Rocking the Vote
by Denise Morris on 08/28/2007 at 12:12 PM
A recent Newsweek article highlights Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee and his struggle to gain recognition in the polls. The article highlights the fact that Huckabee agrees with all of the major points of conservative politics:
He explained he's unshakably pro-life, opposes same-sex marriage and supports the troop surge in Iraq. He promised to protect gun rights and vowed to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, the agency Republicans love to hate most. "I want April 15 to be just another beautiful spring day," Huckabee declared. "Amen!" one man called out.
However, the article also points out that Huckabee is not well-recognized by the Republican party. He's not raising nearly as much money as his counterparts and although his message is right-on for many conservatives, the fear that he couldn't defeat the Democrats is what keeps him from gaining strength:
His debate performances have been praised, but he barely registers in polls. It's a problem that vexes his staff: He's got the message. He's got the story. He's got the charisma. So why can't Mike Huckabee get any respect? The short, cruel answer is that many people who should be his most enthusiastic supporters don't think he could win if he were pitted in a nasty race against the one Democrat conservatives loathe most. "We like Mike a lot," says Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention. "But nobody thinks he can beat Hillary, and a fear of another Clinton White House outweighs almost everything."
I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about each of the presidential hopefuls and their views. In fact, I sometimes try to ignore all of the hype. The election bid seems to start earlier every year, and I'm quite sick of the 2008 election already. However, I have wondered about the point the Newsweek article makes. Do we ignore good candidates just because we don't believe they can win?
Both ends of the spectrum appear so afraid that the other side will win, that they seem willing to ignore rather large faults in their party's front runner. Some Democrats don't like Hillary, but they'll vote for her if they have to, in order to keep the other party out. The current Republican party candidates waver on abortion (something most conservatives feel strongly about), but they'll probably end up voting for whoever that Republican candidate is, just to avoid having a Democrat in the White House.
So, this is my question: If we want to see actual change in the political realm, should we consider voting for the underdogs or parties other than Democrat or Republican? Would it work?
I honestly don't have an answer, but I have wondered. I'm from Minnesota, where we ended up electing a third party candidate as governor. It kind of came as a surprise to everyone -- someone who was not definitively Democrat or Republican could actually win something?! (However, I don't know that it was the wisest choice to go with a former pro-wrestler as governor. ;-)
Anyway, please share your thoughts. Do you think there's a way to support or elevate some quality candidates who get lost in the shuffle?
1. P&P said the following at 12:33 PM on Aug 28:
1
I've actually been thinking about this since I became familiar with Bill Richarson, the governor of New Mexico who's currently running for the Democratic nomination. He's a strong candidate, when you look past Clinton and Obama.
One thing to do is get involved on the grassroots level. Join the local office of the candidate's campaign, post your views on blogs and don't be shy when other people bring up the heavy hitters (e.g. Clinton and Obama) in conversation. After all, Bill Clinton was once considered an underdog.
2. David Bromberg said the following at 12:41 PM on Aug 28:
2
I think people should vote for or support the candidate that best represents their views, regardless of their chances of winning. In California's last election, I could not with good conscience vote for either a democrat or republican governor, since both supported abortion, so I had to vote for a 3rd party who I knew had no chance of winnig. But my conscience won't let me do otherwise.
The Simpsons had a parody of our two party system in one of their Halloween episodes where two aliens come, kill off the Republican and Democrat running for president, and impersonate them. They reveal before election day that they're really aliens, and that no matter who wins, the earth will be enslaved. The following is the dialog (Kodos and Kang are the aliens):
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
The sad reality is, many Americans acknowledge their dislike of the mainstream political candidates, but like lemmings decide that since most likely everyone else will be too chicken to vote for a good candidate, they too will vote with the majority, rather than "throw their vote away."
3. Dale Samples said the following at 12:41 PM on Aug 28:
3
I LIKE MIKE!
Im going to support Mike in the primaries and hope he makes it. If not, then ill support whoever the Republican candidate is.
4. Jo said the following at 1:15 PM on Aug 28:
4
We have that problem here too. We have several parties, but it's basically a two horse race: Labour versus Conservative. Last time I voted for the Liberal Democrats (oh no, two words that will undoubtedly raise fears in this environment) because I believed in them more than the main two, but a lot of people won't vote for them because they don't think they can win. It's a shame, understandable I guess but my philosophy is if you vote for a powerful party you don't agree with, you can't really complain if they start doing things you don't agree with.
On a different note though, what are people's views on 'protecting gun rights'? Anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage are positions I can support, but gun rights is another one of the big Republican ideals, as I understand it, and not such a good one I think... Any other views?
5. nikki said the following at 1:17 PM on Aug 28:
5
I am no expert on the voting system so don't read too much into what I think. But it seems a reality, however unfortunate, that for all intents and purposes, we have a two-party system. We can vote our consciences all day long and convince our friends to do the same, if we're that lucky. But the truth is that a Democrat or a Republican will win the presidency. Voting for someone who MIGHT get two or five percent of the vote IS throwing your vote away. You have to be deluded to think otherwise. I don't like it either. But when you acknowledge there are only two "real" parties then, if you actually want your vote to "count" (as much as one vote counts amongst millions), you suck it up and choose between the two. I hope that one day the system will be different, but my place is to live in it, now, doing the best I can. Maybe some people who are politically minded and gifted will change it, and I would be happy. But for now, that just seems to be the unfortunate reality.
I hope this doesn't make me sound like a bad person, but I guess maybe the prevalent mindset is that we need to find someone who is as much of a Christian as we can. I don't think someone needs to be a Christian to be a good president; they need to be smart and decisive and confident and open. You can have all that and still be pro-choice, for example. And a president has to think a lot more about war and international issues than they making same-sex marriage legal, too. Maybe the values-oriented perspective on voting needs to be a bit more open to what makes a good leader of a country.
If there are two candidates who are capable and qualified leaders, and one's a believer and one's not, I'll vote for the believer. But that's not a likely scenario.
6. John said the following at 1:43 PM on Aug 28:
6
Governor Huckabee is good on many issues, but Rep. Ron Paul is better.
I am one of those who is inclined to vote his conscience, even if it means "throwing my vote away" on a third party candidate.
7. SB said the following at 2:45 PM on Aug 28:
7
Mike Huckabee spoke at my church (sermon, not a political speech) a year ago or so and I was pretty impressed. He was a pastor prior to becoming a politician, and despite the combination of professions has maintained a good sense of humor. I think he has done some really great pro-family things in AR.
I don't agree with him on every single point, but the only way for that to happen would be for myself to run for President, which I'm frankly not interested in. My parents taught me to select a candidate who most closely matches my own views, giving more weight to some issues than to others. Abortion, for example, is more of a concern for me than education policy. It wouldn't violate my conscience to vote for Huckabee, but I have moral reservations about the other Republican candidates I'm familiar with, and all the Democratic ones.
At the same time, I would be naive to suggest that elections aren't often merely selecting the lesser of 2 (or a few) evils. Our recent gubernatorial election in TX is a good example of this - we literally had NO credible, good candidates, regardless of party, so everyone pretty much just picked the one they thought was the "least bad." I think the winner had about 33% of the votes?
I don't necessarily think it's right to vote that way, just voting with a party to keep the other out of office...but it seems to be a sort of self-defense, sort of like alliances on Survivor - if we all stick together, we can prevent so-and-so from achieving their goals. But then I don't watch that show because I think the alliances defeat the whole purpose...maybe we (groups/parties) should focus more on what we want to achieve than our defeat of the bad guys. Voting third-party does feel like "throwing away" my vote, though.
And maybe we put too much emphasis on certain political candidates anyway. As Derek Webb points out, "We'll never have a Savior on Capitol Hill."
8. Hermes said the following at 2:50 PM on Aug 28:
8
Mike Huckabee agrees with all of the major points of conservative politics? Then why did he http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/154897/>say that racism is behind the immigration debate and call critics of Bush's amnesty plan racist? Why did he say that Hispanic immigration offers America a http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/12/6/110901.shtml>"second chance" to make up for our past racism against blacks? Why did he go http://blogs.iowapolitics.com/lincolnday/070414huckabee.mp3>on and on at the Lincoln Day Dinner in Iowa about how he wants to be the "voice" for all the sick and suffering Americans who can't get adequate medical care? And since when is supporting the troop surge in Iraq a major point of conservative politics? I thought calling people racists, saying that America must endlessly apologize for its past sins of racism and atone for them by opening borders to the entire world, obliquely advocating socialized medicine, and supporting Wilsonian projects of spreading democracy to the far corners of the earth were the domain of liberals, not conservatives.
Of course, people should not be afraid to support principled candidates over the "mainstream" ones who are merely considered more likely to win. But the Republican candidates for true conservatives are Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, not the liberal Huckabee.
9. Oxanna said the following at 5:31 PM on Aug 28:
9
Voting for a third party often seems like "throwing your vote away". But it seems that the only other option, then, is to vote for one of the two major parties and hope that *somehow* some good person from a third party will either a) join a "big party" and be voted for in the primaries, or b) everyone will just magically one day realize that a third party candidate is the best, and he'll win! Sorry to say this, but I don't think it works that way. If everyone who's resigned to voting for "the lesser of two evils" decided, hey, why not vote for the better third-party guys?, then it would send a very distinct message, IMHO. Even if it were distributed between multiple third-party candidates. It would tell the major parties to get their act together, because things are moving away from their wishy-washy, damaging politics. And the more people join a cause, the more other people look and say, "Wow, if they're doing it, maybe I should too!"
Now, a Clinton White House scares me. However, If it comes down to Giuliani and Clinton, I'll probably go ahead and vote for the third party. (In my case, Constitution/American Independent. Or write in.) Why? Because sometimes a wolf in the guise of a sheep is more dangerous than an obvious wolf. People get lulled into a sense of complacency - after all, there's a Republican in the White House! But really, he's not so very different from a Democrat.
So please, with God's wisdom, send a message in the coming elections! I realize that not every election is the time to vote for a third party candidate. Sometimes choosing the lesser of two evils is better. But too often, people are afraid to step out and cast one tiny vote toward change.
10. Stephen said the following at 5:42 PM on Aug 28:
10
Well, Huckabee is conservative on social issues, but he's no smal government-conservative (while governor, he pushed an expensive Medicare expannsion, then supported a 3 percentage point income tax increase to cover the budget deficit). Additionally, as Hermes pointed out, he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants and a guest worker plan.
Who does that sound like? George W. Bush. That's why few Republicans are supporting him, and that's why he has no chance to win the presidency. Huckabee wasn't a very good governor of Arkansas, and there's no reason to think he'd be any better of a president.
11. Oxanna said the following at 5:51 PM on Aug 28:
11
Jo: Regarding gun rights, really it's not an issue of "gun rights", as guns have no rights. ;D It's an issue of the right to keep and bear arms (including firearms) for the defense of self and the defense of freedom. The Second Amendment was a check on the government's control. The "militia" (which was a different sort of term in their time than ours) was "necessary to the security of a free state", not just any state government in general.
If a government refuses to allow its citizens the right to defend themselves and their property, they are violating a fundamental human right that they should be protecting. The Second Amendment guards against that. For that reason, it is hugely important to me, as important as the other elements of the Bill of Rights - free spech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Second Amendment protects the First, and all the others. And of course, it protects individuals from ordinary sorts of crime, a right which the government should be protecting as well.
If anyone is interested in learning about the Second Amendment's history, I suggest the NRA's "Second Amendment Primer". Yes, I know, the NRA, but it's interesting reading. For that matter, Google up some original speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers - the actual writings, not just essays on them. Look up the original (not current) constitutions of many states. The wording is often different from the national Constitution, but can give some context.
Lastly, I give you Samuel Adams:
"...and that the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
*ahem* Um, yes, that was a lot. You asked! :D
12. farmer Tom said the following at 6:23 PM on Aug 28:
12
Several comments,
First, I refuse to vote for anyone that is pro-baby killer and pro-sodomy. I don't care what label they put on themselves they are wicked, not understanding the basic foundational issues of a moral culture.
Second, I have not voted for a Republican for President in 12 years. I voted for the candidate from the Constitution Party the last two elections. I can not stand before God on the day of judgment and say that I supported a party (the Dems) or candidates who would not protect the least of these.
I did not believe that GWB Jorge the Younger was a conservative, and I believe that history has proved that judgment correct.
Third, Jo
For the moment I'll give you a pass, because your not an American. But find a copy of the American Constitution, the Second Amendment is one of my Inalienable Rights given to me by God himself, and no government should ever infringe on that right, ever.
13. Lauren T. said the following at 7:37 PM on Aug 28:
13
I wonder on occasion if the only way to bring a third party into real contention is to cancel all TV commentary on anything referring to an election and make the only exposure a candidate gets come from speeches the candidates make themselves. Televised or radio-broadcast, but still only their words. Nothing else.
Highly impractical, I'm afraid: there are legitimate lies and scandals that should be exposed to show the character of the politician in question, but in my above scenario they could only be exposed by another politician. Not exactly any better a recipe for success than what we've got now.
However, endless coverage, endless commentary, endless "exposure", endless spinning, and endless manipulation of others' words may be destroying our system of government. Twenty-four-hour news and Gallup polls...they're unhealthy. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said something to the effect of Gallup polls making people into political hypochondriacs always taking their own temperature.
I have no idea how to get out of the two-party rut. I've struggled with this quite a bit myself since I've recognized more and more often that I'm not that happy about voting for either candidate in many elections. The whole trap of not wanting to throw my vote away is a serious dilemma. In then end, I've come to the conclusion that I have to make a decision one election at the time. The result is sometimes I vote third-party, sometimes not.
14. DannieA said the following at 8:02 PM on Aug 28:
14
whether or not Mike Huckabee would be worthy of my vote is not decided yet...but I'd like to give you a fun fact about him.
1. I read Runner's World Magazine because I run for a variety of reasons.
Mike Huckabee was featured due to his sudden conviction that he was not living a healthy lifestyle and started running. I believe he even incorporated some awareness on changing oneself instead of just fad dieting for health reasons.
That's just a fun fact. I vote conscience and often never straight ticket vote.
***Although JO, I'm from CA and I never really gave thought to the 2nd amendment on right to bear arms...but when I went to visit my TX friends and got familiar with both CA mostly gun restricted laws vs. TX more gun friendly laws and compared crime statistics...I came away with a better appreciation on gun laws and how conservatives do have some good points on that, not here to change your mind though :)***
15. Dan said the following at 12:36 AM on Aug 29:
15
I just wonder if anyone has overlooked the fact that this guy is pro guns. Why is it that all conservatives a stinking war mongers that have the bible in one hand and a gun in the other. American politics makes me sick with its out and out hypocrasy.
16. Sara said the following at 7:41 AM on Aug 29:
16
The most important thing is to educate yourself on the candidates and vote. It's hard to find the ideal candidate. My perfect candidate would oppose abortion, the death penalty and the war in Iraq (just as my church does). He/she would support universal health care and work to ensure a living wage for all Americans. This candidate would also defend the bill of rights, oppose illegal wire tapping and keep us safe by not acting as a bully on the world stage. He/she would also work to ensure that families are supported- paid family leave, paid sick days and other things that allow families the time to work and respect the importance of the family relationship.
Unfortunately, this candidate does not exist...yet. But maybe someday it could be me. Instead of complaining, I believe we all need to get out there and get involved. People can make a difference. if you don't like the candidates, run yourself. It's all about grass roots participation.
17. Justin said the following at 7:59 AM on Aug 29:
17
You really came to the heart of the issue in this post. The day we vote on and elect candidates because of their political popularity instead of any inherent merits is the day democracy fails. George Washington recognized this very fact himself when in his farewell address he said,
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy."
The president of the SBC has made a grave mistake in even asserting that we would vote on a candidate because they have a better chance of winning. He has abandoned morals for politics.
Over the next year politics will begin to truly heat up. As Christians we cannot bend to every political wind, or submit to ourselves to one party. As has been done for centuries Christians must stand for the biblical, moral choice and trust in God's sovereignty to take care of the rest.
18. Denise Morris said the following at 9:58 AM on Aug 29:
18
I just want to clarify that my post was not about supporting Huckabee. I was just using him as an example of one of the lesser-known candidates who probably does not have a real shot at the Presidency. Also, the article said that he was a great conservative candidate, not me.
I agree with a lot of you -- I get quite frustrated with the two-party system. Neither of them seem to get much done. I guess it's something to think about when we enter the voting booth on election day.
19. Jo said the following at 10:38 AM on Aug 29:
19
Thanks everyone who's given views on the gun thing...
I'll state first of all that as a Brit, I don't know a huuuge amount about the gun laws in America. I'm only speaking from my perceptions, and I appreciate many of these are from biased sources. I also appreciate that this is one of the issues where American and British culture are very different. So please don't be offended by anything I say, I genuinely would like to hear American views and DannieA, I'm very open to having my mind changed on this particular issue. :)
Basically, the information/propaganda that we tend to see over here comes across as a step-by-step anti-guns argument roughly as follows:
1. America is extremely lax about its gun laws, to the point where virtually anyone can buy a high powered deadly weapon with hardly any trouble.
2. America has more crime than most other countries, much of it violent.
3. If America tightened its gun laws, its crime rate would decrease.
I personally have never tried to purchase a gun over here, but from what I hear we have pretty strict regulations governing it. They don't prevent people from buying guns, but they do for example keep records of who has guns (something I believe doesn't happen in America, but I could be wrong).
So my questions are these:
1. Is my assessment of how easy it is for anyone to buy guns correct? And if so...
2. Does the 2nd amendment allow for NO limitations on the right to own a gun, or regulations controlling it for the safety of its other citizens? For example, it's one thing to buy a gun to protect your family and property, it's another to buy a gun to use as an offensive weapon. Does the government wash its hands of this problem?
3. (To Farmer Tom mainly, but anyone else who shares his view): You say it's a 'God given right' to be able to own guns. Can you explain this further or give Biblical support for this argument?
Again everyone, please don't take offence at anything I've said. I genuinely would like to understand the American viewpoint on guns better, and so I've been very honest about what we Brits are shown and perceive about the issue. I'm quite happy to admit we could have it all wrong, and if so I'm hoping someone can give me a better idea of how it really is! But by the same token, we all have blind spots in some areas and perhaps outside views are helpful too.
(PS Farmer Tom - You said "For the moment I'll give you a pass, because you're not an American" - which I find a little patronising to be honest... I accept I don't know all the issues involved, but I am still entitled to my opinion. Sometimes outside views can be very helpful in seeing our own blind spots and widening our own ideas, so please don't just dismiss my view because I'm from a different culture.)
20. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 10:58 AM on Aug 29:
20
Here in Canada, we have 2 political parties that have "a chance" of winning. But there are other parties (notably the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois and potentially the Green Party in the next election) that are large enough to significantly affect the political process here.
One factor that makes people think that they are not "throwing their vote away" by voting for a 3rd party candidate is that part of each party's campaign budget is [tax dollars distributed] based on the number of votes they received in the previous election. Is there any mechanism like that in the U.S.?
p.s. before anyone jumps on the idea of giving tax dollars to political parties, permit me to explain the rationale: since the parties' budgets don't come exclusively from donations, they are theoretically less beholden to the interests of large corporations and wealthy individuals.
21. DannieA said the following at 11:21 AM on Aug 29:
21
Jo,
I didn't take offense at your post :) and I think your posts are valid :) And I think I didn't think about this a lot because in the state of California the gun laws are so incredibly strict, it really doesn't make sense to own one here to be honest.
Each state has their own laws and legislature about what is expected...wait time, types of guns one can and cannot purchase...so it depends on who you talk to because the laws differ from state to state.
I believe people should have the right to own a gun for protection if they so choose. (at the moment a baseball bat is my bedside protection lol)
But one does need to know that with owning a gun there is a responsibility.
As I'm new to learning stuff about guns and I live in a more liberal minded state that would rather guns not exist...I'll defer to others about more detailed explanations if they have them.
Thanks for your post JO
22. DannieA said the following at 11:22 AM on Aug 29:
22
btw as a single female...when I move out and live by myself (if that happens...unless marriage comes along) I'm all about having a gun for protection.
23. Carrie said the following at 11:36 AM on Aug 29:
23
I personally would like to get a chance to throw my support behind Ron Paul.
As far as the 2nd ammendment goes, I don't believe owning a gun is a "God given right" anymore than owning a car or marriage is a "God given right". Owning a gun is a priviledge. I am for gun control insofar as it needs to be an earned priviledge and one should pass through the right channels.
Violence stems from irresponsibility. There is no lobbyist working to make knives illegal, is there??
24. farmer Tom said the following at 11:56 AM on Aug 29:
24
I'm on my lunch break, don't have time for long answers.
Jo, I gave you a pass exactly because I didn't expect that you would know all the issues involved. If you were an American I'd have torn your head off for failing to understand the importance of the Constitution. As a fundamentalist Christian, who believes in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, in the secular realm I treat the Constitution exactly as I treat Scripture. It is the foundational document on which this nation is founded. All rights come from the Creator. The right to life is the first and most important of those rights. God gives life, it is wrong for governments to allow the destruction of unborn life, and of the aged. And as a human being created in the image of God, I have a right to protect my life and that of my family. There is evil in this fallen world. If a wicked depraved human being attempts to assault or harm me or one of my family, I will use deadly force to stop that wickedness. Therefore the right to gun ownership is a right to life issue.
Gun ownership gives me the ability to defend me and my family against evil doers. Those evil doers may be criminals intent on infringing on my right to property, they may be governments intent on taking away my personal freedoms. Whatever the intended purpose of the evil doer, gun ownership gives me the ability(power) to defend my God given right to life, liberty and property.
A couple more quick thoughts,
Ever wonder why Jesus said this, " Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Do you believe in "just war"? If there is justice for a country to defend itself against an aggressor, doesn't it also make sense that an individual has the right to defend himself against an aggressor?
Forget guns for a second, before there was gunpowder, did you believe in the right of the citizen to carry a knife, sword, club, pail of boiling hot water, etc. A weapon is what we're talking about here, do you believe in the right of the individual to defend himself with any kind of weapon?
later
25. farmer Tom said the following at 12:04 PM on Aug 29:
25
There is no lobbyist working to make knives illegal, is there??
Carrie,
The answer is Yes
Google England/Ban/Knives or some variation.
Any attempt by government to take weapons away from criminals will only endanger the law abiding citizen. Far better to allow unrestricted access to guns by everyone and let a few criminals get dispatched into eternity than have honest moral people be deprived of the right to defend one's own life.
26. JO A. said the following at 12:18 PM on Aug 29:
26
"Mike Huckabee agrees with all of the major points of conservative politics? Then why did he say that racism is behind the immigration debate and call critics of Bush's amnesty plan racist? Why did he say that Hispanic immigration offers America a "second chance" to make up for our past racism against blacks? Why did he go on and on at the Lincoln Day Dinner in Iowa about how he wants to be the "voice" for all the sick and suffering Americans who can't get adequate medical care?"
Is it bad that this quote actually made me like him more? How could it be bad to want to help "the sick and suffering Americans who can't get adequate medical care"? These are the few "liberal" causes that I actually believe in.
27. BB said the following at 12:45 PM on Aug 29:
27
The Bible says something about God having control who our leaders are. I understand some people feel they should vote for who they believe is the best canidate and trust God to elect whoever He wants in office.
At the same time, we have the ability to make a difference with our vote and others say we should make our vote count by not throwing it away on canidates who have no chance at winning.
Which one is right? Smarter men then I have long debated politics but I tend to believe we should vote by our convictions. God is in control and we should follow His plan and not ours. Recently I was in a bible study that went through Joshua's battle with the city of Ai. The first battle, they looked at the numbers and went with their plan and were defeated. They never lost a battle when they were obeying God. If God wants Hillary to win, it will happen. Only he is sovern and who are we to plan otherwise. We should say Lord willing a good canidate wins and trust God to do the miricals. Huckabee could be the next Gidian who wins despite what the polls say are small numbers.
28. Ted Slater said the following at 1:55 PM on Aug 29:
28
JO A. -- helping the "sick and suffering" is a job for families, for the church, for individual and corporate philanthropists, and so on. It's not really the job of a politician to "show generosity" with ... um ... my money.
There may be exceptions, where someone just needs help and for whatever reason hadn't anticipated needing it. I feel bad for them. And though it's not a constitutional right, I think it's fine to help them out using my tax dollars.
But in most cases isn't it our responsibility, primarily, and then the responsibility of our family/church/neighbors/philanthropists to help us out? Why am I required to help out someone that I've never met, who may use my money in ways that may be frivolous and ultimately may be detrimental to them? Why should I be forced to bail out *all* those who didn't have the foresight to plan, or who have spent money on play things rather than contingency planning, or who have burned bridges with friends and family, or whose lifestyles are dangerous to their health, and so on?
Some people, it seems, want to just collect up all the money everyone has and redistribute it so that it's all "fair." Of course, they are the ones to define what's "fair."
Sure is easy to be "generous" with other people's money.
As for me, I have health insurance, life insurance, and retirement accounts -- things I can afford on one ministry income because my wife and I have denied ourselves and our daughters a lot of "fun" things.
29. Oxanna said the following at 3:02 PM on Aug 29:
29
OK, I think I just wrote a whole ARTICLE. *groan* Watch me crash the Boundless comment box.
Carrie wrote: "As far as the 2nd ammendment goes, I don't believe owning a gun is a "God given right" anymore than owning a car or marriage is a "God given right". Owning a gun is a priviledge. I am for gun control insofar as it needs to be an earned priviledge and one should pass through the right channels."
Ooh. Big difference there between owning a car and getting married. Yes, marriage is a "God given right"! Or at least, the choice to be married, insofar as the government is concerned. And actually, owning a car is a right too, in a roundabout way. The right to be able to freely trade and own property would apply to that one. Note that I'm not necessarily advocating that everyone own a gun, just like we don't necessarily say that everyone should be married, but shouldn't we have that right?
Jo, let me see if I can make an attempt at answering some of your questions. :) It's a huge issue, so it's unlikely to be resolved here, but let me see if I can find you some resources. I just wanted to add that I appreciate your questions. Even if you disagree, I appreciate your being willing to ask questions and take a look at another side of things.
First off, much of America's self defense/defense of freedom mindset originally came from Britain and other European countries. It's changed now, drastically, but the historic and philosophical roots are there, among other places. America did not come into being from a vacuum. The founding fathers had much to build on from the past. (Again, the Second Amendment Primer has a nice overview of some of these. There's probably a better resource out there somewhere.)
"1. Is my assessment of how easy it is for anyone to buy guns correct? And if so..."
Yes and no. You have federal law (nationwide), and then each state has their own laws. Some states are incredibly strict. New York, for instance, requires a permit to purchase a handgun, registration of handgun owners, a permit to carry a handgun (which you probably ain't getting unless you're a bigshot), and registration of handguns. New York City itself has these same requirements for rifles as well. In other states, only a permit to carry is required, but firearms can be owned without a permit. Most places (correct me if I'm wrong) have varying waiting periods between the actual purchase of a firearm and picking it up from the store. There are regulations on types of ammo and firearms available, too.
And of course nationally, you have quite a few restrictions re: who firearms dealers can sell to: minors - 21 for handguns, 18 for long arms, felons, anyone committed to a mental institution, etc.
For reference on gun laws by state:
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/#?st=NY
And national:
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=63
About permits to carry - most areas require their citizens to apply for and receive a permit to actually carry the firearm. This usually involves some form of training, perhaps many dollars :), all the waiting time, and sometimes, the bigshot in charge of handing out permits won't give them to lowly peons, just "important people". Plus, many permits to carry have their own restrictions, varying by state, county, or city, with extra rules for how to store it while traveling! You can see why every additional restriction is another roadblock for a law-abiding citizen who wants to simply defend themselves. It's a lot of work to figure these things out. Rather overwhelming for the woman hiding out from her abusive ex-boyfriend, no?
"2. Does the 2nd amendment allow for NO limitations on the right to own a gun, or regulations controlling it for the safety of its other citizens? For example, it's one thing to buy a gun to protect your family and property, it's another to buy a gun to use as an offensive weapon. Does the government wash its hands of this problem?
Well, obviously no legit seller is going to sell to someone who says, "Yeah, I'm buying this to shoot up the convenience store tonight!" So I'm not sure how you would gather this information. An honest person is going to tell you the truth, a dishonest one will lie, so what will you do to determine that? Besides, criminals would simply buy/borrow a gun or other weapon from a fellow criminal without any care about legality.
Perhaps you're thinking that the buyer should show some proof of need for the gun first? That's certainly been considered, and is usually a requirement when applying for a permit to carry. (Another thing which criminals ignore - they really don't care if they're carrying the gun illegally.) This is a violation of the right to self defense, because who can predict what their need will be? You may never need it. Then again, you may be just be in the wrong place at the wrong time through no fault of your own, and desperately need it. The government isn't a good arbiter of need. People are grownups, they can decide for themselves. One might likewise ask whether
I know it's so cliche, but "if guns are banned, only criminals will own guns". Yep. Crooks have a penchant for violence, and they tend to avoid pesky things like "laws". And if they don't have guns, they get other lovely weapons, like knives and heavy clubs. Or their fists. Someone wrote, "Gun control is the theory that a 115-lb. woman has the right to fistfight with a 250-lb. rapist."
3. (To Farmer Tom mainly, but anyone else who shares his view): You say it's a 'God given right' to be able to own guns. Can you explain this further or give Biblical support for this argument?"
It's not the right to own guns, it's the right to self defense. And, defense of the country's liberties. Guns are/were the up-to-date weaponry that could deter both the mundane criminal and the governmental criminal. Before guns were invented, it would have been swords, spears, longbows, etc. In the Old Testament, of course, the right to self defense was rather assumed.
Too, remember that even if you decide to give up your right to life, you don't have the right to take that choice away from others.
Regarding the crime issues that you brought up:
2. America has more crime than most other countries, much of it violent.
3. If America tightened its gun laws, its crime rate would decrease.
Wrong assumptions, but very common. I've already pointed out that we have plenty of gun laws. As to the crime, simply not true. See:
Robert Levy on the D.C. gun ban. It was/is an almost complete ban on guns in Washington D.C. Unfortunately for the statistics, the crime rate in the 31 years since the ban, "with the exception of a few years during which the city's murder rate ranked second or third — there have been more killings per capita in D.C. than in any other major city" http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8133
The Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html
The Times Online - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece
Cato Institute (last question) - http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
NRA - http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78
Oh, and even if you skip the rest, you must read this article - "A World Without Guns". I think it will help you realize the inevitable conclusion of a world without arms.
http://www.wmsa.net/People/david_kopel/011205_world_without_guns.htm
Again, probably way more than you wanted to read. :) Ooh, and because I still have more...a nice little video from an officer who points out the difference between semi-automatics and automatics, and how with a few cosmetic changes, a nice wooden "hunting rifle" can turn into an evil "assault rifle". Fascinating, as even I didn't know this before!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30
30. Jo said the following at 3:03 PM on Aug 29:
30
Ted, your comment really upsets me.
I do understand and share your concern about 'bailing out' those who have made bad decisions and shouldn't need government assistance. But you seemed to allow only for the occasional exception. To me, your comment sounded quite unmerciful.
I work with disabled young adults in a care home. The students range from those who are able bodied with a learning difficulty, to others who are physically unable to do anything at all for themselves. It costs between £30,000 - £60,000 a year (double those figures for the US$ equivalents) for us to provide care for just one of these students for a year. Our students are comfortable, and that figure includes an educational programme as well as living costs, but they don't live in luxury.
The students are funded by Social Services (which in turn is funded by the government, from our taxes.) They also receive benefits from Social Services, of which most is automatically taken back again, as a contribution towards the cost of their care. The 'personal allowance' that they end up with to spend on themselves is about £15 per week. Again, that's not miserly, but it's certainly not extravagent, especially when you consider that many of them will never be able to work, and so will not have the opportunity to improve their financial situation at all.
I don't know what happens in America in cases like these. I don't understand how health insurance works, because here it's a 'free' system paid for by all of us who earn enough to pay taxes. I'm not for a moment suggesting that there's nothing wrong with the British system, there's A LOT wrong with it. But I for one am very happy to contribute from my excess to those who cannot support themselves.
In an ideal society, you're right. It IS our responsibility to help the poor and sick and suffering. It is for the families, the churches, for individual people to be generous with their resources. But do you honestly believe that if the state said "All right, we'll leave it up to each individual to decide whether they want to give", that we as a society would take that responsibility seriously? Many of us would, of course. But let's be realistic. The world is selfish. It IS the role of a government to take care of its citizens. Neither I nor my family nor my church would be able to afford £60,000 a year to fund a disabled relative to live in a care home, if we had to. I'm glad that we as a nation can chip in together and spread the load.
31. Jo said the following at 3:07 PM on Aug 29:
31
(Just to clarify, I know you were talking to JO A, and I'm not her... I'm always just Jo.)
32. JO A. said the following at 3:19 PM on Aug 29:
32
Ted, you said: "Why am I required to help out someone that I've never met,who may use my money in ways that may be frivolous and ultimately may be detrimental to them" and "..just collect up all the money everyone has" and "Sure is easy to be "generous" with other people's money."
I guess I operate under the belief that it isn't my money. I'm just a steward of what God has given me-- it's His money. I shouldn't be upset about not getting to keep as much as I "deserve," especially since I have a roof over my head, health insurance, etc. because it isn't my money to begin with--I don't deserve any of it, no matter how hard I work. Any gift from God (money, health, whatever)is a gift that I will never truly deserve or earn.
I guess I understand the point you were trying to make, but it just doesn't resonate with me. If "my" tax money is given to 100 people, but only 3 deserve it--then 3 people were helped. I know that family member generosity and independent charitable giving should be what sustains these people, but the world just doesn't always work that way. I do wish that people would think of the needs of the poor or ill members of their church before they went and spent $40k on an SUV; but, judging from the number of gigantic cars in my church parking lot every Sunday, I don't see that happening any time soon.
33. Joe said the following at 5:54 PM on Aug 29:
33
Oxanna--
You mentioned several times arguments along the lines of:
"Besides, criminals would simply buy/borrow a gun or other weapon from a fellow criminal without any care about legality."
I always find it hilarious that this (typically) Republican argument is the EXACT opposite of the (again, typically) Republican argument about drug legality. If we put legal limits on gun ownership, criminals will ignore them, but legal limits on drug use are both wonderful and sure to be effective (any day now). It is a comical disconnect since guns are most often used to hurt others (something almost all political philosophies oppose), whereas drugs are most often used to hurt oneself (something conservative political philosophy allows).
Relating this back to the point of the post, the Republican party is economically conservative (although even that is falling by the wayside), but socially liberal. For people like myself who are conservative across the board, we must look to a candidate from a third party, such as the Libertarian Party. Everyone should vote for the person(s) they think are best for the position. The only reason it is still a two-party system is because so many buy into the hype of a two-party system and refuse to vote for third-party candidates.
34. Joe said the following at 5:57 PM on Aug 29:
34
Side note, but I rarely see it pointed out --
Despite popular Christian misconception, the issue of gay marriage is NOT a reason to vote for a Republican instead of a Democrat. Every single mainstream Democratic candidate opposes gay marriage.
35. Ted Slater said the following at 6:12 PM on Aug 29:
35
Jo -- your example is something I could support. The thing we should all keep in mind, though, is that the money to support these people comes from all those around us. And we should be humble, and grateful, for it. We don't "deserve" it in the strictest sense of the word. We all need to keep in mind that their money is being taken from them at the point of a gun, though it's often used for "good" purposes.
JO A. -- I, too, consider "my money" to be money that belongs to the Lord which I "steward." And I don't get "upset" when I see my money supprting the kind of folks described in the comment above yours from Jo.
That said, if you don't feel any kind of connection to your money, as you imply, and are inclined to be generous, please consider giving a portion to Focus on the Family, for the support of their many meaningful ministries, including Boundless. Here's the link: http://www.boundless.org/2005/donations.cfm.
Regarding "gigantic cars" in your church parking lot -- what are their owners using them for? Are there a lot of big families at your church? If so, great! Are they their work vehicles? Great! Or, like Al Gore's many vehicles, are they just comfy big cars that lend a degree of status? Even then, the decision to get one is up to them; it's not really my job to judge them for how they spend
theirthe Lord's money.36. Lauren T. said the following at 6:48 PM on Aug 29:
36
Dan, you should go read the post from last week about the current level of vitriol in politics.
It's really hard to discuss anything with someone who calls you a hateful warmonger! *grin*
37. farmer Tom said the following at 8:26 PM on Aug 29:
37
I guess I operate under the belief that it isn't my money. I'm just a steward of what God has given me-- it's His money.
So why don't you take your cash out into the street, throw it up in the air for anybody that wants it to take?
What entitles the government to take money from it citizens and give it to other citizens, businesses or schools?? You would be a far better judge of who or what should get your money than any government bureaucrat could ever be.
So it's God's money, Amen, how very spiritual of you. Now why are you letting the government steal it from you and waste it on things that are none of their business??
38. Jason said the following at 7:53 AM on Aug 30:
38
Jo A,
Biblical stewardship would not allow us to fund help for a hundred and only feed three. The better path would be to personally oversee help to the hundred, rather than allow politicians and an inefficient government oversee charity. Compassion without accountability is absolutely foreign to Jesus Christ, the apostles, and the Old Testament.
Further, and I'll keep this brief, the biblical model for feeding the poor is that opportunity be given for them to feed themselves (e.g. Exodus 23:11). There are obvious exceptions, but that's the general rule. Paul put it bluntly: "He who does not work, does not eat," (2 Thess. 3:10).
Thoughts?
And about the original article...vote biblical principles, including strategy concerning probability of winning--an oft-neglected but absolutely Scriptural idea (cf. Luke 14:31).
39. Robert J Espe said the following at 8:19 AM on Aug 30:
39
To answer Denise's original question:
I have voted Constitution party for president since I was old enough to vote. It is not a question of whether or not I make a difference. I was never called to make a difference. I am a steward of one vote, I do the best with that vote I can. If no one else stands with me, then so be it, I have done what I must.
The soldiers who fought the Revolution didn't ask whether they could win. They fought because the alternative was tyranny. They won. The soldiers at the Alamo never asked whether they could win, they fought because the alternative was tyranny. They died. Nothing is assured.
I doubt the Constitution party will ever win in this country because most Americans no longer want liberty, the cost is too high. But I cannot vote for a Republican, because when they win, I get tyranny. Unlike our forefathers, I will not die for voting for liberty. It is the least I can do.
40. Jill Anttila said the following at 9:42 AM on Aug 30:
40
I wish that people would support those who they feel are simply right! It is always beneficial to stand on truth. If that candidate can't "take" the election, that shows that is what the people want. Our representatives are often corrupt. They represent our society accurately. Do we want corrupt winners, or should we want to vote for representatives who represent our beliefs whether they win or not? That would be a better way for our voices to be truly heard. I propose that every candidate records his/her platform in a written form and all these mis-leading ads be eliminated. Unfortunately our society is so lazy that they will vote in response to a TV ad instead of looking into the true views of the candidate.
41. JO A. said the following at 10:04 AM on Aug 30:
41
I guess I just don't think the situation is as simple as saying "People will take care of others when they need help so the government shouldn't." There are too many "what if" situations like the one the other Jo described. I'm not trying to be overly spiritual or anything--I'm just trying to say that I honestly don't deserve all that I have, so if the government wants to take some to help the poor-it really isn't a big deal for me. In fact, I welcome it. No system is going to work perfectly. Even if people were in complete control over every dime of their paychecks and give what they feel is the right amount to give, there will always be pastors who steal and churches that waste the funds. I am sure that even Focus on the Family has wasted money (even if by accident)on occasion. I'm not advocating blind compassion; however, there are no perfect charities.
"Now why are you letting the government steal it from you and waste it on things that are none of their business??"
What is the governement's business, then? I assumed that the health and security of it's people was pretty high up on the list.
42. JO A. said the following at 10:08 AM on Aug 30:
42
"What entitles the government to take money from it citizens and give it to other citizens, businesses or schools??"
How many Boundless readers have completely funded their own educations without any government funds? Unless you refused all federal aid, how can you be upset about this? My tax dollars helped put myself and others through college. Again, I am not upset about that.
43. Jo said the following at 10:57 AM on Aug 30:
43
Jo A:
I agree with you completely.
Farmer Tom:
Throwing my cash out into the street would not be an example of 'being a good steward', would it? As I said before, the UK's tax system is far from perfect, and there are many things that my taxes go towards which I don't approve of. But, if I choose to live in the UK, I'm asked by God to 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's' and keep the law with regards to taxes.
When we're talking about giving to those who are unable to support themselves though, I'm all in favour. I'm not happy about benefit fraud, and people claiming help they don't actually need. But for people like those I described in my post, I think as Christians if not human beings, we should realise that it is our duty to offer our support. I don't understand why any Christian would disagree with this.
I do understand the view of some people on here that you the individual would prefer the opportunity to decide where to give your support. I would too, for myself. But in reality, only a few of us would do this at all. I think it IS the government's responsibility to make sure its citizens are adequately cared for. Where do you suggest they get the money to do this?
I am not paid well by anyone's standards, but I manage to pay my taxes, tithe to my church, sponsor a child and give to another charity, as well as saving a little each month. I hear that 10% of the world owns 90% of the wealth. I'd have to give a lot more than I do to even begin to redress that balance.
Jason:
Sometimes, personally overseeing help to the hundred is possible. But if we give to organisations like Compassion, World Vision or indeed Focus on the Family, we are trusting that organisation to oversee how our funds are used. While I can get directly involved in some ministries, and can give to those in need who I come into contact with in daily life, there are many more who need help who I haven't personally met and can't personally help. What I can do is give from my money to organisations who are able to help. Most of those I donate to have a mission statement of enabling the poor to sustain themselves, which I completely agree is the Biblical model, wherever it's possible.
If anyone's at all interested, the tax rates in the UK at the moment are roughly as follows:
First £5000 ($10000) of earnings is tax-free.
Next £2000 ($4000) is taxed at 10%.
Next £31000 ($62000) is taxed at 22%.
Anything above this is taxed at 40%.
Taxes go towards education up to age 18, healthcare, defence, unemployment and disability benefits, among lots of other things.
44. nikki said the following at 11:32 AM on Aug 30:
44
"...The Second Amendment is one of my Inalienable Rights given to me by God himself, and no government should ever infringe on that right, ever."
"I treat the Constitution exactly as I treat Scripture."
I am really shocked to read these two things and firstly, I hope you can provide an answer FROM SCRIPTURE, not a legal document, that you have an inalienable, God-given right to own a stupid gun.
I don't disagree that law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns if they want. I enjoy target shooting myself from time to time, and I appreciate my dad owning his "to protect his family" or at least to take out once a year to bag a turkey or a deer. Strict gun control is a bad idea, for many "secular" reasons. But, aren't there far more concerning issues in the world, like people going to hell for example, than worrying about whether you get to own a particular item? There are so many problems with this, I just hardly know where to start.
I have never heard anyone say the constitution is equal to scripture. So I guess the world had to do with an incomplete version of Scripture up until a couple hundred years ago, then? (Lucky us.) How does that ratificaton process work out, with the majority of citizens adding or subtracting to the Word of God when the fancy strikes?
Can you please tell us why you believe this??
45. Ted Slater said the following at 12:17 PM on Aug 30:
45
nikki -- I'll assume that your taking Farmer Tom's comment out of context is an accident, that it's not your intention to misrepresent him.
He didn't say, "I treat the Constitution exactly as I treat Scripture." He said that "in the secular realm I treat the Constitution exactly as I treat Scripture." There's a significant difference. Which I'm sure he'll explain to you.
As far as your concern about our rights, as identified in the Bill of Rights, coming from God ... what problem do you have with that? Surely you don't think our "rights" are given to us by our government? The Declaration of Independence affirms that our rights are endowed to us by our Creator. Or are you arguing that the Bill of Rights doesn't accurately describe some of the rights given by God?
46. Oxanna said the following at 1:33 PM on Aug 30:
46
Joe - And did I say I was Republican? :D (Actually, I *am* registered Republican - but mainly because then I can vote in the primaries.) I may be inclined to agree with you on the drugs issue. It's a tough issue - there's a balance of law & liberty, and the more individuals won't police themselves (true liberty), I guess you end up with more regulations. And drugs are a bit different than a right to self defense, IMHO. But obviously, the Drug War doesn't appear to be working very well!
Re: all this discussion about compassion and social justice, etc. - it sounds A LOT like what Frederic Bastiat called "false philanthropy" in his book The Law. Might I suggest reading it? It sounds intimidating, but it's really quite short and easy to read. I don't necessarily agree with everything there, but he has a ton of excellent points. I could rewrite it, but I think I'd be wasting my breath. PLEASE read it, especially if you believe that helping the poor, etc., should be the government's duty. It's fascinating.
47. Carrie Lea said the following at 2:29 PM on Aug 30:
47
Joe,
You make an interesting comparison between gun legality and drug legality. Are you suggesting that drugs can somehow be used in self-defense?
48. Luke said the following at 4:55 PM on Aug 30:
48
I believe that Mike Huckabee is a great candidate. He is a true conservative unlike the other Republicans. When conservatives vote for "electable" candidates in the primary we wind up having to choose between the lesser of two evils in the general election. Rudy Giuliani would be considered a democrat in a southern state and I believe would be worse in the long run than Hillary Clinton. I know so many people who think Rudy would be better than Hillary just because he is a Republican. I used to consider myself a Republican, but I feel like the Repbulican party no longer represents the values I believe in. If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican primary I wouldn't be surprised to see many more pro-abortion Republicans in the near future, which I believe would be a terrible thing for this country. The bottom line is that Mike Huckabee is the only true conservative running for president at this point.
49. nikki said the following at 8:19 AM on Aug 31:
49
Hmm...farmer tom, I sure didn't mean to misinterpret your statement and I hope you will adequately correct me if I have. Thanks, Ted, for pointing that out.
As far as your concern about our rights, as identified in the Bill of Rights, coming from God ... what problem do you have with that? Surely you don't think our "rights" are given to us by our government? The Declaration of Independence affirms that our rights are endowed to us by our Creator. Or are you arguing that the Bill of Rights doesn't accurately describe some of the rights given by God?
I guess I would need to see it in Scripture before I accept it anyplace else. I could be wrong, but I don't know of any place where God tells us we all have a right to private property/voting/liberty/pursuit of happiness/etc. (Let alone ownership of weapons.)
I know this is another can of worms, but I thought Christians were supposed to submit to government, and that's certainly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers, drafters of the Constitution, did. They completely disregarded their government in an act of rebellion, plain and simple. Now I'm not here to say there is no just war, or that capitalism isn't the best economy for selfish people, or that people shouldn't be allowed to have guns. I'm just saying that the Constitution was written by some people who claimed to be Christians (I've read plenty of their writings; the book Original Intent is highly recommended for those who think most of the Fathers were deists or vague spiritualists) and yet they flagrantly disregarded one of Scripture's clearest commands: to be subject to governing authorities. Whether the authority is just or unjust is not addressed by Paul, and I believe Paul wrote that during the time of Nero's cruel reign. So although they obviously did an excellent job of coming up with a good working system of government, I'm not taking Bible lessons from them.
I think God wants his people to be free. I think God wants everyone to go go heaven, too. Maybe this is a poor analogy. But we don't have a *right* to heaven, and I just don't know that we all have a *right* to freedom. Why wouldn't it be clearly addressed in Scripture when to throw off government, when to reform, when to rebel, etc.? In fact it seems to say the complete opposite. So I just don't know if we are entitled to freedom and democracy and guns. And I mean exactly that: I just plain don't know. I could be completely wrong.
Thanks for everyone who read this and is bearing with me as I try to figure these things out.
50. SB said the following at 2:36 PM on Aug 31:
50
To chip in on some earlier comments...
It is my job as a CHRISTIAN to care for the poor, etc. It is not my job as a CITIZEN to do so.
If the church was doing its job to meet the needs of the unfortunate, we might not have the cumbersome and wasteful social programs we do today. The other side of that coin is that I think many Christians are less generous than they would be otherwise when such a large portion of their paychecks are withheld to meet these needs.
51. Phoebe said the following at 3:36 PM on Aug 31:
51
Well, I haven't read all the posts here. But I noticed a while back that someone said that Huckabee is not a 'real conservative.' I would like to point out that, yes, he raised tax 3% in Arkansas, BUT he was responsible with that money and left the state with a surplus. Hmmm. I think we could use some of that fiscal good-sense in the White House. Also, I really like his Fair Tax idea. I'm tipping to Huckabee. I can even say, "I Like Mike."