should religion/christianity/whatever be politicized?

[jefhatfield]

what do you think?

[Mr. Anderson]

Oh, please, like it isn't already!

Anything that is used to govern people will be political in nature, whether its intended to or not.

[ibjoshua]

I agree with dukestreet.

Religion and politics are old bedfellows.

Did you know that the (nearly) 2000 year old expression "Jesus is Lord" is political?

The Romans used to say "Ceaser is Lord" so it was an out and out political statement to switch the wording.

(I'm not a Christian, just thought it was an interesting fact.)

i_b_joshua

[bousozoku]

If you're asking "Should religion be entangled with politics?", my answer is no. Can the western hemisphere hold them separate? No.

When Pres. G.W. Bush said that he wanted to include faith-based organisations to distribute care programmes, I thought that he might as well say Christian-based instead. I don't believe that there will be any Buddhists or other religions involved. This would create an atmosphere that Christianity is one of many religions, which it is. I would surmise that there are far fewer Christians in the world than there are Buddhists, but in the U.S.A., they certainly push everyone to do what they want. Putting the ten commandments into public buildings here in Florida certainly was a sign of that. Our state assembly wasted $40,000 per day doing that.

Oh well.

[jefhatfield]

politicizing religion is one way to keep people from realizing who or what runs the religion...the politics become central and in the way

in the case of christianity, the christian right (bernie ward on abc/kgo radio calls them the christian white) is building republicans but not repenting sinners who need to embrace christ to be christians

does politicizing religions get converts...no, not many...but it chases tenfold away

satan would be happy with any politicized religious group...left or right

thus the need for the separation of church and state

america's founding fathers had it right the first time

[krossfyter]

tell that to Cal Thomas!



lol

[LimeiBook86]

politicized...


thats a BIG word.... Great now I'm confused...:( :eek: :confused:

[LimeiBook86]

politicized...

heh...

thats a BIG word.... Great now I'm confused...:( :eek: :confused:

Can someone use a smaller word so I may understand? Or tell me what the word meens.... As of now I think the word has something to do with the Cops...

[solvs]

Wasn't this country founded on the ideals of religious freedom? Somewhere along the way we've forgotten about that. I have no problems with christianity itself, I just hate it when it's forced down people's throat. That whole "holier than thou" (pun intended), we-are-always-right, everyone-else-is-wrong and your opinions-don't-count attitude.

Isn't that what they do in "those other countries" we're fighting?

I always thought that fighting over religion was kinda stupid anyway. How do you prove a belief system? I wonder how they would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. How do you fight over holy land!?!

[BenderBot1138]

Well, politicized?... hmmm do you mean politicized in terms of becoming a part of the state, or forming a part of an administration concernced with personal interactions between two private parties, or as in taking sides in political issues, or do you mean as in becoming concerned with status and power rather than morals and principles?

For the first issue, it is a part of the state, whether anyone believes it should be or not by simple virtue of its legal existence within the state. The state gives it permission to exist, so it is a part of the state.

Second, it belongs to a spiritual adminstration concerned directely with personal interactions between private parties.

It also takes sides, not only within the state, but within the body politic itself of the church. There are at least two forms each of Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, and Muslim, Budhist, Hindu, and all other faiths for that matter. These forms usually polarize around state political issues of right and left wing politics, and right wing means very different things in different countries for example.

Last, and perhaps most controversial is the politicizing that pertains to shifting focus to issues of status and power rather than moral principles. I believe this is not the type of politicizing you were asking about.

I think you may be asking about taking sides in state against state issues, like the United States against Iraq, or China.

As for me, I'd like to know a little more about what you mean by "politicized". Interesting post jefhatfield, and interesting responses to a tough issue.

:cool:

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by solvs
Wasn't this country founded on the ideals of religious freedom?

Religious freedom was a catalyst, but the separation of church and state was a doctrine.

I get enough religion watching people blow each other up on CNN, I certainly don't need the already corrupt and immoral world of politics further poisoned by religion.

(Most of) you enjoy the freedom to practice whatever religion you want, or not to practice any. (Most of) you enjoy the freedom NOT to have religion crammed down your throat (unless you're gay, perform abortions, not a Muslim, a Muslim, live in the Bible belt, open a hotel drawer, incarcerated, or are someone Mormons are not afraid to approach).

As soon as religion get its evil grip on politics, you'll have the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose, but if the Majorities are Catholic, there will be a new deduction for donations to the Catholics. Abortion would become illegal again, and you can kiss 30 years of progress in gay rights goodbye.

How 'bout keeping your ****ing religion to you ****ing self, and out of the muddled mess that is politics?

BTW, I am neither gay, nor religious. I am not a neo natal surgeon, nor a Muslim. I am certain that if you want religion, you have the right to choose one, and that if you don't, you have the right not to. Let's not change that...

[diorio]

Originally posted by Nipsy



How 'bout keeping your ****ing religion to you ****ing self, and out of the muddled mess that is politics?



I hear that 100%. Religion is a personal thing, and doesn't need to be forced down anyone's throat.

[Timothy]

It's just an ineffective method of politics.

The real power is in secular politics; real change happens in secular politics. The world is becoming a better place through secular politics. If both religion and politics can be seen as attempting to build the ideal community, I think the secular is decades ahead of the religious.

[jefhatfield]

colin powell basically said it best when he said god is not here for a legislative agenda

btw...powell is a christian and belongs to a mainline denomination but understands the separation between church and state

he is the one republican in our government, through an appointed position, that i trust 100 percent

the others, to varying degrees, scare me because of their ignorance to the powell doctrine which basically states that we should not sent our soldiers in harms way without overwhelming force, and a practical escape and retreat plan

we can't attack iraq and stay there forever walking around with M-16s occupying the defeated foe

[jelloshotsrule]

the problem is... religion and general spirituality influence/form morality very often. therefore, while the president maybe shouldn't be leading us in prayer, he/she (ha!) is inherently going to have their morals influenced by religion/spirituality.

and while some "morals" shouldn't be forced on people per se, there are those that (at least to some) appear black/white. for instance, abortion. that is just the most obvious one.

therefore, it's tough to totally separate them. i mean, truly religious/spiritual people will be influenced by these things and have them as a part of everyday choices and such.


but yes, should be separated as much as possible.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

and while some "morals" shouldn't be forced on people per se, there are those that (at least to some) appear black/white. for instance, abortion. that is just the most obvious one.


ha, and its one of the most controversial! It might be black and white for you, but you're not a woman, so you already are at a disadvantage on making a call on this one.

If you wanted to set up a morality based set of laws, more like guidelines, I think you'd have to start with something a little more easily defined - abortion isn't easily defined for everyone and we shouldn't shanghai the thread to go into a debate about it here.

Stealing, murder, assalt - these to me are obvious.

D

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by dukestreet


ha, and its one of the most controversial! It might be black and white for you, but you're not a woman, so you already are at a disadvantage on making a call on this one.

If you wanted to set up a morality based set of laws, more like guidelines, I think you'd have to start with something a little more easily defined - abortion isn't easily defined for everyone and we shouldn't shanghai the thread to go into a debate about it here.

Stealing, murder, assalt - these to me are obvious.


you're missing my point.

those things you listed are obvious to nearly everyone. my point is that some things (abortion, death penalty, etc) are obvious to SOME people, one way or the other, and therefore that is where the controversy comes in, and for a lot of people, these controversial morality calls are influenced by religion/spirituality. therefore, it's inherent. is my point

your commenting about it being black and white for me, and not being able to make a call because i'm not a woman, is merely baiting me into a debate, which this isn't the place for. and i've done that already.

i never said how i feel about it, just brought it up as an example, which is a prominent one, and thus easily understood for most people.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i never said how i feel about it, just brought it up as an example, which is a prominent one, and thus easily understood for most people.

I reread it and it still says to me that you think the abortion issue is obvious - maybe my altavista translation filter isn't working very well today, or maybe yours is a little off.

No big deal, I understand now what you're saying and we both basically see it the same way. I wasn't trying to incite anything....

D :D

[kylos]

The second session of Congress attended a church service (http://http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/Joint_Meetings/1to19.php) together. While Jefferson was president the largest church in America was held in the Capitol Building. (http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak071202.asp)(This is a long article, this fact is mentioned about halfway down in a bulleted list.) Jefferson was credited with the separation of Church and State remark, yet he fully supported a church service in the Capitol Building??? Something's wrong here. The fact is, Jefferson meant that statement as a safety net against the situation the founder's had only recently faced in England, that is persecution by the Government for their religious beliefs. None of the founders wanted to get rid of religion (not even Thomas Paine), they fully supported it, realizing that God has a lot to do with everything (even government) but that Government can never tell you what you should believe. To them, God's guidance was essential in their every decision, they just wouldn't tell you how God was guiding you. It seems we've gotten things backwards in the past century.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by dukestreet
I reread it and it still says to me that you think the abortion issue is obvious - maybe my altavista translation filter isn't working very well today, or maybe yours is a little off.

No big deal, I understand now what you're saying and we both basically see it the same way. I wasn't trying to incite anything....


what i said initially was:

and while some "morals" shouldn't be forced on people per se, there are those that (at least to some) appear black/white. for instance, abortion. that is just the most obvious one.

what i meant by "this is just the most obvious one" was not that to me abortion is black and white. but rather, to me, it is obvious that to some people abortion is black and white.

same can be said of a lot of things. capital punishment, even something like legalizing pot

to some people. those issues are black and white. therefore, it's not like it's whether they are forcing morals, but rather, how most of us feel about murder/stealing. "those things are wrong". we don't say that people who claim those things are wrong are pushing their morals, but rather, that that's how it is. those things actually are wrong

ahh. it's confusing. hope some peopel can make sense of it

[scem0]

by all means, it shouldn't be. But it already is politicized and my
guess is that it always will be. Such is the nature of politics and
religion.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Kyle?
The second session of Congress attended a church service (http://http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/Joint_Meetings/1to19.php) together. While Jefferson was president the largest church in America was held in the Capitol Building. (http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak071202.asp)(This is a long article, this fact is mentioned about halfway down in a bulleted list.) Jefferson was credited with the separation of Church and State remark, yet he fully supported a church service in the Capitol Building??? Something's wrong here. The fact is, Jefferson meant that statement as a safety net against the situation the founder's had only recently faced in England, that is persecution by the Government for their religious beliefs. None of the founders wanted to get rid of religion (not even Thomas Paine), they fully supported it, realizing that God has a lot to do with everything (even government) but that Government can never tell you what you should believe. To them, God's guidance was essential in their every decision, they just wouldn't tell you how God was guiding you. It seems we've gotten things backwards in the past century.

what you said could be taken very, very wrong

think carefully for those that read this opinion...it can be taken both ways

[Mr. Anderson]

Given the multitude of religions, how could you have a state religion, unless is was something like the Church of England that's forced down your throat. No I have to dissagree here with Kyle. I'm sure the founding fathers believed in the separation of the Church and State, their recent history had seen too much abuse from the Church being the State.

With emmigration over the centuries bringing together all religions, equal under the law, there is no way that today you could combine the two.

D

[kylos]

As I said in my previous post, the founders did believe in separation of church and state (http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.jeffers.2.html). However, my point was that separation of church and state meant something else to them. I don't think we've seen many bills at all making religious opinion law.

My point is that religion will and should affect the decisions of political leaders. After all, they are individuals as well. What I meant is that religion does have the right to join in politics, since they are citizens of our country as well. Just because a religion has a belief about something does not make it a moral issue. It should be judged for its value, not that it is religious and so it should automatically be thrown out.

Basically, political leaders as well as other citizens are entitled to their own beliefs. I know you don't disagree with that. Government should stay out of religion. You would agree with that too. What we don't agree on is that religion should affect government.

Now here is something interesting, you have many of the same morals as religion (murder, stealing, greed, etc.). You feel free to lobby the government (not you, specifically, since you don't have enough money) to follow these moral beliefs of yours. Now here's the interesting part. Let's say you feel that people don't care enough for the environment. You want to pass laws that restrict how much gas cars are allowed to use, you want to halt logging efforts, drilling efforts, fishing efforts.

You have a set of beliefs formed about a core ideology, your concern for the environment. Christianity is a set of beliefs set about the core ideology that God formed the world and sets the laws (some seem logical, some are hard to understand). Buddhism is a set of beliefs formed about the core ideology of inner oneness (or something like that). Other religions have other beliefs formed about other core ideologies.

When you try to get laws passed as an environmentalist are you stopped because you are trying to force your beliefs on someone else? The point is, every one has a set of beliefs based on their personal core ideology - that's what religion is - and they are not stopped as an individual from trying to get others to accept their core beliefs.

The first ammendment is to stop the government from forcing a core ideology on you. When the nation collectively agrees on an external belief, then it becomes part of everyone's core beliefs and soon will become law. When a religion tries to convince you to accept a core ideology, that is their religious duty.

When they try to convince you to accept an external belief, they have every legal right like every other citizen to try to pass it as law. They are no more forcing morality than when you try to pass some environmental bill.

Sorry I got so long-winded.:) I'm interested in your further thoughts on this subject, so please keep it coming!

[jelloshotsrule]

well said kyle... that's a bit of what i was saying earlier

some peoples' morals are partially or totally formed based on religion/spirituality. therefore, the religion is kinda getting into the politics (through the morals of the politicians) in a roundabout way. no way to avoid that. nor should there be

however, the direct support of religion A over religion B has no place of course.

ps. who cares what the founding fathers thought? sure, brilliant guys who started this country, but not flawless....

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Kyle?
As I said in my previous post, the founders did believe in separation of church and state (http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.jeffers.2.html). However, my point was that separation of church and state meant something else to them. I don't think we've seen many bills at all making religious opinion law.

My point is that religion will and should affect the decisions of political leaders. After all, they are individuals as well. What I meant is that religion does have the right to join in politics, since they are citizens of our country as well. Just because a religion has a belief about something does not make it a moral issue. It should be judged for its value, not that it is religious and so it should automatically be thrown out.

Basically, political leaders as well as other citizens are entitled to their own beliefs. I know you don't disagree with that. Government should stay out of religion. You would agree with that too. What we don't agree on is that religion should affect government.

Now here is something interesting, you have many of the same morals as religion (murder, stealing, greed, etc.). You feel free to lobby the government (not you, specifically, since you don't have enough money) to follow these moral beliefs of yours. Now here's the interesting part. Let's say you feel that people don't care enough for the environment. You want to pass laws that restrict how much gas cars are allowed to use, you want to halt logging efforts, drilling efforts, fishing efforts.

You have a set of beliefs formed about a core ideology, your concern for the environment. Christianity is a set of beliefs set about the core ideology that God formed the world and sets the laws (some seem logical, some are hard to understand). Buddhism is a set of beliefs formed about the core ideology of inner oneness (or something like that). Other religions have other beliefs formed about other core ideologies.

When you try to get laws passed as an environmentalist are you stopped because you are trying to force your beliefs on someone else? The point is, every one has a set of beliefs based on their personal core ideology - that's what religion is - and they are not stopped as an individual from trying to get others to accept their core beliefs.

The first ammendment is to stop the government from forcing a core ideology on you. When the nation collectively agrees on an external belief, then it becomes part of everyone's core beliefs and soon will become law. When a religion tries to convince you to accept a core ideology, that is their religious duty.

When they try to convince you to accept an external belief, they have every legal right like every other citizen to try to pass it as law. They are no more forcing morality than when you try to pass some environmental bill.

Sorry I got so long-winded.:) I'm interested in your further thoughts on this subject, so please keep it coming!

kyle, i am a born again christian who almost died for the anglican church in the 80s in belfast...the missionary before me got his brains blown out by the british security forces there...so i have not and do not believe the anglicans are evil, and neither are the british security forces there

but mixing politics and religion allowed my peer to die at the hands of his own countryman

i am also an american citizen and very aware of the preciousness of our rights and the separation of church and state

have you ever been out of your country, or state?

have you ever been in a warzone?

and to explain the terror that exists in northern ireland...i give you this question...have you seen what mixing religion and politics can do?

i have had M-16s pointed and me, an unarmed missionary, just waiting for the bullet to pass thru me, so unless you have been in my shoes, think before you expouse something that might even sound like mixing religion and politics

i am the oldest current member on macrumors, but not chronoligically...i am 39.. and we are basically a free forum, but defending or sounding like defending a mixture of religion and politics is just as offensive as praising bin laden, hate groups, or child molesters

worse even, if you have seen the history of the crusades and inquisition that will open your eyes to to politicizing of religion or infusing religion into politics

this is just my opinion, but go to belfast or jerusalem and spend some time talking to people from both sides and i bet you may change your viewpoint...even a little

that is what i did when i was a young, naive undergraduate student and it gave me more education than any piece of paper, which at this time, i think i lost in my moving...he he...but at least my brains are still in my skull and not splattered all over falls road in belfast because someone somewhere thought that mixing politics and religion was a good idea

note: i mentioned i am a born again christian...no matter what christian/orthodox/catholic church one professes their faith in, believing in christ makes all born again...in belfast christians were killing christians because of the volatile mix of religion and politics

[jelloshotsrule]

i wouldn't equate discussing the possibility of mixing church and state to praising terrorism.... you sound like a republican! haha.

seriously though, i think you're being a bit hard on kyle. i don't see him as saying the gov't should support a particular relgion, just saying what i've been saying and some other stuff, that religion is bound to influence politics somewhat, because people are influenced by religion, and people make politics...

and such

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
well said kyle... that's a bit of what i was saying earlier

some peoples' morals are partially or totally formed based on religion/spirituality. therefore, the religion is kinda getting into the politics (through the morals of the politicians) in a roundabout way. no way to avoid that. nor should there be

however, the direct support of religion A over religion B has no place of course.

ps. who cares what the founding fathers thought? sure, brilliant guys who started this country, but not flawless....

our founding fathers were not perfect, but it doesn't take one long to see the evils of mixing politics and religion, or state religion "A"

why should the royal family have a member that is the head of the state church?

that was then, of course, and the royal family ties or connections to the church of england today are purely ceremonial

but at one time, that royal family actually ruled england...for those of you who are not history buffs

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
our founding fathers were not perfect, but it doesn't take one long to see the evils of mixing politics and religion, or state religion "A"


my point was not about religion and politics specifically, but rather that using "the founding fathers did/didn't want this" is a dumb reason.

sure, you can use them to support. but to use it like it's the end all and be all (whatever that menas) is dumb.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i wouldn't equate discussing the possibility of mixing church and state to praising terrorism.... you sound like a republican! haha.

seriously though, i think you're being a bit hard on kyle. i don't see him as saying the gov't should support a particular relgion, just saying what i've been saying and some other stuff, that religion is bound to influence politics somewhat, because people are influenced by religion, and people make politics...

and such

i am a conservative democrat, so yes, i do sound like a republican a lot of the time and i have often come to the defense of bttm, ovi, and wdlove (conservatives from my point of view who may or may not be republicans...though i think backtothemac is a republican...but you would have to ask him directly through private mail)

my thoughts and views make me hard on kyle but then again, he has not seen what i have seen

but if he has, then either he is completely lacking in human decency or he has some sort of point of view that i could never understand

i once met an army infantryman who confessed to me that he was in the army so he could get off (jack off literally) from killing people...he knew that doing this on the street like john mohammad and john malvo would land him in jail

he had his point of view i didn't understand and we are in a free country but i also have the right to be totally sick to my stomach of someone like that

a also met a person who claimed he was a vampire and could not attain an erection unless he drank blood or drew it from himself or some other adult who agreed to this practice

on cnn, the sexuality correspndent talked about a group of fetishers who sexually got their kicks from stuffed animals

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


my point was not about religion and politics specifically, but rather that using "the founding fathers did/didn't want this" is a dumb reason.

sure, you can use them to support. but to use it like it's the end all and be all (whatever that menas) is dumb.

there were other issues which were more important for the founding fathers like need to get away from the british taxing us without representation

it was like a mob protection money racket and the godfather was king george III ;)

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am a conservative democrat, so yes, i do sound like a republican a lot of the time and i have often come to the defense of bttm, ovi, and wdlove (conservatives from my point of view who may or may not be republicans...though i think backtothemac is a republican...but you would have to ask him directly through private mail)

my thoughts and views make me hard on kyle but then again, he has not seen what i have seen

but if he has, then either he is completely lacking in human decency or he has some sort of point of view that i could never understand

my point is merely that i don't see where he's saying "let's have an official religion!" i could be missing it by all means. but i think you're reading into what he's saying. whether or not he's been through what you've been through.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


my point is merely that i don't see where he's saying "let's have an official religion!" i could be missing it by all means. but i think you're reading into what he's saying. whether or not he's been through what you've been through.

i see a lot of double messages in what he/she is trying to say so i am not clear either and i admit i could be missing a point also

he or she seems to be very intelligent but so far i have found that person's posts a little unclear in this thread

i hope they come back to clarify on what we have said on this most intersting of topics;)

[kylos]

he or she seems to be very intelligent but so far i have found that person's posts a little unclear

I've heard that more than once, so I'll try harder to explain myself. :p

I never meant to say that the government should be run by religion. That only destroys religion and government. Look at Rome. Constantine made Rome a Christian state, which resulted in centuries of darkness in the Roman Catholic Church. The whole situation was a mess.

What I do feel is that God's moral code is best and that a nation that follows God's principles will go right. But that's because I'm a Christian (born-again), and that's how I see things. As I said, a Buddhist, Wiccan, environmentalist, or other core ideology will have their own set of beliefs. Obviously telling someone to follow a moral code that doesn't match their core ideology won't work and will instead cause hatred.

I'll write more later, but I have to work on a program for school.

[kylos]

Maybe my terminology of external beliefs and core ideology wasn't clear. This is what I meant: everyone has a core ideology, something they base all their beliefs on. It may be many things and may not be completely worked out for everyone, but their external beliefs, or personal morals, all align with this ideology (or at least they try to align them with this core ideology).

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Kyle?
Maybe my terminology of external beliefs and core ideology wasn't clear. This is what I meant: everyone has a core ideology, something they base all their beliefs on. It may be many things and may not be completely worked out for everyone, but their external beliefs, or personal morals, all align with this ideology (or at least they try to align them with this core ideology).

that's how i understood you.

which is similar to what i said.

jef was just feeling tough today i think. ha

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


that's how i understood you.

which is similar to what i said.

jef was just feeling tough today i think. ha

jello,

i see how you saw kyle's points now...sorry for confusion or flaming/preaching from my part

kyle,

from one christian to another, and your explanation of the catholic church as a state church, shows that you know what i mean when i fear a state religion

that being said, i don't want democratic voting christians like billy graham, tony campolo, jimmy and roselyn carter, and little ol me to be left out if the christian right (more emphasis on right as in right wing politics) when they try to impose another christian state

the catholics did not succeed, and neither are the many denominations of the christian right which are most vocally the babpist church, the catholic church, the mormon church, factions of mainline protestants, and the "non-political" jehovah witnesses

one of my ex-mormon friends gives me a lot of insight on a man who she dated who is now a senator from utah, no names mentioned, but the man who formed the christian right along with non mormons such as catholics and protestants

we don't need a right wing, give all your money to the top 1%, political party with pseudo meanderings in the bible

anybody can abuse that book

my humble advice, read the book...accept christ...and share with others

instead of,

forming any sort of christian party in the usa

ps - i am not insinuating that any posters menioned here are advocating this or anybody that i have actually ever met

...just the senator whose ex-girlfriend keeps me up to date

to that senator's credit, he wants a "generalized" christian state and not just a state with the explicit values of the church of latter day saints

i often respect that senator politically, even thought he is not of my party, but sometimes he surprises me and sides with the other 99 percent:)

well, nice talking to you jello and kyle, and if you don't mind me asking...are you kyle as in kyle a man, or kyle as in kyle minogue?

if you are the latter, that would make you the third female regular here

just curious;) :D :p

[kylos]

I'm male, and even though I know they exist, I have not yet met a female Kyle.:( So unfortunately, I don't boost the sparse female ranks.

Well I'm definitely not part of the 1% and I vote Republican, so I would have to disagree with your characterization of the right.:) And the right wingers I know aren't evil monsters wanting to take away your liberties.:) But I won't bad-mouth Democratic Christians because I know many devoted Democratic Christians both personally and by reputation (Graham, et al). It shocks me, but what can I say. So I don't think you can identify Christians by political party. Well I guess that's all for now.

You know Orrin Hatch's ex-girlfriend!?! I can't remember what I think of him anyway, but I don't think I was extremely fond of him. Anyhow I'm just rambling now.

[vniow]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
kyle as in kyle minogue?

if you are the latter, that would make you the third female regular here



Not that I ever nitpick or anything like that, but it's Kylie Minouge, not Kyle.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/winky.gif

The third female regular?!? I thought I was the third female regular!?!http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/grinning.gif

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Kyle?
I'm male, and even though I know they exist, I have not yet met a female Kyle.:( So unfortunately, I don't boost the sparse female ranks.

Well I'm definitely not part of the 1% and I vote Republican, so I would have to disagree with your characterization of the right.:) And the right wingers I know aren't evil monsters wanting to take away your liberties.:) But I won't bad-mouth Democratic Christians because I know many devoted Democratic Christians both personally and by reputation (Graham, et al). It shocks me, but what can I say. So I don't think you can identify Christians by political party. Well I guess that's all for now.

You know Orrin Hatch's ex-girlfriend!?! I can't remember what I think of him anyway, but I don't think I was extremely fond of him. Anyhow I'm just rambling now.

Orrin Hatch is always on the short list of presidential hopefuls

but his extreme involvement in religion could hurt him as the PMRC would hurt mrs. gore if she ever ran

[rainman::|:|]

Religion encompasses politics by nature. Both involve a governing morality that it's followers want spread to the masses. Should religion, particularly Christianity, be allowed to have more control over our already non-secular government? Certainly not... History shows us that when church and state become too close, it becomes by nature oppressive to the people. Everything we've acomplished that sets us apart from the countries we love to hate would be in jeopardy... Civil rights, women's rights, and soon I hope gay rights... Freedom.

:)
pnw

[kylos]

The third female regular?!? I thought I was the third female regular!?!


I wondered if you were one of the two. :p

[ibjoshua]

I believe that like everyone else in a democratic nation, religious leaders are entitled to have their political beliefs and should have their say - just like the rest of us.

However, I also believe that religious as opposed to moral beliefs should not have influence over government.

There is a subtle difference between political religions and religious politics but it is a distinction we should make.

i_b_joshua