It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does the Religious Right vote and fight against Social Mercy? (revised title)

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 



And that right there is the problem. It is easier to bury your head in the sand than realize that there are no "good" options for a Christian voter. And I do have sympathy for them in that sense.

As an orthodox Christian, I agree, neither Democrat or Republican (or anyone else, near as I can tell,) represents Christian values.

I believe that the greatest evil in America today is abortion on demand, which can really only be addressed by political means, so to keep to my conscience, my voting is influenced by that issue.

As for the "sheeps and goats" bit, I address that with my own almsgiving and volunteer work -- I do not expect the government to do my work for me, and I would not vote counter to my conscience, even if I did trust them to do the poor some good. Somehow, I think that, when brought before Christ, he'll be a little more in favour of "I spent my free time helping the poor" than "I voted Democrat, so I took care of the poor."




posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BuzzyWigs
 


As a person who has a grandmother and many, many, many cousins from the South, let me just tell you, that the poorest in the South, are Democrats.

Yes, my relatives are poor. My dad came from West Virginia, I have heard all my life "the rich get richer and the poor keep getting poorer, so vote Democrat". He just didn't want to get a job, even in the times when jobs were easy to find. So yes, I grew up extremely poor and told over and over again that the reason I went hungry was the "evil" rich Republicans.

Let me also tell you what I have seen, people who stand in line to get a free Obama phone but won't walk into the business to fill out an application for a job that is posted in the very parking lot where they are standing and waiting for the free phone. Imagine that. And they say "I don't have a job because there aren't any", well there was the freakin' day you stood in line to get something free, you just didn't go apply. This was in Marion, Indiana.

From this side of the fence, the truth is that when Republicans are getting leery of constantly handing out checks to people who demand them, on the basis of nothing more than "you owe it to me because I am American" and then go to Democratic rallies and scream "Republicans suck". I've heard it all my life, mostly from my southern relatives. Demand, demand, demand and then do nothing in return.

If you want to see how the South really works then go to Perry, Letcher, Leslie, Hyden, Harlan, Breathitt, Owsley, Lee and Pike Counties in Kentucky. You tell me why the Democratic held counties also have the highest poverty rates in the country. You tell me why Owsley County has the HIGHEST poverty rate in the entire country, I have been there, my relatives are from there and I know how it works. Don't blame the Republicans. BTW, in most counties in Kentucky, you can get killed for being Republican, how's that for the rich keep getting richer?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



That is not what it means at all friend. What it means it you have a choice to make. God is Love. This is a hard thing for me to describe because no word really describes Love accept for Love itself, however Altruism is the best definition of Love that I can give.

All good then. Now we are getting somewhere...
yes, God (imo) is love. I am able to perceive it because I'm a parent....



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

adjensen


I believe that the greatest evil in America today is abortion on demand, which can really only be addressed by political means, so to keep to my conscience, my voting is influenced by that issue.


Even in my most anti-religious days, the frivolous nature of abortion in america always struck me as "wrong"

Rather than take precaution, retroactive action is favored? That never made sense, I was always for Rape, and or risk of death abortion. But for anything else, that is absurd, even at my most logical I could not reconcile the lost potential in general.

After I found my faith, I am still okay with risk of life abortion, and incest or genetic reasons (downs, etc), its even more disturbing from a faith based perspective though.

For me however, I can honestly say I've never seen a Politician "fit" my views or faith, only closely pander, its almost by definition to get to that level of politics that you have to have sold out your faith.

From a "faith" based world view, the leaders would almost have to be on the wrong team.

edit on 20-3-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



As a person who has a grandmother and many, many, many cousins from the South, let me just tell you, that the poorest in the South, are Democrats.

See, this is what I would think!! This is what I have absorbed since 2008.....

The most oppressed voted for Obama; yet there's this weird anti-southern-democrats thing going on.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Very powerful post. I appreciate you taking the time to add it.

I'm going to read it again, but my initial reaction is 'what is going on here, then?'

Media slant? Government propaganda? Justification for Imperialist wars?

That's where I'm thinking it belongs. So maybe - there's a remote possibility that we on ATS could agree - and stop the mudslingingwar, based on investigation.

Thanks again.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

benrl

adjensen


I believe that the greatest evil in America today is abortion on demand, which can really only be addressed by political means, so to keep to my conscience, my voting is influenced by that issue.


Even in my most anti-religious days, the frivolous nature of abortion in america always struck me as "wrong"

Rather than take precaution, retroactive action is favored? That never made sense, I was always for Rape, and or risk of death abortion. But for anything else, that is absurd, even at my most logical I could not reconcile the lost potential in general.

After I found my faith, I am still okay with risk of life abortion, and incest or genetic reasons (downs, etc), its even more disturbing from a faith based perspective though.

For me however, I can honestly say I've never seen a Politician "fit" my views or faith, only closely pander, its almost by definition to get to that level of politics that you have to have sold out your faith.

From a "faith" based world view, the leaders would almost have to be on the wrong team.

edit on 20-3-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)


The only thing abortion rights have done is save the lives of women from back alley abortions, that's all. Now they get infections and even bleed to death in the most sterile clinics.

Why do people want government to solve their moral problems when the morality lies in the heart of the individual? Maybe because some politicians who have faith see that morality is under attack.

Row vs. Wade didn't just make it easy for women to get abortions, it actually said that life is only precious to the individual. That's all. Do people really think that the majority of abortions are women who are afraid of Down's Syndrome or it was the result of rape or incest?

I'm a woman who never had children because I could never have them, so it's interesting to hear how this is a woman's rights issue. I know young women who have had abortions, and their argument wasn't that it was rape, incest or for Down's Syndrome, they said "the government says it's OK, I don't want to have a kid now, so I got an abortion".

So their right is just to do what they want because the government says it is OK?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 



Even in my most anti-religious days, the frivolous nature of abortion in america always struck me as "wrong"

What about the women who became pregnant when birth-control (precaution) failed?

While the father had/has vocally stated his intention to not participate in any way to the well-being of the child? And the impregnated gal was from a family that would have stoned/disowned/rejected her for becoming pregnant?

It's all mixed in...don't you see? Have you read The Scarlet Letter? (Or seen the movie?)





edit on 3/20/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



My opinion is that you believe because your body is not you.

There are loads of people who beileve that your body is not 'you' - that we are spiritual beings having a physical experience, who are not 'religiously affiliated'.

Knowing that the body is not 'you' (the higher soul) doesn't require that one accept Jesus's supposed thing he did, though.

I am comfortably comfortable with realizing that our souls are immortal; that there is something (benevolent) beyond our physical death...but I'm rather negative about everyone being destined for eternal torture.

Since we all make mistakes, well - it seems that "Whomever" doesn't really care what religion someone adopts.
We know that we will make mistakes, and that's human, and that's what it is. Made that way.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Very powerful post. I appreciate you taking the time to add it.

I'm going to read it again, but my initial reaction is 'what is going on here, then?'

Media slant? Government propaganda? Justification for Imperialist wars?

That's where I'm thinking it belongs. So maybe - there's a remote possibility that we on ATS could agree - and stop the mudslingingwar, based on investigation.

Thanks again.


Media slant "There are truly no poor white people in the United States"
Government propaganda "All blacks are oppressed"
Justification for Imperialist wars "Let's not create jobs in areas we know we have oil, because like coal we will pollute the environment"

Truth: There are not only poor white people, they have endemic generational poverty over 200 years.
Truth: There are many successful and wealthy blacks, even Republican and Tea Party members.
Truth: Coal keeps the lights on, but let's tell the coal industry that we will bankrupt it, vote for me. Meanwhile, let's pollute Canada because of Keystone, even though Canadians are protesting.

In the meantime, Parti Quebecois has believed all of our media slant, government propaganda and imperial justifications for war based on conspiracy theorism originating in the United States. We have to be really careful and understand that rampant accusations and denial can lead to serious implications

news.nationalpost.com...

Where did that politician get her "information" from? The KKK.
edit on 3/20/2014 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Truth: There are not only poor white people, they have endemic generational poverty over 200 years.
Truth: There are many successful and wealthy blacks, even Republican and Tea Party members.
Truth: Coal keeps the lights on, but let's tell the coal industry that we will bankrupt it, vote for me. Meanwhile, let's pollute Canada because of Keystone, even though Canadians are protesting.

In the meantime, Parti Quebecois has believed all of our media slant, government propaganda and imperial justifications for war based on conspiracy theorism originating in the United States.

Yikes.

I haven't heard of Parti Quebecois before.

As for coal, I'm an advocate for conservation and non-violent (to the planet, our mother) energy extraction....

War is just wrong, though.

I think the Keystone pipeline might have done damage to the environment (while providing jobs)...is that in your opinion not true? I'd rather see alternative fuel tech being developed. ETA: And society caring for it's needy.....
at the same time....

I guess it's impossible, though.
Sadness.

edit on 3/20/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Truth: There are not only poor white people, they have endemic generational poverty over 200 years.
Truth: There are many successful and wealthy blacks, even Republican and Tea Party members.
Truth: Coal keeps the lights on, but let's tell the coal industry that we will bankrupt it, vote for me. Meanwhile, let's pollute Canada because of Keystone, even though Canadians are protesting.

In the meantime, Parti Quebecois has believed all of our media slant, government propaganda and imperial justifications for war based on conspiracy theorism originating in the United States.

Yikes.

I haven't heard of Parti Quebecois before.

As for coal, I'm an advocate for conservation and non-violent (to the planet, our mother) energy extraction....

War is just wrong, though.

I think the Keystone pipeline might have done damage to the environment (while providing jobs)...is that in your opinion not true? I'd rather see alternative fuel tech being developed. ETA: And society caring for it's needy.....
at the same time....

I guess it's impossible, though.
Sadness.

edit on 3/20/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


I am of the opinion that if we are to create clean energy it should be from within the United States and should create jobs here. I have weighed the pros and cons of nuclear energy and really can't agree that nuclear is safe. So I am opposed to nuclear energy because the implication of destruction is just too great for this country.

But the coal industry not only keeps the lights on, it also is part of the steel industry of which most of our consumer goods are made from. It's a terrible Catch-22.

Nuclear energy requires a massive amount of water to keep the reactors cool, and that's water that could be diverted for more beneficial use. I realize there are many hospitals and schools and such places that benefit from nuclear, but the removal and dumping of nuclear waste is in trucks that travel our interstates. I think the risk is too great not only for spills, but someone could steal the nuclear waste for dirty bombs.

Our population is so huge now and requires so much natural resources. I am opposed to paper waste and dislike getting advertisement flyers of coupons, because it is all just paper waste. We are stuck until someone comes up with something better. Tesla cars are an alternative, but they don't cause as much pollution, but the EPA gets tax dollars for enforcing clean air standards, so keep on polluting and they keep getting money.

There is no easy answer to anything, but we have to weigh the pros and cons of everything. The government needs to release restrictions against family subsistence farming that was popular until Franklin Roosevelt made it illegal. But we are a consumer driven society.

During the Industrial Revolution in Victorian England, many children were born sickly from all the pollution. I don't think we want to go back to those early days. And while people suffered horribly in those conditions and wealthy people made fortunes off it, people did see the need for making it illegal for children to work, and most of that was done through Social and Christian agencies who were the first advocates for social justice.

I think the US should reassess their consumerism, but then again consumerism feeds hungry children. It's a terrible condition with no easy answers. But if science can create nuclear energy, why are wind farms being protested? Here in Indiana, there is a big debate over wind farms, because people don't like the loud sounds created. Again, if it reduces dependency on nuclear energy or traditional electrical coal powered stations, then maybe the loud sounds won't be so bad.

How do we change it? There are no easy answers. Everything we think about affects another part of our society.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

luciddream
reply to post by Bone75
 





...without a belief in God (big G), I probably would have killed a whole lotta people by now....


That... is really troubling me right now...


Because you've never had an evil thought right? Have you ever been the victim of extreme violence or loved someone who was? If so then you've contemplated killing someone before... whether you want to admit it or not. I honestly don't see how anyone could go a whole lifetime without wanting to kill someone at some point along the way.

The only difference between us is the foundation upon which our self control was built. I've always considered the voice of reason in my head as being from a divine source, whereas you attribute your's to social conditioning.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   

stirling
What is gobsmacking about this scenario?
It pretty common knowledge that religion is a tool of control.
Is it so surprising that the poorest are programmed to blame a boogeyman for their condition instead of the real causes?
God is used throughout history by the various priesthoods to milk the masses.....


Bad for those priests as it is counter to the golden rule to parasite on your fellow man. It is funny how much priests dare to do and say. The blind leading the blind. The priests should have created an symbiotic environment so there was no poor as they have been told to do. Their failure has consequences. Timeout time for the priests?
edit on 20-3-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

BuzzyWigs
It's about politics mixing with religion, and the Religious Right being against the things that would alleviate a lot of their own suffering. And look at my post above this one:
the religious areas of the world are the most poverty-stricken, violent, and underdeveloped.

Can you explain why? There's a chart in the article as well, but apparently you can't be bothered to read it - only to challenge my reason for posting as being "look at me"?




Woah! Hypocrisy much? How often do you also jump into conversations where people of faith are arguing against a socially progressive issue ... say abortion perhaps. And loudly declaim them for voting their faith? Do you then argue that religion and politics have no business mixing? Or do they only have business mixing when you find it advantageous to your own personal beliefs to try to use them in tandem?

I also like it that you resort to a version of the phrase "voting against your own self interests." Couldn't you also make the argument there that "voting in one's own self-interests" is also voting selfishly? I thought part of being a good person is to not be selfish but to be selfless. I thought that when I voted I was to put the good of the nation, state, municipality above my own good and when I say that I mean that if the nation, state or municipality is not a healthy entity, then it cannot provide an environment where my family can be expected to grow and thrive. Detroit, I am looking at you. That means that I vote for fiscally sound nation, state or municipality that respects my rights to take care of myself and my family as much as possible because if the house burns down ... who cares what was promised? It can't be provided.

Now, moving on to the idea of Christian charity which you are clearly attempting to base this ridiculous argument off of. Government is not charity. Charity is when you give of yourself and make a sacrifice of your own free will. There is nothing free will about what government does. It simply takes, and you have no say about it. Not even voting for the government to take more is charity. You aren't actually giving of yourself, but approving of the government taking from everyone else to do things you want for yourself. It's selfish. You said it yourself - why vote against your own self-interest?

True charity is when you buy the extra food at the grocery store to donate, when you write out that check or sacrifice your extra five-spot to the bell-ringer. It's when you give up your extras for others. It's when you take the time to help out at a soup kitchen, build houses with Habitat, or even just help your neighbor. It takes your time and effort away from the things your would selfishly prefer to be doing. It is selfless and completely for others and gains you nothing.

When you vote for the government to do "charity" all you are really doing is attempting to absolve yourself of that responsibility toward your fellow man, taking a sort of "I gave at the office attitude about it." You don't really care about people at all. If you did, you would realize that government is likely the single most inefficient means of "helping" others we have. When you do it directly, there is no middle man and every penny of your aid, every minute of your labor goes 100% to where its needed most - by the person who could truly use it.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 



Woah! Hypocrisy much?

What?

How often do you also jump into conversations where people of faith are arguing against a socially progressive issue ... say abortion perhaps. And loudly declaim them for voting their faith?

Wait...what??
Jump in and loudly declaim them?

I'm genuinely not sure why religious people are balking at socially progressive issues.



Do you then argue that religion and politics have no business mixing? Or do they only have business mixing when you find it advantageous to your own personal beliefs to try to use them in tandem?

Sir, I did not write the article. I asked what ATS thought about it.


According to the COTUS, religion and politics are not supposed to mix.
What is it, exactly, that you find hypocritical about the OP and my questions?

I think they should not mix.
I'm very sorry if I offended you somehow.

If the article (which I did not write) is incorrect, I'd appreciate you helping me understand what is incorrect about it. I already acknowledged that the media paints things as worse than they probably are??






posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



So I am opposed to nuclear energy because the implication of destruction is just too great for this country.

But the coal industry not only keeps the lights on, it also is part of the steel industry of which most of our consumer goods are made from. It's a terrible Catch-22.

Nuclear energy requires a massive amount of water to keep the reactors cool, and that's water that could be diverted for more beneficial use.
I am also opposed to nuclear energy.

I favor solar, wind, water, organic (algae), and hydrogen based source-building, research, and development.

Yes, it is a terrible Catch-22. Thanks for your response.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Somehow, I think that, when brought before Christ, he'll be a little more in favour of "I spent my free time helping the poor" than "I voted Democrat, so I took care of the poor."

Who suggested that a 'vote' trumps actual real-life helpfulness?

I agree, Christ would not settle for "I voted Democrat"....
or "I voted Republican". It needn't have anything to do with party affiliation; in my thinking, it has rather to do with morals - if my neighbor is starving, I will feed them. Regardless of what a politician says about it, that person is starving.

It's about society getting together, listening to all sides of the equation, and making decisions based on everyone's best well-being. That's what I'm on about - separation of party-line from honest Christ-like behavior.

If, as a collective, we can agree that everyone does a reasonable part, then what's wrong with that?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BuzzyWigs
 


I read the article, it was a reprint of another article by another writer. But here is the author's summation:


In other words, without the South’s religiosity, "America" would again look like a developed, secular country, a country where it’s probable for an atheist to be elected into public office, and where the other 50 million law-abiding atheists wouldn’t be looked upon as rapists, thieves and murders.


If an atheist rapes someone, he is a rapist. If an atheist steals, he is a thief and if an atheist kills, he is a murderer. And the same goes for any other person of any faith group. Being an atheist or faith believer doesn't mean the actions are not what they are simply because they are an atheist or faith believer.

But the dangerous part of this statement is that only because of religiosity of the South, that is why atheists are called those things. Secular or developed, rape is rape.

This is an indoctrination of moral relativism, in which if religion or faith in God is removed, then rapists aren't rapists because there is no spiritual reason to say so, then morality isn't defined any more. This author is promoting a very dangerous idea, one that means that an individual who rapes must never be viewed as a rapist, because fundamentally, morality is why we called them rapists in the first place.

Does rape occur in the areas the author mentioned? Yes, it does. Philip Garrido held Jaycee Dugard as his sexual slave for 18 years, then tried to formulate his own religious ideas without morality, one that the state didn't define. He was sent to prison for the rape of Katie Calloway Hall, but the secular state said he was not a menace to society and psychologists said he was rehabilitated and let him go free after serving only 11 years. This author promotes that Philip Garrido couldn't be a rapist if it weren't for the religiosity of the South.

If we say rape is wrong because it is morally wrong, then we will have to acknowledge that morality is fundamental to any society. Unfortunately, when a group lives within a secular mindframe, one that does not need morality from a higher author, then such things won't happen because it is religion that is defining it as wrong. Rape no longer happens because it is no longer called rape. In other words, as George Carlin said, a rape victim is simply an unwilling sperm recipient.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I read the article, it was a reprint of another article by another writer.

It was?
It looked to me like CJ Werleman was the author of the article.
Can you point me to the other source article/author?


If we say rape is wrong because it is morally wrong, then we will have to acknowledge that morality is fundamental to any society.

I do think rape is morally wrong. And that morality is fundamental to human society.


Unfortunately, when a group lives within a secular mindframe, one that does not need morality from a higher author, then such things won't happen because it is religion that is defining it as wrong.


Such what things won't happen because it is religion? Seems to me that society, regardless of its diverse religions, agrees that it's not okay to rape.
Seems we pretty much all agree on that one.







edit on 3/20/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join