Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Michael Colton

Your Faith And Your Politics

Recommended Posts

Something that has always been an interest for me is how people manage the interaction between their faith and their politics. I have met Christians who were very politically active from an explicitly Christian point of view, and I have met others that seemed to separate their faith and their political views. And even still others who avoided politics altogether.

 

How does your faith inform your political views and activity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly, not at all.  Except on such things as abortion and same-sex marriage.  I would not vote for anyone who supports those things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LadyC

there are a lot of christians who feel that christians should have nothing at all to do with politics. personally, i feel that we have an obligation to be at least aware, and to do our part when it comes to voting and things like that. i also think that we need to be vocal about our beliefs. for instance, let's take the whole hobby lobby controversy as an example. if christians sit back and twiddle their thumbs, then religious freedoms are going to go right down the toilet. we MUST speak up for what is right. i think in recent years there have been a number of things played out in the public arena where our rights were at stake, and because people are starting to be vocal, i think it's making a difference. a small one maybe, but it's noticeable.

 

in general, i try to avoid discussing politics these days. i used to follow everything, debate contantly, and get so riled up that my family didn't want to be around me. my husband had one friend that would intentionally bring up stuff just to badger me with... i'm not sure whether he liked me getting all upset, or if he liked making my husband squirm because of our heated discussion.

 

honestly, i have found i'm much happier, much more at peace, and less stressed out all the time since i quit engaging in political skirmishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly, i have found i'm much happier, much more at peace, and less stressed out all the time since i quit engaging in political skirmishes.

 

I have noticed a similar thing with myself. I used to debate anyone, anywhere, about any political issue. Now that I pick and choose more carefully, it makes things much more calm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LadyC

oh so we DO have something besides basic humanity in common!

 

(or maybe that is part of basic humanity?) :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) It certainly does get tiresome to be riled up all of the time, pretty hard to disagree with that. Peace is much better.

 

Oh, and for my original topic over in the welcome area, I was unable to continue responding to people once my account was put in the 'unbeliever' category. I don't want anyone to think I was being rude by not responding any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

My politics hang on abortion. If you ever voted for abortion choice, you won't get my vote. If I have no one to vote for, then I write in Jesus Christ. And, I don't debate politics and religion. I'll tell you where I stand if you ask me, but I never start a conversation or engage in debate about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they said. :happyhappy:

 

In the past I crossed party lines on certain issues (heck, back in in my atheistic hippie days I was a McGovern campaign worker!), but those days are gone. Anymore I just vote on the issues, and as far as candidates, I check their stance against the Word. If none of them line up with that, I'll write someone in. What I WON'T do is refuse to vote at all. Too many of my friends and brothers died face-down in the mud in some of the worst hellholes on the planet to buy us all that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am politically conservative, and would be a conservative regardless of my faith.  I first got involved in politics as a result of the damage being done to this country by the liberal policies of Jimmy Carter.  I attended my first Republican party meeting at age 15, and worked to round up votes for Ronald Reagan before I was old enough to vote.  I believe in small government and low taxes.  I would hold to those views regardless.  I was already pro-life and opposed to the homosexual agenda.  My religious views haven't made me change my original positions, but it has made one difference.  I was not only opposed to the homosexual agenda, but I hated homosexuals.  I used to tell people they should round them all up, put them on an island, and blow it up, and the world would be a better place.  Becoming a Christian has caused me to no longer hate homosexuals, only the sin.  I don't wish them harm, but desire they would come to the Lord and be saved.  Jesus has taken the hate out of my heart, but my Christian faith has made me stronger in my conservative political views.  I won't vote for any pro-choice candidate if there is a pro-life opponent, and I will not support candidates that support gay marriage.  That is not based on hatred, but on my belief that marriage is an institution created by God between a man and a woman, and my knowledge that God hates the sin of sodomy. 

 

Why do I believe in conservative politics?   I believe that liberal policies do more harm than good, even if they are done with good intentions.  My first job paid minimum wage, but I had already figured that I should do pretty good since I was living at home at the time, and had some idea what I should bring home.  I was shocked when I saw my first check, and all the money that was taken out for taxes and social security.  My income would have placed me below the poverty level, but I still had a huge chunk taken out by the government.  That was hardly helping the little guy.  I sought to get a job that would pay more money that I was fully qualified for, only to find out I couldn't have it because I was white.  Now I was dealing with reverse discrimination.  On another job, I was only allowed to work 38 hours a week, because if I slipped and wound up going past 40 hours, that meant I had to get time and a half.  I was on a flexible schedule, so I couldn't work a part time job.  The time and a half law meant to help the little guy harmed me.  I would have been glad to have worked 60 hours a week at regular pay, but I wasn't given that option.  I saw sewing factories in my town go under one by one, along with the retirement of many women, because of increases in the minimum wage.  All the things meant to help people made life harder for them, and I am not talking about the wealthy.  I believe in a government that is a small as possible, that requires as little tax money as possible, and that regulates us as little as possible.  I don't want the government making me buy insurance I don't want, or making me do things like wear a seat belt.  I want them to leave me alone.  I would rather have a society where the people sink or swim on their own, rather than have a massive welfare state.  For that reason, I would be an ultra conservative Republican or perhaps a pro-life Libertarian, regardless of my religious views. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blessings Michael

    Welcome to Worthy.........I am not really big on discussing politics but I do have a very strong conviction on politicians that have no regard for the One that placed them in a position where they can make a difference ,this Country was founded on the Word of God & anyone who does not uphold what is good,what is right & the things of God does not have my vote................God Bless America & I pray He continues to Bless us as a Nation,the Lord says I am to obey the law,submit to Authority & pray for my leaders.....I can do all those things whether I vote for them or not but I cannot & will not support immorality & sin,,,so I would have to say my Faith dominates my political views....................                                                                                                   With love-in Christ,Kwik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By TheresaHall
      The Social Democratic Party of Germany (the SPD) will hold an extra party congress on January, 21, which is practically aimed to determine the destiny of the future government of the country. The party members are to take a decision on the entering the coalition with the alliance CDU/CSU, won during the elections. However, according some data, there're series of agreements between the parties on the creation of a coalition under some specific conditions. This fact is proved with a correspondence between the Secretary-General of the SPD Lars Klingbeil and his ilk from the CDU Peter Tauber.
      Translation:
      Dear Dr. Tauber!
      The SPD leadership absolutely agrees with both Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Seehofer that it's necessary to find the way out of the current setup as soon as possible, and to form the government to avoid the escalation of the situation in society and in the country at large. In common with the CDU/CSU, we reject the idea to repeat parliamentary election, because we think it won't change the alignment of forces.
      In reply to your letter we inform you that the party board has discussed Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Seehofer's proposals on immigration and tax policy, and is ready to adopt a positive decision with some reservations. The SPD considers it possible to reach a compromise with the CDU/CSU and dissociate itself from the Female Young Socialists and Male Young Socialists in the event members of the SPD are named to the posts of the Federal Minister of the Interior, the Federal Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Federal Minister of Finance.
      If the Union provides our party a relevant reassurance, we're ready to sign an agreement on the formation of a coalition.   
      Best regards,
      Lars Klingbeil
      According to the message, the leaders of the SPD agree with the CDU/CSU on the matter that the formation of a new government is to be carried out as soon as possible for the avoidance of the destabilization of the situation in the country. In the words of the General-Secretary of the party, the SPD may be ready to reach a compromise with the CDU/CSU and sign an agreement on the formation of a coalition government, provided, however, that the social democrats get several key ministerial posts in the new government. Herewith, the leaders of the party expressed their readiness to 'be distant from the Female Young Socialists and Male Young Socialists' which stands against entering the coalition by the SPD.
      In this way, the leaders of the social democrats are ready to shy away from the party youth, carrying authority in the SPD, without thinking about the consequences. It's anybody's guess how the youth branch will react to such clams of the leadership. Perhaps, the leaders will be able to convince the young social democrats of the necessity of the entering the coalition, and in that case the breach will be avoided. One thing is pretty clear – the dissociation of the Female Young Socialists and Male Young Socialists won't have a positive influence neither on the reputation of the SPD, nor on its future. Such a decision will make impossible the renewal of the party, which will be left without bright leaders and original ideas, that in the future will lead the SPD to complete disintegration.

    • By Jen_nifer
      In which ways does (or does not) libertarianism correlate well with Christian values and beliefs?
    • By Anonymous77712
      I don't even know where to begin, but I need to say this. There is a huge moral and ethical scandal going on in American churches, and that involves sex abuse. And it's been going on for FAR too long.
      To everyone reading this post, this needs to be said right now, to everyone. I don't care what your beliefs are, I don't care who you know, I don't care what gender you are, what age you are, what your job is, etc. I don't care about ANY of that stuff! You have NO right, to take advantage of the vulnerable, or stick up for those who do, for your own disgusting personal gain! This isn't a matter of the recent Hollywood scandal, or any specific scandal, this is about a virus Satan has been spreading around underneath our willfully ignorant noses, and it needs to be stopped NOW!
      Church people, Christians, I DEMAND as a fellow Christian, that you start taking your beliefs about defending the vulnerable and weak seriously. The world is watching how we treat those very people, young and old. If Hollywood is doing a better job taking down and separating themselves from predators... This isn't only embarrassing, this is disgusting, shameful, and SINFUL!
      Church, God does not NEED YOU to defend his reputation! He doesn't NEED YOU for anything! And he does NOT offer forgiveness willy nilly to just anyone! People are ONLY given forgiveness when they REPENT! When they genuinely show they're sorry not just through their words but their actions! I don't care if the abuser is a pastor or elder or anything. If you have evidence that they abused, they need to be removed from their post and be kept far away as possible from people they can abuse until they can show themselves trustworthy. And I have the BIBLE to back me up on this!
      The fact of the matter is, as much as we would like to believe otherwise, there are evil people in this world. Evil people who do not have a conscience. No matter how bad someone's past may have been, people CHOOSE to abuse! And they DO NOT have my sympathy!
      In fact, I'd like to quote now from a person who can say it much better than I can. Seriously, if I could, I would make you read this post until you finish reading it, because this. is. serious.
      Does it seem harsh or un-Christian-like to you to refer to a child rapist as a pervert and a dirtbag? Or to call someone who would terrorize her own 2-year-old to the point that he can't catch his breath and is gasping for air, and then laugh at his panic, a sadist and a sociopath? Or to call a mother who stays married to the pedophile who raped her child, fails to do anything to protect that child, and then tops it all off by babysitting OTHER PEOPLE'S children and leaving them alone with the pervert so he can (and did) rape THEM too, a lowlife who belongs in the cell next to him? Is calling a baby-killer a "murderer" going to hurt his poor widdle feelings? Is there even a name bad enough, or should I say "descriptive" enough, to call a mother who would set up her own child to be raped repeatedly by her husband, to keep him from focusing his attention on HER? What about a father who pimps out his children to his friends for money and beer? Or the jackass who has a fight with his girlfriend and then beats their 5-week old baby to death for spite, to get back at her? Or the parents who lock their child in a room for seven years, make her use a litter box for a bathroom, and starve her so badly that she weighs only 35 pounds when she finally dies?
      Hey, they are what they are. I'm not here to help them feel good about themselves. Seriously, what else would you call them? What would be the politically correct way to refer to scum like this? "Slightly irresponsible"? "Child torture-challenged"? "Having low self-esteem which results in unintentional acting-out of their frustrations and beating the baby"? "Having boundary issues with sexually touching children"? "Being a little temperamental, sometimes resulting in accidentally going too far and killing a child"? Oh, puleeze. Enough, already.
      Someone who LIKES to see pain and gets their pleasure by making a helpless victim suffer is a SADIST. That's the definition of the word "sadist."A person who remorselessly and brutally inflicts his malice and violence on an innocent target, has absolutely no conscience or compassion about it, and in fact often then tries to use what he did to elicit sympathy for HIMSELF, is a SOCIOPATH. That’s what a sociopath IS. No, really. Look it up. Let's not disrespect the victims and minimize their experiences and pain by making up more pleasant sounding euphemisms to cover up their abusers' true natures. That sends a false message to victims and to the world, that what was done to them wasn't really so bad. But it WAS, so let's stop beating around the bush. Let's stand up and make our disapproval of and contempt for their abusers loud and clear. Tell it like it is.
      Jesus certainly didn't pull any punches when he called the Pharisees just about every name there was in the book at the time. Hypocrites, snakes, brood of vipers, unclean, greedy, whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones, blind fools, full of wickedness, sons of hell (Matthew 23:13-33). He used the strongest possible language of his day to denounce them. He made an example of them. He spoke, not just directly to the Pharisees, but for the benefit of everyone else within earshot. Do you think the people who heard him got his point? Evil is evil. It is never un-Christian-like to tell the truth, nor is it un-Christian-like to use strong language when you tell it.
      This is not a subject we need to be wishy-washy, calm, or easy-going about. We don't need to phrase it kindly lest we insult a dirtbag or offend his partners-in-crime. Using strong language to describe abusers and their enablers serves a purpose. It gets people's attention. It underscores for them just how disgusting, shameful, and, yes, EVIL, the behavior of these so-called "parents" is, and how disgusting, shameful, and EVIL the parents themselves are. It says if you protect an abuser by tolerating or minimizing abuse, then YOU are just as guilty as he is. It brings things that are often hushed-up or whispered about out into the open, and gives others the courage to stand up and tell it like it is, too. It makes a big deal out of something that many people would just as soon pretend isn’t happening or isn’t really that bad. It makes it UNACCEPTABLE to ACCEPT abuse. It drives home the point that abuse, and enabling abuse, is NOT "accidental." It is NOT something "they can’t help." It is NOT a "mistake" or a "misunderstanding." It is DESPICABLE. It is INTENTIONAL, DELIBERATE, and supremely SELFISH. Abusers victimize others to get their own needs met, and their enablers allow it, and even encourage it, to make their own lives easier and to get their own needs met. It's a sick, twisted dynamic. 
      And they continue until they are exposed, or better yet, arrested. They continue until the silence is broken. They continue until we stop circumventing the issues, coddling them, walking on eggshells around them, and talking about them in nice, mild, smiley-face terms - terms that are vague, deceptive, and fail to present the TRUE picture and emphasize the gravity of it to the listener. It's not OUR fault if the truth is ugly.
      They continue until they are embarrassed and shamed. Until someone stands up and shouts the truth about them from the rooftops. They continue until the people who know them stop sugar-coating their behavior, sweeping it under the rug, and making excuses for them, and start looking at them with the appropriate revulsion and loathing. They continue until nobody wants to be associated with them anymore, until others start avoiding them like the plague, and warning everybody else to stay away, too. In the Bible, this is referred to as "shunning," and it’s meant to produce shame and repentance. They continue until it gets through, not just to them, but to everyone around them, that what they are doing is WRONG, wicked, evil, and bad, bad, bad. Until we make our opinions of their behavior so crystal clear that there can be no mistaking our repulsion and condemnation for anything even slightly milder. They continue until we start forcing them to OWN what they are: degenerate, sadistic, sociopathic, psychopathic, lowlife, dirtbags.
      As for me, believe it or not, I do try to tone it down a bit. Imagine what my ramblings would sound like if I didn't! My calling as a Christian is to minister to the VICTIMS, not the abusers. Victims need to know that other people support them and agree that what was done to them was terrible, and that the lowlifes who did it are terrible. Survivors need to know that we validate them and their experiences. I'm here to help victims heal, to give them a voice, a nice, BIG voice. Not to help abusers gloss over, justify and feel okay with, or even good about, what they've done. Abusers don't deserve the privilege of being able to walk among the rest of us with their heads held high. I believe in letting the dirtbags live with the consequences of their own actions - including shame, embarrassment, and the disgust of good people everywhere. That's the way God made me. And I believe in keeping it up, relentlessly, until MAYBE, just maybe, they'll repent of their evil ways, turn to the Lord, and be saved.
      There you have it. Now tell me I'm not the only one who's willing to say all this. Hate is not the opposite of Love. The opposite of Love is indifference, passivity. I take this seriously because God takes this seriously. I hate sexual immorality, but I hate hypocrites even more. We need to show this is NOT okay, no matter who does it, and it never WILL be okay. And let me tell you, if I ever come across something like this in my church... There. is. going. to. be. HELL. to. pay.
    • By Gerardooo
      The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is the only canonical church in Ukraine recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 39 percent, that is, the majority of Ukrainian Orthodox is parishioners of the Moscow Patriarchate. There is another denomination - the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), which did not get the status of canonical. The UOC-KP is considered an alternative Orthodox (in religious terminology this is called "the schism", split of the church).

      How do the churches of the Moscow and Kiev Patriarchate differ in practice and why the first one is recognized as canonical? A person who goes to Ukrainian churches once or twice a year to put a candle on, will not find differences, but they are significant. The Moscow Patriarchate, for example, does not accept a free interpretation of prayer, inventing new icons or frescoes. For the clergy and parishioners of the UOC-MP it is inadmissible to pray for the peace of the conditional enemy-more precisely, they do not define enemies in principle, which can not be said about the UOC-KP. Also, the Moscow Patriarchate holds divine services in the Church Slavonic language, and the Kyiv Patriarchate in Ukrainian, translating the Holy Scripture in its own way.

      But the key difference is that the founder of the UOC-MP is Jesus Christ. The Church is in unity with the Universal Orthodoxy, with common ordinances, whereas the Kyiv Patriarchate recognizes only those ordinances that are pleasing to him. It was in order to undermine the unwanted faith, Ukrainian politicians developed a bill that oppresses the UOC-MP. Moscow Patriarchate decided to oblige to obtain from the state consent to the appointment of priests and abbots right up to the regional level.

      In such a situation, the threat of destroying the parishes of the country's main confession is an excuse for distraction. Political technology is clear: national radicals, hiding behind icons, will demand the closure of "pro-Moscow" temples throughout the country. Ukrainian citizens will stand up for their parishes, priests, spiritual guides. Examples, when the temples of the UOC-MP captured the banned in Russia nationalist groups, is already enough. In different regions of Ukraine radicals attack cult buildings, beat parishioners and forcibly transfer temples to the Kyiv Patriarchate.
    • By The_Patriot2018
      apparently, this town has ad og for a mayor. 
      This town is going to the dogs.
      A politically-minded pooch just won his third term as mayor in the small Minnesota town of Cormorant
      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dog-wins-term-small-town-minnesota-mayor-article-1.2763120
×