In the news

[kenod]

Societal values are not derived from some objective truth - they are manipulated and directed by groups within society, such as the news media, the entertainment media, and educational institutions, which for the most part, are not sympathetic to Christian values.

We are all subjected to values that do not reflect our personal position:
- allocation of government resources (welfare payments, arts grants etc)
- legal and illegal drugs
- age of consent
- school curriculum
- censorship
- military conflict

As a citizen and a parent, I believe I have the right to try to influence the legislative process to produce outcomes that are consistent with my opinions. If my opinions are based on my religious beliefs, should that disqualify me from participating in the process?

I think that is the point Katherine Harris was trying to make.

[kenod]

Trying to overturn the principle of separation of church and state, or just encouraging Christians to get involved in the political process - see Katherine Harris's interview in full, and judge for yourself:

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6298.article

At least read the answer to the question that sparked the church-state comment:

What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?

[BlaznFattyz]

making high moral and ethical decisions that would please the lord. although we have to serve a broad range of people, a christian character that does not lie, cheat, and steal, and loves his fellow man goes a long way.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by kenod

Trying to overturn the principle of separation of church and state, or just encouraging Christians to get involved in the political process - see Katherine Harris's interview in full, and judge for yourself:

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6298.article

At least read the answer to the question that sparked the church-state comment:

What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?

A role similar to the one that Joseph played in Egypt...

[truthseeker]

I know some folks have probably said this in other ways but I'm just gonna throw my stuff out here....

the US is a republic (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands....) and we are working on our Democratic values to keep down the possibility of revolts from the indentured servants - who are anyone that is not running the government. When the founding fathers sought to constitutionalize a federal government, they were thinking of themselves and those like them - those who were male, white, landowning, and Christian. Whatever we make this out to try to be in the meantime is fine - you know, whatever is gonna keep the possibility of revolts down to a minimum. The laws are following the Christian way of thinking. To run a government you have to develop a popular culture to keep everyone in like mind. There is no separation of church and state. You cannot truly conquer a people without infiltrating the belief system. In fact, for those who are truly involved in politics, the state is the church. And then maybe churches would have to pay taxes on the land like everybody else.

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by kenod

What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?

I think people of faith should play a very local role in government or an enlisted military role in government or the nation of people should be a really small and very peaceful government - one that need not necessarily be governed. If we are talking about a government such as the US, it would cease to be what it is if one of faith should run it.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

I know some folks have probably said this in other ways but I'm just gonna throw my stuff out here....

the US is a republic (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands....) and we are working on our Democratic values to keep down the possibility of revolts from the indentured servants - who are anyone that is not running the government. When the founding fathers sought to constitutionalize a federal government, they were thinking of themselves and those like them - those who were male, white, landowning, and Christian. Whatever we make this out to try to be in the meantime is fine - you know, whatever is gonna keep the possibility of revolts down to a minimum. The laws are following the Christian way of thinking. To run a government you have to develop a popular culture to keep everyone in like mind. There is no separation of church and state. You cannot truly conquer a people without infiltrating the belief system. In fact, for those who are truly involved in politics, the state is the church. And then maybe churches would have to pay taxes on the land like everybody else.

Have you read the "Federalist Papers"? What you opine above is in direct contrast to the personal thoughts of the founding fathers.

When asked by the people "What kind of government do we have?" Benjamin Franklin simply stated, "A Federal Republic...If you can keep it."

Furthermore, this nation is a diverse and dynamic nation. The only like mindedness that we may all agree on is being, American, and self governing.

v/r

Q

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

A role similar to the one that Joseph played in Egypt...

a benign dictatorship ... one day, Q, one day

[kenod]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

The laws are following the Christian way of thinking.

I can think of examples where that is correct, and examples where that is wrong.

The question implied by the initial post in this thread is to what extent Christians can try to impose their beliefs through legislation. It seems any other interest group can push their beliefs and opinions with as much zeal and conviction as they wish, but when a Christian, particularly a conservative Christian, tries to do it, they pull the old church-state thing.

You just have to look at how Katherine Harris was reported in most of the media ... taking comments out of context in an attempt to misrepresent and discredit her views.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by kenod

a benign dictatorship ... one day, Q, one day

Eh, wrong answer. Joseph was second in command. From prisoner then slave, to prisoner again, to the Pharoh's right hand man, Joseph conferred with the common folk, took their advice to heart, advised the Pharoh, and literally saved Egypt from starving to death. His was not that of a benign dictatorship, but one of a "republic" of sorts.

His is the only signator in Egyption history, that is Hebrew.

Oh, and if you are referring to God in heaven as the "One day" thingy, read the book of Revelation (4: 4 - 5: 8 might be an eye opener).

v/r

Q

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Oh, and if you are referring to God in heaven as the "One day" thingy, read the book of Revelation (4: 4 - 5: 8 might be an eye opener).
v/r
Q

I was actually thinking of the last two chapters of Revelation, and Joseph as a type of Jesus Christ: sold for pieces of silver, went down into the pit, and was raised to the right hand of power. Somehow, I don't think the Lord God runs a democracy ... but until that time comes, our two countries are about as good as it gets, I reckon

[taijasi]

The future of every country ... is a hierocracy. But we're a FAR cry from that, in even the most "developed" of countries. Mob rules, which is what most people seem to have dumbed democracy down to, is not what is desired. But so long as the most conservative elements of our society vote in the most unfit individuals to lead us into darkness ... there will be those people OF CONSCIENCE who object. Thus, I'd vote for almost ANY woman, over a male candidate (for US Presidency at least), ANY day!

Am I being biased? YOU BET. I'd vote for almost ANY liberal, or Democrat, over the alternative, ANY day. Is that a bias? YOU BET. And I'd vote for a diehard Humanist, who believed in equal rights, was pro-abortion (or right to choose), and emphasized the right to Freedom of Religion ... vs. one who espoused Christian doctrine as the "one truth path" - again, ANY day. Is that a bias? YOU BET.

And you know what? If Christ could whisper it in your ear, I believe He'd make the SAME VOTE, ANY DAY. It's about progress ... and when it comes to preservation of values, there has to be something to preserve.

Yes, our American slave-owning, Freemason forefathers might have been a bit hypocritical ... and certainly they were Christian deists, many of them. But based on what I know about a good number of them, I DO believe there was something there worth preserving. Currently, there's a lot of lip service, arse-wiping with the US Flag, and worse hypocrisy than ANY generation has seen since Washington's day.

Indeed, IF we ever had a true Christian candidate for office of US President ... I'd be honored to give her my vote. I pray - that that day may yet come in our lifetime.

Namaskar,

andrew

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by kenod

a benign dictatorship ... one day, Q, one day

[kenod]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

[kenod]

A woman Democrat for president ... ooh that's a tough one, let me guess