Do you believe that some Principle you believe in is
1. a political goal or
2. a political methodology for achieving a political goal
3. a commandment from God
Moral values and political philosophies and religious beliefs may not be the same thing and people can take different paths and end up in the same place.
Would I go from point A to point B to point C before going for the ultimate goal of point D?...depends. If I have to break one of the 10 Commandments to get to B, probably not. If I have to fool the Dem opposition to get to point B...probably yes. If I have to compromise and take half a loaf now, fully intending to go for the other half later...maybe, depends on the compromise.
I don't believe taxes are a moral issue. Whether a country relies on private incentives or socialism supported by taxes or a lottery to provide medical care is not a moral question to me. These are matters of political philosophy and wisdom.
I happen to believe that socialism is a house build on cards and will fail as a system due to inherent flaws; but if it worked, I don't think I'd be against it. I believe in tax cuts because they work. I believe in sensibly regulated capitalism because it works. I believe in defending the country's borders because I am a patriot. I believe in the second ammendment because I believe it is the only thing that protects the Constitution and the U.S. from a coup. I never get these things confused with my religion.
I am against killing the innocent, because it is a commandment from God. That isn't a political philosophy for me, it is a religious and moral judgment. I believe in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the poor,and visiting the sick and those in prison because that is what Christ indicated was important to Him. Those beliefs are not a political philosophy for me, they are religious and moral duties.
Should governments be established to fulfill my religious and moral duties? If government takes care of everyone, does that absolve me from fulfilling my religious and moral duties? Doubt it.
If I can't get to everyone and people's needs are not being met, should I vote to involve the government in assisting me and my co-religionists in taking care of the poor? Politically speaking, I don't think that would work very well in the long run. Although some would be helped faster, there is the concern that when the needy do not thank God for the charity of others and think they are entitled to that charity, and get angry if it isn't as good as hoped, and demand that it be delivered at their convenience without any thanks except to thank politicians at the ballot box, and but not God or the taxpayers, then they are denied real blessings that can alter and improve their lives.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."
...and the wisdom to know the difference.
Aye, there's the rub....
So, let's discuss a specific Principle of yours and then I can let you know if I am craven enough to compromise it in the pragmatic pursuit of a political goal, and you can let me know what hellfire of RINOism awaits me if I do that.
Look Patricia I am not ~attacking~ you, but I will attack Pragmatism:
Firstly I understand that we live in a world that is not totally ideological or theological, but I also believe that as Christians we ~CAN NOT~ seperate any avenue of life from Morality based on the Bible. That is why I believe that is not just wrong to oppose socialism on purely pragmatic (utilitarian) grounds, but also that socialims in fact is ~immoral~ (robbing from someone to give to someone else..the Ten Commandments...thou shall not...). I think you know this one. It is not just enough to oppose liberalism based on utilitarian grounds, you are a Christian so you should know that belief ~MEANS~ something...
Oh as for how this meets reality, true we should and can ~IN REALITY~ only advance our goals to a certain degree (your half-loaf) in most issues, which we should do, but compromise on that way..unless it contradicts with the Bible, does not= or mean that we should compromise ~principly or morally~.
I think we are talking mostly about the same thing and only differ on the application of morality over all of life rather than ~parts~ of it which I would defend against till my dying breath because Christ died + resurected for all of life's mysteries and parts. Oh well I guess we all just come back to the Platonic argument of the defense of JUSTICE as an intrinsic good as well as not only being beneficial utilitarian wise!