Should Christians Be Involved in Politics?

Post Reply New Topic

Patterns of nested hierarchies in the genetic data are perhaps the strongest evidence for evolution, but like I said, they don't just stand alone but are backed up by other types of evidence including the fossil record that say the same thing.



Huh? What I am saying is that if you go back fifty million years, there were no dogs or cats but instead a population of breeding organisms that both of those "kinds" later developed from. After they split off then the cats became different kinds of cats and the dogs became different kinds of dogs, but originally they were ONE population, NOT separate "kinds." The genetic evidence shows this AND it is backed up by the fossil record and other types of evidence.

You might not have known that. IF you DID know that and still deny evolution that would make me wonder even more, but based on your words it seems you do NOT know what I just told you. By all means do not take my word for it. Look it up.

IF you only go to creationist websites though, you are doing yourself a disservice. Such websites (even though they claim to be for God) are notorious for ignoring, distorting and denying the truth if the truth conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible. It doesn't take much research to see how blatantly dishonest most creationist web sites are. Look up "quote mining."

First of all he didnt say "dogs came from cats". He just got through saying dogs and cats came from a common ancestor that was niether a modern cat nor a modern dog, but that one time far back in time dogs and cats were 'the same basic kind".


Second you yourself are stating that all members of the cat family 'developed from a common ancestor'. And by implication all members of any 'family' level of taxonomy probably did the same. The dog family from that groups common ancestor. Horses, donkeys, and zebras from a common ancestor. And that all african apes, including humans evolved from a common ancestor.

So you're actually admitting that a lot of evolution has actually occured!
And that a high level of a nested hierarchy ( a whole taxomic family) can have a common ancestor!

You have not stated what magic force would stop even higher levels of taxonomy (all carnivores, all mammals, all animals,all life itsself) from having common ancestors as well -given enough time to evolve.

So basically youve given away the farm, and admitted to believing in evolution!

Lol!

BTW- its true that almost all cultures have legends of humans interacting with dragon-like creatures. But all cultures also have legends of 'wee people'- pixies, elfs, fairies, leprachans, and so forth as well.

So are pixies real too?

We dont find skeletons of pixies. But we do find skeletons of big dragon-like creatures that we call 'dinosaurs'.

But how is it that dinosaurs know exactly where to go when they die?

How do they know to go to the right geologic strata, and only to that strata?

How do they know not to mix with human remains, nor even mix with non-human large mammal remains, nor with trilobite remains, nor even with the remains fo the wrong other dinosaurs?

How do jurassic dinosaurs know not to deposits their remains amongst the remains of triassic, or of Cretatious dinosaurs?

A very commendable and wise personal policy to vote against science deniers. While I fancy myself a believer, I also accept that evolution is a fact, and that to deny it's very existence is the worst sort of ignorance.

If you want to enter politics on an overtly Christian agenda, stand for a Commons seat. Don't use religious privilege to foist your views on others.

Outside of Northern Ireland, Christian religious politics will not get you anywhere near the Commons.

(In that vein, I would like the Bishops to be removed from the House of Lords.)

Christians have as much right to be involved in politics as Jews or Muslims or Atheists.

Absolutely. But none of those Christians, Jews, and Muslims should be playing the religion card while running for office.

There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting anyone in the federal government from preferring one belief system more than another, or using the morals gained from that in their political decisions. The only benchmark is if they try to make any religious observance legally mandatory, or use their elected position to punish religious groups. What's really unconstitutional is the removal of Christian or Jewish displays from government buildings, because there's nothing in our founding documents prohibiting such displays.

One can prefer whatever they want, but if they make that preference a law, they will violate the Establishment Clause.


Like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), for instance. How nice of Congress to actually *admit* that they were harassing homosexuals for religious reasons in that case...

Oh, and I assume that you meant "or use their elected position to punish religious or non-religious groups".


Although I would have to look at the specific context to make an informed opinion, such a display could violate The Establishment Clause.

My answer to this would be along the lines of considering that Christians want to follow Christ, then what did he do? Was he involved in politics?

To answer the OP, yes and no. No, because the Apostles and Jesus did not enter politics, and Jesus denounced it by refusing to say he was a nation state leader and saying his kingdom wa snot of this world. However, I do think we should protect our basic freedoms, that being the fruit of our labor, God given rights, and civil liberties. Otherwise, it seems like Jesus wa sinto direct action and voluntary interaction. But that is just my opinion.

True, but the government doesn't promote traditional marriage for religious reasons. Just because something is consistent with a religious book or belief, that doesn't mean there can't be laws regarding such issues. As I said in another thread, if we took away every law consistent with any religious text, there probably wouldn't be any left at the end.

DOMA was about maintaining the sexual parameters of marriage as its always been legally defined, since the foundation of this country. No one was trying to change anything outright except the homosexual advocates, who weren't concerned with equality or permission. What they wanted was promotion on a national scale, but that shouldn't happen because its destructive to society as a whole.

Non-religious groups don't exist, because everyone has ideas about the purpose of human life, and who or what guides it. Atheism is more a conscious rejection of supernatural authority, than an outright lack of belief in the supernatural. If so-called "atheists" really didn't believe in God, they'd be completely unaffected by any mention of Him. Their continued anger towards religious people - particularly Christians and Jews - serves as evidence of the truth in their hearts.

No, because in order to understand that clause correctly, you have to use the 18th-century primary definition of "establish", when used in a religious sense. The First Amendment explicitly limits the power of the U.S. Congress - not any other branch of government - to decide if any belief system should be made mandatory in observance or punishable for failure. All other concerns in this regard were originally left to each individual state, and should've remained there. The Supreme Court, the President, or any other federal branch having any say in religious laws or policies goes directly against the First Amendment.

Jesus actually was involved in political matters, because His main opponents (the Sanhedrin) served as both the main religious and political leaders of that time. Jesus challenged their hypocritical policies, like construing any kind of physical exercise as "work", such as carrying a rolled mat in hand down a street. They tried tricking Him on tax issues, presenting Him with a coin bearing the image of Caesar Augustus. He told them clearly, "give to Caesar what is his, but give to God also what is His."

Actually (the bolded text) that is EXACTLY what the government did with DOMA.


And Dred Scott v. Sandford was about maintaining the racial parameters of slavery as it had always been legally defined, since the foundation of your country.


I don't think that the Supreme Court would lift as much as an eyebrow in support of this interpretation of the First Amendment. And I think that Scalia and Thomas would probably be the ones most adamant in rejecting it.


The. United. States. Constitution. Is. Silent. On. How. To. Interpret. The. United. States. Constitution.

But is preferring one religious group over another actually a good thing? From Reagan onward, Republicans have given special favoritism to Southern Baptists and other evangelicals at the expense of mainline denominations. That's even though evangelicals, for riding their high moral horse, often have fallen short by way of their own public scandals, have demonstrated they are overbearingly judgmental, and hold to very shallow doctrinal positions. Yet, because certain political leaders in Washington DC often hail from regions where such kind of religion holds sway, they're given influence that's hardly deserved.

Yet plenty of us are not so happy with the preferential treatment that has been given to Southern Baptists and other evangelicals at the expense of more mainline denominations. That's especially since evangelicals have fallen short of their own moral standards with their public sexual and financial scandals, their intolerance and bigotry, their attacks on legitimate science, and their shallow doctrine.

First, everyone falls short of God's standard, no matter how pious they may appear. God's no respecter of one person over another, in terms of His love for them. Every organized group - religious or not - has hypocrites, which is why its so important to evaluate a belief system by its founder, not practitioners.

Jesus was not some "avoid all offense" kind of person. He was kind and gentle when needed, but also knew when to be bold and direct. He openly confronted the Pharisees in public, calling them "children of Satan", "vipers", and "fit for hell". He even drove a bunch of gamblers out of the main temple once, with a triple-cord braided whip! The one and only Son of God was a revolutionary, not just a "good moral teacher". When the situation called for it, He got in people's faces, telling them the truth whether they liked it or not. He didn't condemn anyone personally, but made no secret of the penalty for sin. He prayed for those who crucified Him, begging the Father to forgive them in spite of their hate...and today, he offers mercy that we can never hope to earn, to anyone humble enough to admit the truth about their sinful nature, and forsake it for His undeserved grace.