|
"THIS IS NOT A GOOD MAN" 
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004 |
Posted on 10/17/2004 1:09:27 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
"Christians figure Mary Cheney might go to hell all by herself, but John Kerry will certainly take us there with him."
Exactamundo!
These two men who wish to lead the world's greatest power have only mastered the "skills" of 11 year olds on a playground, they can not possibly be trusted with "diplomacy" with world leaders and terrorists.
|
"THIS IS NOT A GOOD MAN"
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004 |
Too bad the author makes an analogy between voting for a baby-killer, which IS a sin, and voting for a man whose daughter is a lesbian, which is NOT a sin.
While the author is being snide, he's actually hit the nail on the head. I'm a Christian, and I DO think it's worse to murder 45 million babies than it is to give in to deeply-rooted, mysterious, and powerful same-sex attractions.
Cheney has been veep for four years. His daughter's lifestyle has had zero impact on his governance.
Zero. Nada. Nilch.
If Kerry had read a bit more carefully, he'd have observed that there's no specific prohibition against female homosexuality in the Bible.
Hahahaha...
Hate the sin; love the sinner.
Just another example of the Unintended Consequences of the Liberal Doo Gooders.
But if a candidate is gay or divorced or has had an abortion, or is doing drugs, or is having extramarital sex, but agrees with you on the issues, do you vote for that candidate? It's a slippery slope, isn't it? Those who oppose divorce in principle will vote for candidates who have been divorced, but a candidate who's currently indulging in activity that one finds reprehensible won't win one's vote.
I don't think one can say that politics trumps religion or vice versa. One can tolerate or overlook or forgive people's conduct up to a certain point but not beyond it. Ask Jack Ryan in Illinois about this.
As concerns Jews and Israel, are Zionism and Sharon really a matter of religion or of another sort of politics? And perhaps there's a feeling that both candidates make the same basic committment to Israel. With many Catholics politics and self-interest do seem to come out on top. It may be because Catholicism isn't so much a religion as an ethnic identity or affiliation with such people.
Protestants pick and choose which denomination they wish to belong to and their religious committment is reflected in their political choices. With Catholics (and Jews and Muslims) the situation may be different. What they are in religion is less a matter of individual decisions and more something they can't avoid or escape (it's the same way with Protestants in Catholic countries and with minorities elsewhere). Also, Protestantism has historically been more individualistic. With other religions there may be more of a social or group concern that leads to different choices in politics.
Does religion always offer one single and unambiguous answer to political questions? Or do religions contain ideas, injunctions, and prohibitions that can give different or conflicting answers? Or if religion does give one clear answer to each question, can those answers be easily translated into politics? In Christianity at least, it may be hard to reconcile the various prohibitions and injunctions, strong moral laws being combined with a call to move above the demands of law in the name of faith and charity.
Many in the media have been doing that for years and that is why Kerry brought up Mary Cheney
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.