Question??.........."Will They Get To Heaven?"

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt What indeed? Look, in our family we have a bit of everything. Catholics, Protestants (including hard core conservatives) atheists, agnostics, and several of degrees of all these; plus some stuff you maybe never heard of. I am happy for all who believe whatever they want and if it provides a lifestyle and a comfort level, so much the better. Unless their views negatively impact me, I have no problem. Of course, in the real world there is always that danger. JG

JG, that's a great attitude!

[Gumby]

..

[youbet]

Yep, I've noticed that same thing Gumby. Very well stated. Thanks for that post.

[brewer12345]

I'm not sure I buy your analysis, Gumby. Rethuglicans have tried wrapping themselves in exreme religious views in many places (especially in the South and West) because the idiot "core" voters they think they can carry to get their 51% respond to this nonsense. Centrists tend to ignore this stuff, and those of us who are religious but Democrat/liberal wouldn't even think of voting for these slimebags and generally separate politics from our faith. So when I see some right wing thug posing as the "Xtian" candidate, all it translates to for me is "religious extremist roughly equivalent to a Jihadist."

Frankly, unless the Pope or one of his understudies (bishop, priest, etc.) endorses a candidate, I will remain unconvinced that any of these so-called "Xtian" politicians are any more religious/Christian/moral than a used condom.

[Gumby]

..

[brewer12345]

Gumby, I think we are operating under different premises. You seem to believe that people can be convinced by the positioning of the other side. That might work for the centrists, but for Inbred Jed the Xtian Conservative (and Patrick Fitgerald & Gerald Fitzpatrick, the Upper East Side gay couple) I doubt that is a valid assumption. Since all politicians care about these days is getting to 51% of voters (not building a coalition/consensus), we will continue to see more divisive campaigns based on meaningless "wedge" issues.

[samclem]

Just out of curiosity--Did Jesus ask his followers to care for the weak, or did he tell them to have their government do it with money seized from other people? I think only the later course of action requires religion to drive a political solution.

But, your observation is a good one. There's a fundamental schism in the Republicam party between "social conservatives" (generally Christians who want the government to force their view of what s "right" on everyone) and limited-government conservatives (who want less intrusion by government in peples lives). These views are fundamentally incompatible, but both groups hold their nose and vote Republican because they fear the alternative (a bigger government that doesn't impose "morals").

I just wish religious groups would tend to their knitting without demanding to put the coercive power of government at their disposal. Do you think the best way to help the poor is to give them money? Okay, give them all you want to give them, but don't ask the government to collect alms for you. Do you think homosexuality is wrong? Okay, go ahead and fight to keep them out of private organizations (e.g. the Boy Scouts, your church, etc) but don't use the power of government to discriminate against gays for employment in the public sector.

Some issues can't be handled this way, but most can. Both religion and government are better off when kept separate.

[yakers]

Its worse that that, one of the problems of getting religion mixed up in politics is that you get politics mixed up in religion. The republican right wants to use the state to advocate conservative religious practices. They specifically are attacking liberal churches who have a socially active agenda, like opposing the current war. My church is literally under attack by the current administration sending in the IRS while conservative churches continue their political agendas. Getting rid of liberal churches is part of the republican plan for getting rid of liberals.

http://tinyurl.com/yk9ug4

[donheff]

Bruce Bawer's "Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity" makes this claim very well.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yakers Its worse that that, one of the problems of getting religion mixed up in politics is that you get politics mixed up in religion. The republican right wants to use the state to advocate conservative religious practices. They specifically are attacking liberal churches who have a socially active agenda, like opposing the current war. My church is literally under attack by the current administration sending in the IRS while conservative churches continue their political agendas. Getting rid of liberal churches is part of the republican plan for getting rid of liberals. http://tinyurl.com/yk9ug4

If you listen to any radio profgram from "Focus on the Family" (James Donson's platform for gay-bashing), it sounds an awful lot like a political advertisement for a certain party. Yet they mysteriously don't seem to have any tax issues.

I think Pope Benedict and his minions are safe.

[Nords]

I always thought the moral majority was the vocal minority.

[
I believe it says so right on Form 990...

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 I think Pope Benedict and his minions are safe.

There's plenty of money and influence there, so I'm sure they're safe. But the pope's crew is not free from activities to acheive political influence. We have both an AM radio station and a cable TV station here that shout out mr. pope's point of view 24 x 7!

But, why should they be different?

[Gumby]

..