Romney in the General, but my heart was with Michele Bachmann in the GOP primary. She is a woman of courage and conviction. She is a devout Christian and is truly a citizen legislator. It’s easy to find old videos of Romney contradicting his current positions. That is not the case with Bachmann.
 
I reluctantly voted for Romney in the General, but my heart was with Michele Bachmann in the GOP primary. She is a woman of courage and conviction. She is a devout Christian and is truly a citizen legislator. It’s easy to find old videos of Romney contradicting his current positions. That is not the case with Bachmann.
This is also true of Ron Paul, who has also remained remarkably consistent over the years.
 
Same here, except that my state is reliably Democratic. I voted Libertarian, for Gary Johnson, the only one I really agreed with. But had I lived in a state that had a reasonable chance of going either way, I would have chosen Romney over Obama, though as the “lesser evil”.
I don’t know if they were on the ballot in your state, but since their founding in 1992, I’ve found myself largely in agreement with the Constitution Party, formerly known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party. They happened to have a candidate named Virgil Goode this time, so a not unexpected slogan was along the lines of not settling for the lesser of two evils–vote for Goode!
 
Let’s put it this way. I believe the HHS mandate is unconstitutional under the 1st amendment. I believe the ACA is unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 8, and the 10th Amendment.
I favor the constitutional representative republic that America once was, but is slowly disappearing into the tyranny of democracy.

Jon
👍
 
I don’t know if they were on the ballot in your state, but since their founding in 1992, I’ve found myself largely in agreement with the Constitution Party, formerly known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party. They happened to have a candidate named Virgil Goode this time, so a not unexpected slogan was along the lines of not settling for the lesser of two evils–vote for Goode!
I like it! Goode is a good man. Yes, they were on the ballot in my state. 👍

But the Constitution Party platform is far too socially conservative for me. Though they agree on much, where the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party differ, I side with the Libertarian Party. 🤷
 
I agreed with pretty much everything Gary Johnson is for, except school vouchers (I think it’s a bad idea). I am a social liberal and fiscally conservative and protecting the 2nd Ammendment is the very important to me. My views line up more closely with the Libertarian party. Seperation of Church and State is also very important to me.
 
Wouldn’t it be great if we had Catholic theocracy that believed in freedom of religion
 
I voted for Romney, to stop the ever more rapid descent into neo-communist tyranny of the last four years. If one looks at the evidence, reads between the lines and interprets the trends, the meaning of “radically transform America” becomes frighteningly clear. Much is concealed but more is obvious to the observant person. It helps to be a history buff, well read and over three score and ten years old but you younger folks can come to the same conclusion, if you pay attention. The primary issue is the right to life, secondary, liberty, and tertiary, the pursuit of happiness. (Read property). We are in danger of losing all three.
 
Red, Blue, separation of church and state, who did you vote for and why? Are you opposed to making our country a Christian theocracy? What do you think of the Tea Party movement, or the right wing conservative Republican agenda?
🍿
I voted for Romney. Virgil Goode had** zero **chance to win this election, Gary Johnson doesn’t seem to understand what being a libertarian is (then again, neither do most libertarians) and Obama is going to cause considerable damage to this country if not destroy it outright.

And yes, a lot of “conservatives” who I keep hearing about will rise up and stop it really won’t.

But, I think that a lot of people on here who didn’t vote for Romney or GOP Senate candidates are going to shortly wish they had.

My idea has been to get back to federalism, which I must say is a very unpopular idea on here.

I was welcomed with open arms by “conservatives” but since I’ve expressed my views about blindly and hastily running to support Israel or other countries, who believe it or not puts their interests ahead of ours, and that we shouldn’t subsidize farms or football stadiums, well, they’ve haven’t so hasty to applaud me.

I always find it funny about they are more than willing to cut Section 8 and welfare, but not those things.

This is why the democrats know they can negotiate with the republicans over and over and get their way. :banghead:

Game, set, match.

It’s been suggested that we should have a Catholic theocracy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and while the Protestant faiths are declining nicely here in the Western World, I doubt they’d be on board.

We also tried a microcosm of that, with Prohibition. That sure worked out well. :rolleyes:

I would rather not have any one religion running this country, and I think that our best bet is for the states to decide on issues like marriage and abortion, which doesn’t sit well with some in the pro-life movement who I guess are content to keep on spinning their wheels despite the fact that Court today would very possibly strike down Roe V Wade.

Instead, grrrrr!!! We’re going to grind our heels in rape and incest and get purists every time! Even if means getting the likes of Claire McCaskill and Joe Donnely elected.

Never-mind that even ultra pro-life states like SD and MS have REJECTED that!

On the other hand, there are Catholics who vote against their faith for the same reasons other Christians do:

To feel and look good in front of others

To be popular and cool

To feel “enlightened”, as though you’ve figured something out, although in reality, it’s been tried before and failed

Thinking you’ll get credit while sitting at home using the force of government to take the labour of others under the false guise of “equality” and “fairness” while you sacrifice nothing.

I mean, really folks, when you write this stuff, do you really believe that we buy it? :rotfl:

At this point, the “you don’t know me” or “you think I don’t help” or “how can you know” whiny posts hit the forum.

In which case, the responses are easy:

–When you write on here, you reveal more than you realize, especially if you do so under emotion,

–No, I don’t think you help as much as you’d like me to believe, because the numbers are clear: Conservatives give FOUR TIMES as much to charity despite making LESS. I also know that some folks think volunteering for a few hours a month cuts it.

Using government to do your dirty work doesn’t count and I doubt it’ll fly with Jesus.

–I don’t have to know you or all about you to make these logical deductions, a process you think your side has a monopoly on.

This is the type of post that no one wants to hear but addresses a lot of 800 pound gorillas.
 
Virgil Goode had** zero **chance to win this election . . . My idea has been to get back to federalism, which I must say is a very unpopular idea on here.
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?
 
Actually, that’s exactly what a theocracy is. Using the beliefs of a religion to make laws is literally exactly how a theocracy works.
Nonsense. A theocracy is a cleric-run state. A laity-run state where Catholicism was the official religion would be confessional, not theocratic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top