Christian Politicans

[Daniel]

Just saw this story.  Got to say I agree with Franklin on this one.  But it brings up a question.  If you are going to judge the Christianity of Gingrich and Santorum, why not give a definitive yes or no to the others.  Would it have been better had he just not said either way about any of them?

[Jax Agnesson]

Raquel said:

Unless, of course, you notice it is a bunch of bullies inviting a guest on so that they can gotcha him every step he takes, regardless of the direction.  That never happens on the bbc?? 

Yes it certainly does. This is a trial within the process of democracy, and quite legitimate.

If a fellow says that they believe in X (whether X is a more liberal take on immigration policies or their belief they will one day be the god of their own planet), we crazy USians want to know if they're telling the truth. 

Nothing crazy about that, Raquel. We Brits would also like a world in which politicians told the truth, as near as they could, most of the time.  Until then, we've got some hard-nosed journalists whose job it is to ask non-servile questions. The BBC, in fact, has got dozens of them! 

We want to know:

A) who we line up with most closely in words and

B) who we line up with most closely in deed.

Likewise.

Faith is, of course, a personal matter until it isn't.  And once it isn't then you can count on us judging those within (hence it even being talking about on this site).  I think that we would have a healthier system if these lame politicians would be honest. 

Don't hold yr breath!

Then we wouldn't have to dig and dig for who they really are.  If one was being honest about their beliefs (both religiously and otherwise) then it would be a wonderful indicator of how they will behave in the future. 

Broadly agree with all of this, Raquel. My question was really about whether you guys think religious affiliation is now too prominent a matter in US politics.

*an aside, I would much prefer a parliamentary system over what we currently have.  minus the bishops.  I like all of the yelling.

Me too. Prime Minister's Questions is a regular piece of theatre that allows politicians to be a bit rude and blunt. Personally I would like it to be a bit less ritualised, but it's probably healthier than an over-polite cynicism.

[joanne guarnieri]

I'm leaning with Raquel, Peter, but you bring up some important thoughts to consider. 

 

I don't think our nation started out as secular as Jax makes it sound.  After all, the US before that time had been the destination of many religious refugees, and was viewed by many as even, perhaps, a prototype of the Millennial Kingdom.

 

There was a majority of believers on the council of founding fathers (Washington being one of them) who pretty much admitted that the constitution wouldn't really work unless the people who abided by it, both those in governance and the citizens, agreed with the truths of scripture, and looked to God for help ("Original Intent," by Barton).

 

This whole concept of separation of church and state has really changed its tenor over the centuries.  All the original state constitutions had something in them about every statesmen needing to be men of faith.  That began to change about a hundred and fory years ago or so.

[Peter John Ellway]

"meh" - don't understand this! Are you disagreeing with me? I dare say that by serving God you will serve the people, but how do you know what God wants over Iranian nuclear weapons, healthcare, the economy and so on? George Bush believed that God wanted him to invade Iraq, but was he correct?

Raquel said:

Meh.  If you are a Believer, you are a servant first and foremost to the True King.  By serving Him, and Him alone, you serve the people in the best way possible.

[Francis Drake]

Jax,

Regarding your thoughts on our beloved Westminster Parliament.

To my understanding, when the House of Commons was designed, the two opposing bench arrangements, of necessity, had to have a floor space between larger than two sword lengths, as it was not uncommon for parliamentary debates to end in bloody violence.

Prime Minister's question time would be far more interesting if politicians were allowed, or better still mandated, to wear swords again. It would weed out some of the dross.

Jax Agnesson said:

Raquel said:

Unless, of course, you notice it is a bunch of bullies inviting a guest on so that they can gotcha him every step he takes, regardless of the direction.  That never happens on the bbc?? 

Yes it certainly does. This is a trial within the process of democracy, and quite legitimate.

If a fellow says that they believe in X (whether X is a more liberal take on immigration policies or their belief they will one day be the god of their own planet), we crazy USians want to know if they're telling the truth. 

Nothing crazy about that, Raquel. We Brits would also like a world in which politicians told the truth, as near as they could, most of the time.  Until then, we've got some hard-nosed journalists whose job it is to ask non-servile questions. The BBC, in fact, has got dozens of them! 

We want to know:

A) who we line up with most closely in words and

B) who we line up with most closely in deed.

Likewise.

Faith is, of course, a personal matter until it isn't.  And once it isn't then you can count on us judging those within (hence it even being talking about on this site).  I think that we would have a healthier system if these lame politicians would be honest. 

Don't hold yr breath!

Then we wouldn't have to dig and dig for who they really are.  If one was being honest about their beliefs (both religiously and otherwise) then it would be a wonderful indicator of how they will behave in the future. 

Broadly agree with all of this, Raquel. My question was really about whether you guys think religious affiliation is now too prominent a matter in US politics.

*an aside, I would much prefer a parliamentary system over what we currently have.  minus the bishops.  I like all of the yelling.

Me too. Prime Minister's Questions is a regular piece of theatre that allows politicians to be a bit rude and blunt. Personally I would like it to be a bit less ritualised, but it's probably healthier than an over-polite cynicism.

[joanne guarnieri]

but was he correct?

 

Aye, there's the rub

 

This gets into the part of our faith that is so very difficult to quantify, that has in it the strains of God's sovereignty, understanding His will, what does it mean to be led by the Spirit and so on. 

 

We can look to the results and try to decide.  But the truth is, God has commanded wars in the past, and for His greater purposes, that have what for us are terrible aftermaths.

 

So we have to end up doing our best with what we have and believe, in faith, that God in all His attributes continues to guide the courses of events according to His own wise plan.

[Raquel]

Jax said:

"Broadly agree with all of this, Raquel. My question was really about whether you guys think religious affiliation is now too prominent a matter in US politics."

Sorry.  Got caught up in my own thoughts.  I would say affiliation, absolutely.  A tiger is a tiger unless it is a tiger.  Those that affiliate themselves in order to gain approval are much more detrimental to the people than those that say, "you know what, I've been to church a few times and I'm not into it.  Regardless, I will lead in this way."  The latter are also much more appealing as leaders.  I think this is why Ron Paul has a cult following.  And as you saw on the video, that's where the confusion comes in to those outside the church.  To them, a tiger is one if he says so.  But then what do we do with other tigers?

"Personally I would like it to be a bit less ritualised, but it's probably healthier than an over-polite cynicism."

Oh man.  We are drowning in over-polite cynicism over here. 

[Raquel]

Francis said:

"Prime Minister's question time would be far more interesting if politicians were allowed, or better still mandated, to wear swords again. It would weed out some of the dross."

Then I would really root for that system over here. 

[Ryan]

LOL

Raquel said:

tiger tiger tiger

[Jax Agnesson]

X2

Ryan said:

LOL

Raquel said:

tiger tiger tiger

[Norrin Radd]

OTOH, they are not advocating genocide, which our God sometimes did, and one could consider that the assertion that they are obeying their "corporate handlers" rather than their own beliefs and consciences is evidence that the accuser is following the slanderous example of satan.

Just sayin'.

bob johnson said:

Both Gingrich and Santorum are shouting WAR, more WARS, killing and maiming thousands of more people, blowing billions of more dollars, just to do the bidding of their corporate handlers. Yeah, real Christian attitude that is.

[Jax Agnesson]

Can't think of anyone who's been more slandered than Satan.  When did Satan ever command a genocide? But nobody ever writes anything good about him.

Just sayin'. ;)

Norrin Radd said:

OTOH, they are not advocating genocide, which our God sometimes did, and one could consider that the assertion that they are obeying their "corporate handlers" rather than their own beliefs and consciences is evidence that the accuser is following the slanderous example of satan.

Just sayin'.

bob johnson said:

Both Gingrich and Santorum are shouting WAR, more WARS, killing and maiming thousands of more people, blowing billions of more dollars, just to do the bidding of their corporate handlers. Yeah, real Christian attitude that is.