Christian perspective on the election, please

[jayel]

Okay, I'm not interested in hearing your opinion on Christianity. I am a Christian and my purpose in this thread is to find out how other Christians feel about the presidential candidates.

See, I grew up in a Christian home, very conservative, and my dad, much as I love him, is very narrow minded sometimes. I'm not exactly liberal, but for the most part I am willing to listen to another point of view and try to meet in the middle somewhere. However, growing up in the home I did, I heard some very one sided and strong opinions my whole life, especially about politics. I was raised to vote Republican, with the idea that voting Republican was the equivalent of voting Christian. I was shocked when my Christian husband told me that he usually votes Democrat because work (for construction workers like him) usually increases when Democrats are in office.

I voted for Bush the last two elections, rather blindly except that John Kerry scared me, and I don't know much about Obama. I heard Hillary Clinton on the radio this morning, and even after hearing nothing but bad talk about her the last sixteen years, I didn't hate her. I have heard that she plans to cut the military force way down, and that kind of scares me because while I don't have a strong opinion about the war (not informed enough and don't know what information to trust) I don't want to be left vulnerable to new terrorist attacks and such. So I'm curious... How do you Christians out there vote and what is your opinion on the candidates this go round?

Reminder: Slamming Christianity or any talk about why Christians should not be doing or thinking the way they do, or invalidating basic Christian beliefs will be promptly ignored. Thank you.

[Greenday]

I have heard that she plans to cut the military force way down, and that kind of scares me because while I don't have a strong opinion about the war (not informed enough and don't know what information to trust) I don't want to be left vulnerable to new terrorist attacks and such.

This is something that bothers me. The military budget is currently at $439.2 BILLION. Total military spending was at $626.1 billion. America is not going to be overrun by a bunch of terrorists because the budget is only $300 BILLION or something equally ridiculously high.

[jayel]

Well, what I meant was cutting down the number of troops that we have in service; not so much the money. Although I'll be honest I don't know how many are enlisted right now, how many are active in Iraq, active not in Iraq, and inactive.

So if we cut the number of active troops in half, no one thinks this would be cause for alarm, leaving us very vulnerable?

*I'm admitting I'm very uninformed about such matters and it's slightly embarassing now that I realize HOW uninformed I am. But it's so hard to know who and what information to trust. That's why I'm opening this honest discussion. (Where's the dunce cap smiley and the trying really hard to understand smiley?)

[protege]

I try to vote for whoever I think is the better candidate. With that said, I'm not really sure I could vote for either Hillary or Obama. Both seem to be involved in petty squabbles amongst themselves instead of concentrating about the issues. I've also heard that Obama doesn't take a stand on things--he always votes "present" instead of one way or the other. Hillary, well, I just don't like her--she comes off as an arrogant windbag.

As much as I respect the military, I don't think scaling things back is a good idea. Too many whackjobs want to take us down.

[Saydrah]

I'm not a Christian. In fact, I'm an atheist, but here is what I would tell you to do, if you're willing to take advice on faith from a heathen like myself:

Consider the Bible- and yes, I've read it, also the Torah, Necronomican, and Q'uran. I'm well rounded. Now I'm working on learning enough Arabic to read that last in its original language- a lot is lost in translation because Arabic is a language so different from English. Anyway, consider the Bible.

What verses mean something to you? Truly guide your faith?

I seriously doubt you're a Christian because Leviticus said don't eat shellfish- but are you a Christian because you were struck by the story of Jesus saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

Does your faith mean what it does to you because Jesus turned the other cheek, because he healed the sick, because Moses brought down the ten commandments from the mountaintop and those rules are ones you aspire to live by?

If you want your faith to guide your vote (not the faith of others, like your father), think on your favorite Bible verses, and choose the candidate who most exemplifies those messages. I don't think it will be the same candidate who your father is voting for. For me, it would be Obama, if I considered the things that stood out to me from my study of the major religions' holy books, because he has spoken about accepting atheism, Islam, Judaism, and all religions, even as he trusts in his own faith and refuses to throw his elderly pastor under the bus for political gain.

For you, that choice might be different.

You might consider also how much your freedom to practice your faith means to you, and ask yourself which candidate is most willing to extend that freedom to everyone in the world.

[Amethyst Hunter]

All I'm going to say is this: The ones that bleat about being Christian and having faith and all that the most usually are the *least* Christian in actual practice. Frankly, I trust the current and running Republicans about as much as I would a bunch of poisonous snakes not to bite. Their history pretty much speaks for itself.

I'm still undecided as to either Obama or Clinton, but as for now I'm leaning towards Obama because I'm impressed with the way he continues to handle himself every time something like the pastor incident crops up. I get what he's saying when he says he rejects the man's *words*, but not the man himself - very Christlike.

[AFPheonix]

I consider myself to be agnostic these days, although I was raised Christian like yourself.

I will not base my decision based on race, gender, or religious preferences. There is a reason why the founders separated Church from State, at least at the Federal level. It was to protect the Church, and I'm afraid that the Church has been corrupted by it's involvement in politics of late.
Besides, if you look at the church in Acts, it was pretty Socialist more than Conservative. They shared everything.
I base my decision on who will make the best decisions possible for the largest number of people, and because I'm cynical, who will be the most likely to win.
For that reason, I will support Obama. I think all three front runners would do a fine job at this point.
I frankly would prefer Hilary because she is such a policy wonk, but the Republican machine is so dead set against her that they would probably bring her down. Hell, they managed to plow under Gore and Kerry, both pretty vanilla, stand up guys. They'd have a field day with an opinionated woman.
Mccain is a good man, but he's still rather right wing for my tastes, and I think our country is due for a leftward shift for power balance.
So although Obama is a bit flawed in that he doesn't have completely detailed plans for everything, I still think he's probably the best choice, as he's already proven that he's a smart delegator and is very good at reaching across the aisles. In any case, even if he did have super detailed plans for health care and other matters, Congress always manages to butcher well-laid plans to something other than what they looked like in the first place.
I don't think Hilary should be VP, though, as good as she is. If Obama is smart, he'll tap Bill Richardson for VP. I would love to see Hilary as Secretary of State, however. I think that's a job that would fit her like a glove.

[Seshat]

Firstly, I truly respect you for realising how little you know, and seeking to learn. It's the first step to wisdom, and a critical one.

Secondly, Saydrah's advice to think about why you're Christian, and vote accordingly, is an excellent first step. Unfortunately, voting wisely takes a lot more than that - but you can't vote wisely until you know what your values are. And you don't have time for an awful lot of self-reflection, it's already March!

An example, however, will help.

One of the things I most respect about Jesus is his willingness and enthusiasm to befriend and help the marginalised. The sick, the poor, the prostitutes, the Gentiles. Over and over again, he expresses that everyone is a person, and worthy of being treated as such.

One of the things I see repeatedly in some Republicans is disrespect for anyone who isn't just like them. Even something as minor as being a different denomination of the same religion - Catholic rather than Baptist, Lutheran rather than Methodist - some Republicans will behave very badly to you.

(EDIT TO ADD: This happens in every group. It's just that in American politics, it seems most likely to be the Republicans who act that way.)

And there's a common Republican behaviour towards a half-black/half-First Nations, disabled, Pagan woman who works in the sex industry - well, just think about it.

Oh, many Republicans would instinctively try to "help" such a person. But what if she likes being Pagan? What if she likes working in the sex industry? What if she likes wearing dreadlocks, dressing like a hippy, and living in a share-house? What if the only help she wants is help with her disability: but that's help she absolutely needs?

I've known too many people who are supposed to help the disadvantaged, who would call such a person 'resistant', black-mark her file and turn her away.

The concept of the 'deserving poor' is a very subtle trap. and one that it looks like (from here) the Republican Party keeps falling into. I'm all in favour of not giving charity to people who only abuse it; but being different is not abuse. Unfortunately, being different can be enough to get a person labelled as 'not deserving'.

(EDIT TO ADD: Democrats are far from immune to this trap, but it seems to trap the Republicans more often.)

(EDIT TO ADD: The Dems have faults too! Just different ones.)

So if we cut the number of active troops in half, no one thinks this would be cause for alarm, leaving us very vulnerable?

The safety of a society or country comes from many, many factors. Military numbers are a very small part of social safety.

Diplomacy is extremely important. One old, feeble, but very wise diplomat saying the right thing, to the right person, at the right time, can do more for a country's safety than a million soldiers.

Intelligence is just as important. It's what lets the diplomat know what the right thing to say is, and who to say it to. It also has the very obvious military and policing uses.

Trade, economics, and balance of trade are vital. Noone sane goes to war against a major trading partner.

The primary reason for maintaining a standing army is deterrance. Slash your standing army in half and you'll still be the only surviving superpower.

Terrorism and guerilla war are the two major strategies a small nation with a small army can use against a large nation with a large army. The reason they work is that they make the army's numbers largely irrelevant. Halving the size of your standing army won't make terrorism or guerilla attacks more likely: in fact, using the difference in cost to improve your other strategies may make them less likely.


Besides which, think about other forms of security. How many Americans are affected by crime? What about road accidents? Industrial accidents?
How many Americans die or are maimed by preventable illness, because they couldn't afford medical treatment?

Calculate all of those (crime, road accidents, industrial accidents, illness/medical need) for the last two decades. Calculate how many Americans were hurt in terrorist attacks. Compare the two numbers. Figure out what that says about where security money should be spent.

All of those are aspects of National Security as well. Use your security budget wisely.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Diplomacy is extremely important. One old, feeble, but very wise diplomat saying the right thing, to the right person, at the right time, can do more for a country's safety than a million soldiers.

Intelligence is just as important. It's what lets the diplomat know what the right thing to say is, and who to say it to. It also has the very obvious military and policing uses.

Besides which, think about other forms of security. How many Americans are affected by crime? What about road accidents? Industrial accidents?
How many Americans die or are maimed by preventable illness, because they couldn't afford medical treatment?

Calculate all of those (crime, road accidents, industrial accidents, illness/medical need) for the last two decades. Calculate how many Americans were hurt in terrorist attacks. Compare the two numbers. Figure out what that says about where security money should be spent.

All of those are aspects of National Security as well. Use your security budget wisely.

*applauds* That is seriously the most brilliant way I have seen this put.

A lot of Republicans love to crow about "oh, see, our policies are working because there haven't been any attacks since 9/11!" I call bullshit. I believe the reasons we haven't had such are 1) a lot of luck/Higher Power watching out for people, and 2) the hard work of all the nameless people (including our military) who are behind the scenes busting their asses and ferreting out the scumbags and their attack plots before they can happen. Those are the people who deserve all the credit for keeping us safe, not some AWOL punk who dresses up in a fancy outfit and smugly declares "we're winning" when it's PAINFULLY obvious that we *aren't*.

This is why so many people are pissed off about Iraq. There was NO good reason for us to go over there save for the fact that it was always about revenge and resource-grabbing. Five years later, where are we? Iraq's in civil war, we've lost 4000 of our countryfolk and wound up creating more terrorists than we started out with. Here's another thing to keep in mind, while we're on the subject of war. Do you want someone with a chip on their shoulder, an itchy trigger finger and their crosshairs on Iran (which is NOT a proven threat and there's evidence to back that)? I sure as hell don't.

I can agree that it's a mistake to think of or expect the next Prez as some sort of savior - whoever it is, he or she will inherit a festering mess that will take a lot longer than 4 - 8 years to fix - assuming any of it CAN be fixed. But I want somebody with an actual brain that knows how to use it wisely, somebody who actually gives a damn instead of jacking off while Rome/New Orleans crumbles. I truly believe that the survival of our nation, if not the world, depends on who is in power come January 2009, and I seriously pray that we *can* get the current scum out, because I don't trust them not to try to pull something to remain in power indefinitely.

[powerboy]

I was raised a Christian. But I have my own believes that consist from other religions also. But when I vote, I do not go by religion/sex or anything like that. I look at what they have to say and take it from there. But that is only when only when it is like this election. If we had a president in there first term and was trying to get another. Then I am voting for that president. Only because they know what they can and cannot do as president. Now you can say that I am going to be voting for Hilary, based on what I said. I might or I might not. Only time will tell

[Boozy]

Now you can say that I am going to be voting for Hilary, based on what I said. I might or I might not.

Its beginning to look like you won't get a chance to vote for Clinton anyway, unless something crazy happens with the super-delegates. I think Obama has it.

[jayel]

I'd like to hear some specifics regarding what each candidate stands for and how sincere they come across. I think part of my problem is that I really don't trust any of them, so I don't bother to pay too much attention when they are talking. I figure they'll say whatever they can to get into office and then do whatever serves themselves best afterward.

[Greenday]

I'd like to hear some specifics regarding what each candidate stands for and how sincere they come across. I think part of my problem is that I really don't trust any of them, so I don't bother to pay too much attention when they are talking. I figure they'll say whatever they can to get into office and then do whatever serves themselves best afterward.

Nice job summing up politics in only three sentences.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I'd like to hear some specifics regarding what each candidate stands for and how sincere they come across. I think part of my problem is that I really don't trust any of them, so I don't bother to pay too much attention when they are talking. I figure they'll say whatever they can to get into office and then do whatever serves themselves best afterward.

No politician is 100% pure - it's just the nature of the beast. Power does corrupt, after all. However, there are varying degrees of scumminess AND goodness, so you have to take ALL the factors into consideration, not just a candidate's professed religion (or lack thereof). Jesus Himself said that "by their fruits so shall ye know them" and "faith without works is dead."

With Obama, he comes across as the most sincere to date. Even those who don't like him don't seem to outright *hate* him; they've admitted that they can respect him because of the way he comes across and his commitment to finding workable, practical solutions to problems. He has responded with eloquent class and grace to charges like the aforementioned pastor who spewed comments about 9/11 being America's "just desserts", and he has directly, even bluntly, addressed the issue of race, something very few people are willing to do even in this day and age. His message of change and hope and the "we-can-do-it" spirit hasn't caught on for nothing. People are sick and tired of the bullshit from the last 8 years and recognize that unless we DO change our ways, we're up shit creek without the proverbial paddle.

Critics have charged that Obama's voting record doesn't appear decisive either way - but it's important to note that there is a cunning strategy behind it. Obama's record in Illinois is actually that of a pragmatic progressive, one who prefers moderate reforms (as opposed to swinging the pendulum to an unrealistic extreme) and opposes hard right-wing legislation. In Illinois political legislature, voting "present" is actually the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage of a bill. Many IL politicians use "present" as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no" and risk having a bill that is extremely detrimental being passed due to hard right-wingers lobbying for it.

Obama has been consistent on these things:

- Gradual withdrawal from Iraq and sensible military action where it's genuinely warranted - as he said, "I'm not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

- A universal healthcare system to cover at least the basics (dental, medical) for America's uninsured and the needy.

- Creating and sustaining a healthy national economy, and jobs for Americans that *remain* in the country instead of being outsourced.

- Fostering a spirit of united community among all races, genders and even nationalities in order to accomplish the common denominators that most if not all people can agree on.

- Improving education and ensuring that children have access to a safe learning environment and robust curriculum that will teach them the skills they'll need to know in the ever-changing world.

And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Now, with Hillary Clinton, for most people, you either love her or hate her. My personal opinion is that the ones who love her are possibly thinking that she can bring back some of the 'glory days' that we experienced under her husband. I don't think she can do that, but not because she isn't qualified (which I do think she is) - it's a different playing field out there than the one we stepped onto back in 1992 when Bill was elected. I dislike the blatant misogyny that's being directed towards her by the right-wing, but I also can agree that having a female leader just for the sake of novelty does no one any good (which is why, even though I'll be voting Democrat no matter what in November, I'm currently leaning towards Obama).

Hillary does have a record of being supportive of women's rights and improving general conditions for children, but she also has a lot of baggage leftover from Bill (who at this point is more of a hindrance than a help to her campaign). These are her main points:

- Universal healthcare system (similar to what Obama proposes)

- Withdrawal from Iraq (reports vary as to whether this would be gradual or immediate, or somewhere in between)

- Healthier national economy

- Supports stem cell research

Hillary has also been in the game long enough to be "a tough old broad", for lack of a better description - one person I know put it as "She can bust balls when she needs to" - and despite not having the kind of credentials that Obama seems to is keenly intelligent and no easy pushover. (Though it's important not to discount Obama's 'street smarts' as well - surviving Illinois politics is no cakewalk; you have with that state a miniature version of what's afflicting the entire country)

As for the last, McCain, I will state here and now that I DO NOT support him and never will. McCain has bent over backwards to appease the current assministration *despite* the fact that they smeared him badly when he ran in 2000, and he's known to have associated with untrustworthy figures like Pat Robertson and Karl Rove.

Here's where McCain stands on some issues:

- Supports abstinence-only funding; does not support funding for sensible family planning/birth control programs and comprehensive sex education.

- Supports preemptive war and voted for the Iraq fiasco multiple times (Worse - McCain is known to have a fiery temper, so you really have to ask yourself if you want somebody with an itchy trigger finger and access to a whole lot of nasties!); also voted for the controversial Patriot Act and supports war with Iran EVEN if it's clear that they are not a direct threat (which, to date, they aren't) and have no WMDs; does not believe in direct talks (aka diplomacy) to achieve the goal of non-WMD proliferation

- Supported right-wing Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts

McCain's only good point is that he does support embryonic stem cell research (which would go towards finding cures for things like Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancers, etc.) - but the other two support this as well so considering his whole record, it really isn't much of a recommendation.

To close, here are some links to help you get started on research:

Listing of Barack Obama's record

Listing of Hillary Clinton's record

Listing of John McCain's record

As a bonus I also strongly encourage you to read Theocracy Watch, which details the history of dominionism and the abuse of the Christian religion as it specifically pertains to American politics (in particular, the hijacking of the modern-day Republican Party); this will help you understand just why the current assministration has been so hellbent on running the country into the ground and why they MUST be stopped from gaining any further inroads into power than what they've already obtained.

[jayel]

Wow, Amethyst Hunter, thank you so much for taking the time to type all that out. That is exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

I will try to check out the other resources you mentioned.

I hope we can keep this conversation flowing, if everyone voices their knowledge and thoughts like Amethyst Hunter did, agreements, rebuttals, and corrections, I think this thread could turn out to be very insightful.

Thanks to everyone who posted so far.