I'll be more specific. How do you make the choice and avoid disagreement?
On this thread alone I see Christianity (with and without Methodists and Episcopalians,) Judeo-Christian and even Liberalism as a religion. Ok, the Liberalism line is probably tongue in cheek, but I doubt you'll ever get total agreement on what is included under the rubric of Judeo-Christian. There will always be disagreement when faith alone is the question.
I know devout Christians that are free market capitalists and devout Christians that are fervent socialists. I recall great pushback when a few ministers (Falwell, Roberts) decided an election had validated their faith. I also recall religious folks of one group pushing back strongly on John Kennedy; worried that he'd be more loyal to the Pope than to the Constitution.
I know Republicans who switched to Democrat because of concerns that the Religious Right was becoming too dominant.
I'd hate to see the conservative movement be set back again because folks are perceived to be confusing an election win with validation of their faith over all others.
You guys go ahead and have the last word; this is too much like arguing taste. I'm checking out of this thread.
I wish I could say that I know Democrats who switched to Republican because of fears that the Secular Left was becoming too dominant, but that would require 1) that I admit to knowing Democrats; 2) that any Democrat would be put off by a shift toward secularism; 3) that any Democrat so disposed would have sufficient courage of his convictions to actually leave the plantation.
However, the bugaboo about domination of the GOP by the "religious right" (whoever the heck THEY are) is a red herring. Faith in ones' beliefs does not make one a fundamentalist, nor does it mean an obsessive desire to impose ones' religiosity on others. Give people credit for knowing where to draw the line.
I'd hate to see the conservative movement be set back again because folks are perceived to be confusing an election win with validation of their faith over all others.
If anyone believes that, they need to reread the admonishment to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Christ didn't run for office, and God doesn't endorse a political party.
All of this is rhetorical, of course, since you've checked out of the thread.
Well, there's a lot of confusion here over what's faith and what's not.
Seems to me that one can break this down more easily, by beginning the way the Founders did, which was to acknowledge that there is a Higher Being (various names were used.)
No one is REQUIRED to believe that, of course--but if laws reflect the supremacy of Man, then you will have situations like Schiavo even more often.
And if the atheists and agnostics will hold still for just one minute, the informed Christian will state that the Golden Rule happens to be the first and most important law of Christianity.
Even atheists would prefer the Golden Rule to rule by, say, GWBush, or X42, right?