Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
Not with the topic of the thread. This is a very specific topic that highlights the irony of a political party affiliation with a particular moral platform. Only staunch, conservative Republicans need apply.
Christianity doesn't "require" conservativism. Especially if you know that there IS a difference between moral conservativism and political conservativism. You don't have to be pro-homosexuality to believe in human rights that don't discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Moreover, are Christians who aren't against homosexuality considered "bad Christians" now? The central and defining tenant of my faith doesn't require feeling a particular way about homosexuals. It doesn't require a particular political stance and certain moral stances should only be taken if they can be specifically supported by Scripture, as opposed to humans' interpretation of Scripture. The central tenant is the belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior--because He died so that I may be Saved--and a belief in a Living God.
Both conservatives and liberals with a grain of sense believe in helping people to help themselves, whether that means small or big government involvement. Only ultra-stingy conservatives in the upper echelon of income and wealth distribution truly believe in raw individualism believe it's "every human for his/herself." Only misguided liberals believe that handouts, and making people believe they are helpless victims, will work. Either case, the govt sponsored social welfare programs have overwhelmingly failed at helping people help themselves. If bipartisanism would give way to true human interest we'd probably be further ahead in terms of eliminating the poverty that is victimizing more helpless children than able bodied adults.
|
Touching and agreeing almost 100%. My point is that infusing political rhetoric with rigid religious dogma or the converse, infusing reilgious dogma with intractable political agendas, inevitably causes the polemicist to be in violation of their own tenets.
Shinerbock makes good points, but misses the point.. Pointing fingers is not an argument. Ad hominem platitudes do not further the conversation. Spouting party line talking points does not advance discourse. They only, obscure, deflect, and obsfucate. The debate is about leadership, not individuals. Democratic leadership is no more "moral" than republican leadership. However, they don't beat people over the head with "family values", demonize sexual minorities, or blame the other party for failing American morals and then participate in the very things that they decry. That is the essence of the thread
Threaded Mode
