Churches and politics: It needs to stop!
- Thread starter markjs
- Start date
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
If a church leader presents one candidate as the only moral choice...there's the issue. Priests hold a huge sway over their parrishioners and have been known to present only a single side of an issue. Without an alternative for getting information abot the other side og the issue, the person can make no decision whatsoever....the choice is given to them, not made by them. That's the issue with churches supporting one party or another.
As for the homosexual tollerance bit..it's the polar opposite. The schools trying to give the other side of the coin to allow the kids to have an informed decision.
Those two are complete polar opposites. Sorry, SnP.
As for the homosexual tollerance bit..it's the polar opposite. The schools trying to give the other side of the coin to allow the kids to have an informed decision.
Those two are complete polar opposites. Sorry, SnP.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
MrBishop said:
Not from where I sit.
Kids HAVE to be in school. No one HAS to be in church.
JMO
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
SouthernN'Proud said:
Depends of where they live...some kids have no choice BUT to go to church.
also...as Gonz so loves to discuss...there's homeschooling.The point wasn't the necessity of hearing the message. The point was that removing a viewpoint is bad and adding a viewpoint is good. That's the whole point of Freedom of Speech, ain't it? *No I am not trying to get into a discussion about FoS...just one about the worth of knowledge, discussion, and opposing viewpoints on the general health of the population and children in particular.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
markjs said:
So the media can be trusted? You've seen my attack about the racist radio guy in another thread, that was posted on FOX first...I still don't know if CNN or MSNBC has picked it up. If the media cannot be trusted to post that, then how can they be trusted to post anything? That's why I choose FOX over CNN and MSNBC. The only other 'mainstream' news site I look at is the BBC.
markjs
Banned
Can the church be trusted any more than the media? Especially when it breaks the law to present slanted campaign facts? The media is the best thing going for information. It's imopossible to be truly fair and balanced yet the media is the only faction of our society that makes any effort to be fair and balanced. Watch them all....make a decision based on what is most consistantly true.
Fact. The media is allowed to cover candidates.
Fact. The church is not allowed to.
That's the reality here, just that simple.
Fact. The media is allowed to cover candidates.
Fact. The church is not allowed to.
That's the reality here, just that simple.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
markjs said:
Fact...the church is allowed to discuss morality based upon it's dogma. If a candidate doesn't follow his own church's dogma, then that church is allowed to say so. They cannot, however, tell you who to vote for. At least the church is honest in it's views.
Fact...the media is not supposed to choose candidates, either. Nor are they supposed to hide stories because they don't fit the medias view of politics. They are only supposed to report the facts. Where is my story on the other websites? Why isn't it there? Who decided that it didn't belong on the site? When was this decided? Those answers are facts...
ekahs retsam
New Member
SouthernN'Proud said:
Amazing....
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce."
A roman archbishop wrote in the 12th century, "it is not we who teach God how to love, but He who taught us. He made our actions and natures full of love."
RDX
Member
Markjs, do you agree that morality should play a role in the election of a candidate? If it should, than how can a purely secular viewpoint provide a complete assessment of the candidate?
It appears to me as if many liberal candidates do not want their moral views exposed. If they are so ashamed of their views, than why do they continue to hold on to them? If they have no qualms with their own morals, then why should they care if their moral views are clearly stated?
If they want to draw voters with moral views, then the candidate should have those same morals rather than by burying their actual views and hope that voters’ ignorance on the subject will suffice.
It appears to me as if many liberal candidates do not want their moral views exposed. If they are so ashamed of their views, than why do they continue to hold on to them? If they have no qualms with their own morals, then why should they care if their moral views are clearly stated?
If they want to draw voters with moral views, then the candidate should have those same morals rather than by burying their actual views and hope that voters’ ignorance on the subject will suffice.
markjs
Banned
I think everything about a candidate can play a role in his election. I think most of each candidates morality was adequately covered by the media. Both believe in some form of Christianity which should tell you most of their moral stance. The other moral issues such as abortion, and the role of church in the nation is pretty obvious too. Kerry does not believe that the concieved fetus is a full and true life and Bush does. Bush believes Church and state should be hand and hand or even maybe as one, where Kerry beleives in the clear seperation of church and state.
I don't go to church so I don't have any pulpitized input but yet I feel I have a knowledge of each candidates moral stance.
Does that mean I have no morals because i do not attend a church? No it does not, because I have morals and spirtuality of my own, much of it falls right in line with what churches purport to teach but actually do not.
Basic moral stances are defined by a candidates stand on the issues. I have not seen Liberal candidates hiding their moral stances, but rather they tend to believe that religious issues belong seperate from government so they treat their own religeous stance as private. Maybe this is a mistake on the part of a liberal candidate given this nations unhealthy (my opinion) ralationship with fundementalist Christianity.
I do believe (as did many pundits on both sides of the aisle), that Mr. Kerry did run too conservative of a campaign. I also believe if he'd let his stances come out stronger than he did, was more defined is how he meant to bring change to the American people he would have won. I can't remember what president it was that they said but it's been many years since a president won the puopular vote by as narrow of a margin as Mr. Bush did.
I also believe that a good 20% of the people who voted Bush did so out of fear.....Fear of Terroists and a misconcieved notion that Bush would protect them better than Kerry would have. Osama Bin Laden carefully selected his message and his timing to help the Bush reelection because it gives them more to hate and will help him continue to recruit terrorists for his efforts, and we played right into his hands.....I could go on all night but my fingers begin to tire....
Go ahead and try to explode my views and prove me wrong....Good luck, I believe what I believe and I am as stubborn as anyone you'll ever meet.
I don't go to church so I don't have any pulpitized input but yet I feel I have a knowledge of each candidates moral stance.
Does that mean I have no morals because i do not attend a church? No it does not, because I have morals and spirtuality of my own, much of it falls right in line with what churches purport to teach but actually do not.
Basic moral stances are defined by a candidates stand on the issues. I have not seen Liberal candidates hiding their moral stances, but rather they tend to believe that religious issues belong seperate from government so they treat their own religeous stance as private. Maybe this is a mistake on the part of a liberal candidate given this nations unhealthy (my opinion) ralationship with fundementalist Christianity.
I do believe (as did many pundits on both sides of the aisle), that Mr. Kerry did run too conservative of a campaign. I also believe if he'd let his stances come out stronger than he did, was more defined is how he meant to bring change to the American people he would have won. I can't remember what president it was that they said but it's been many years since a president won the puopular vote by as narrow of a margin as Mr. Bush did.
I also believe that a good 20% of the people who voted Bush did so out of fear.....Fear of Terroists and a misconcieved notion that Bush would protect them better than Kerry would have. Osama Bin Laden carefully selected his message and his timing to help the Bush reelection because it gives them more to hate and will help him continue to recruit terrorists for his efforts, and we played right into his hands.....I could go on all night but my fingers begin to tire....
Go ahead and try to explode my views and prove me wrong....Good luck, I believe what I believe and I am as stubborn as anyone you'll ever meet.
RDX
Member
I agree with much of this, but I was not targeting the Bush/Kerry election specifically. As you say, most people know each of the candidates view on most of the subjects involving morality. This is not the case involving many congressmen or state officials.
I agree with them that religous issues should be private, moral issues should not. Moral stances should be defined by a candidates view on the subject, but often that is what they try to hide and downplay.
I am origionally from North Dakota. It's a pretty conservative state. ND has had a senator in office for a long time. He's a democrat and pro-abortion. Now the vast majority of the people in ND are not pro-choice. So what has he done? He doesn't mention it. When his record on abortion voting is brought up, he refuses to answer questions about it. He just won't talk about it. For the most part, it has worked. A good number of people that I talked to had no idea of his view on this subject, and the ones that did were just guessing because he was a Dem.
Now perhaps he personally doesn't agree with abortion or maybe he does- I don't know. Maybe he is just following the party line. But the matter comes down to this: his view on the subject affects his voting and the type of legislation that he supports. How is his view on abortion any different than his view on economic policies? He's just trying to cover up.
I do believe that Liberal condidates are more at risk of trying to hide their values than many conservative candidates. Not because they are more corrupt or "immoral" or anything of that nature, but because their personal or party views regarding moral issues are unpopular with the conservative Christian segment of the population. As the presidential election demonstrated, the conservative Christian voters can be quite important to a candidates success.
IMO, for the Dems to regain the white house and the majority in congress, they will have to move more to the middle in their domestic policy. Even if the dems move to the middle, they will not lose their base support in the NE and the west coast. They might be able to then gain more support in the SE and midwest portions of the country. As I see it, a candidate who supports fairly conservative moral values and has a more democratic approach to foreign and economic policy could be a very electable candidate
Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to convice anyone to change their views with my arguement, but I enjoy discussing these topics nevertheless.