Should Christians Be Involved in Politics?

Post Reply New Topic

In this presentation, Dr. Frank Turek explains not only that those who serve Christ should be actively involved in the political arena, but how and why. Around the 32-minute mark, he also shows a 12-minute video at a Planned Parenthood clinic, exposing what really goes on at some of these locations.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFM4bTAhBQM[/youtube]

Another Christian Fundamentalist pulling off the classic Bait-and-Switch con game.

Bait: "Christians in Politics, Good or Evil?"

Switch: "Abortion is Evil; Just Watch this Video!" That's called "Having a Hidden Agenda", folks!

The video only covers one of many issues included in this presentation. Frank also discusses slavery, religious freedoms, the Constitution, and many others.

Slavery, the subjugation of women, and imperialism by genocide are Biblical principles. They are also founding principles of the Constitution - it took later amendments to (partially) eliminate the first two, while the last one is still being practiced today (Iraq, Afghanistan, et cetera).

As long as they don't try to force religious beliefs into politics, then yes.

I don't see why religious beliefs should have any bearing on your activity in politics. Other than the potential for prejudice from your constituents.

At they end of the day you can't really limit citizens in politics, except for perhaps serving criminals and children.

However religion shouldn't have privilege in politics. Often religious positions are given some special status, in communities where it is involved in some political processes, with privilege.

It would depend on how you're defining "religion", because to quote this forum, everyone has an "ultimate concern" about the nature of life. As I've posted in other threads, the First Amendment was never designed to keep religious influence completely away from the federal government. You can find my explanation of that right here.

There were multiple forms of "slavery" in the Bible, including the one we most associate with that term today...but that doesn't mean God was behind it. While its true that women were treated terribly in first-century Israel, the Bible does say that God Himself respected them a lot more. Jesus even sought out a Samaritan woman at midday, which most of that era would've seen as a heresy. Also, the implication of genocide requires historical examination, not to mention explaining why its objectively wrong for the Creator of all life to take it back at His own discretion.

Virtually every politician in American history claimed to be "Christian". so why even ask the question?

In the USA thats the only kind of politicians there are!

Christian, muslim or jewish individuals should have the right to be in politics but not parties that use biblical or quaranic literalism as their manifesto.

I'd like to think most sane people would use their vote to keep church/synagogue/mosque and state seperate.

There are some leading members of Congressional SCIENCE committees who brag about how much they distrust and deny science because of their fundamentalist Christian beliefs. It seems very wrong to me to have people who are so blatantly ignorant about science (and PROUD of being that ignorant) having any say at all in matters of policy concerning science. While it is not absolute, chances are that the more right wing a politician is, the more out of touch he or she is with demonstrable reality.

I make a point to vote against any politician who denies the fact of evolution because anyone that delusional and misinformed about science, anyone so clearly unable to reason from evidence, really shouldn't be in any position of authority about anything especially if they have their finger on the big red button. It is just as ridiculous as if they were to insist the earth is flat or say that gravity does not happen. It IS that stupid!

I am quite certain that the US constitution (through the No Religious Test Clause of the original Constitution and the Establishment & Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment) is quite adamant - regardless if you ask Scalia or Ginsburg - in determining that people are allowed to be involved in politics regardless of their religious conviction.

Earlier this week I congratulated a British Member of Parliament who is a devout Christian, and had previously promised me he wouldn't vote for war, for being true to his word and his beliefs by being one of the 30 rebels who refused to follow the party whip and vote for war against Syria, but for the likes of him who have Morals larger than their political ambitions, we might be in World War 3 by now.

I wouldn't vote for an evolutionist, descendants of Amoebas don't inspire confidence in me that they could actually think for themselves and make the right decision in a vote, whilst its true they have evolved enough to be able to go down which ever voting lobby they have been told to by the whips, if the whips themselves are of the Amoeba lineage then the results bound to be bad.

The Bible says that the first humans were fashioned from lumps of mud.

How is that better, or even substantially different, than coming from microbes?

It is quite unlikely that anyone eligible for any elected office on Earth descended from amoeba.

Amoeba do not even belong to the Animalia kingdom.