This is based on a previous question -
Is it more important to you to have a President who claims to share your Christian values, as G.W. Bush did, than it is to have a President who can actually handle the job? I'm talking about foreign policy, economic policy, education, etc, here. Would it be preferable to you to have someone inept in office, just because they claim to be Christian, and why? Why not?
Don't misunderstand me - I'm trying to figure out why having values that match yours seem to be more important to the Christian voting base than the things I mentioned above. And for once, let's see if we can leave hot button issues like abortion and gay marriage out of this. Just so you all know - I'm not saying you have to be Republican to vote for a Christina candidate. I'm also not the one thumbs downing all the answers. Whoever is needs to chill out. They have to go with someone insane. If you pick a generally well rounded and smart person, then I would be allowed to get married. That just can't be. So Dub was the best bet.
Church and beliefs do not belong in Washington Politics. Your beliefs are not mine. I wish people could separate the two. They just can't do it though. What ever happened to living YOUR life by YOUR beliefs. Don't make others do it. How self-righteous is that? Obviously it's the former. Christians don't give two shits what a president does, as long as his ideals parallel with Christianity. Thumb me down if you want, but it's true and becomes apparent when you look at Dubya's actions. I might be willing to vote for a Christian whom I believed was as capable of being POTUS as an atheist. Their "conscience" matters more than the welfare of the nation. After all, this is a "Christian" nation. Well, unfortunately hind sight is the best sight. I voted for the jerk because I thought he was a Christian and PRESUMED because his party nominated him that he could handle the job. Live and learn. I won't ever base my vote on that again. Wait a minute, let me get some popcorn and a soda... this is gonna be good! When I vote I always vote for the one God impresses upon me to vote for. I pray and pray and ask God whom will he have me vote for. So to say I am Republican is not true. I am for whoever God is for. im just sick of the whole deal .. sure a christian president would be nice but do you really think a president can change things for the better for the common people ... i dont believe that anymore .. i honestly dont .. kennedy was the last that tried and they wasted him ... Bush is handling the job quite well, you need to remember the media is far left and only shows a side that is important to their agenda.
I will admit we do no to be in Iraq any longer we freed them know let them run it , What ever happened to the search for Bin Laden? that's why we have free elections like we do so that we can vote for people that would think like we do and represent us the majority in this country.
i want a president that would think with a christian mind I think anyone who has any sense - believer, atheist, whatever - is going to go with the candidiate who can best handle the job over personal beliefs.
It's not only a person of faith who may go with a candidate for only one or two reasons, overlooking the entire package they'd be getting. Not a Christian, but I did see an interview with Jerry Falwell, one of the worst fundies ever, in which he said he would rather have an atheist in office who could do the job than a Christian who wasn't qualified.
The answer to this question should be interesting. I refuse to leave major issues like abortion or gay marriage out of my decision of who to vote for, that would be like asking you to forget about education or foreign policy. Anyone who is able to just 'put aside' ALL of their beliefs, does not have faith in the first place. Sorry, I will not separate the two - my faith is the basis of my values / morals; And my values / morals are the basis of my faith; they go 'hand-in-hand'. Don't you have a conscience? I'm a follower of Christ, and I vote for the electors who choose the Commander in Chief, not Pastor in Chief. I would like to see this country go back to the days when this was not part of the debate as to what made a person ready or able to handle that job.
The voters should not even know what religion a canadate is because the Constitution says " no religious tests for office" and it should remain that way. I would vote for the one that seems that they can do the best job for the country and not for themselves or a select few people. And I am not interested in any president that cares what I am doing in the provacy of my own home. That is my business and no one elses. They should be concerned with education, jobs, national security, foriegn relations, the national debt, health care, immigration issues. Not gays, abortion, guns, tax cuts to the rich, tax breaks for corporations. I wouldn鈥檛 vote for anybody for ANY public office based on what they say about their faith. Most politicians say whatever they think their core constituency wants to hear. I would look at the integrity and values the candidate has shown in his/her life. If a person has integrity that is likely to show up no matter what difficulties they face in office.
How they live their faith, not what they say about their faith, that is what counts with me. Excellent question (starred).
It's the same concept that some religious sects will not let their sick or injured children visit a doctor. They believe that everything is in God's hands and that God will heal their sick baby if they pray hard and long enough.
So too with voting for a "Christian" President and why he continues to have support even after displaying his incompetence. There is an unwavering belief by many Christians that God is guiding the president in all that he does. To doubt Bush's plan is tantamount to questioning God's plan. Well, difficult question. It is a bit too vague for me.
I would say, however, that the values are more important because our country is more than its leaders.
Think of the country like a house. Some inept guy moves in, and he might scuff up a few doors and leave messes on the floor, but there's always the chance that someone else will move in after him and clean the place up. Plus, it's not like there's going to be a big disaster: the house will remain standing, because an inept guy is not just inept at doing good: chances are, he's also inept at doing bad. The house can take care of itself for 4-8 years.
But then someone else moves into the house, someone who's competent, but they don't like the look of the place (i.e., they don't share the same values). So they start knocking down walls and tearing up the floor, and because they are not inept they do a fairly good job at ripping the place apart and remodling it. In the end, it's not the same house: it's been remade in that person's wishes.
In other words, the country is doing alright, we are on the right course, and all we have to really worry about is someone coming in and messing everything up. If someone's inept, okay, ineptness can't really hurt us because well, it's ineptness! Being citizens we can take care of ourselves, we don't need a leader herding us everywhere. But someone who wants to turn the country on its head, ***and*** is competent? Think of this: which bad guy would you want, the guy who can't tie his shoes or the guy who has a rocket launcher and knows how to use it?
My personal concern is for the liberty and self-reliance of citizenry. If we are all self-reliant, then it doesn't matter if we have inept leaders because ***we*** aren't. The problem with many politicians is that they want to reduce this self-reliance. They want to extend more control, through welfare programs, finance programs, schooling, etc. We want ***less*** government control, not more--and the worst thing of all is to get someone in there who wants more control and who's capable of making that control a reality. I'm mormon just like Mitt Romney, if I feel that he is inept then I won't vote for him. I know plenty of other mormons that I would never vote for. Values shape policy so it's hard to separate them. If it's against my religion to kill then I'm going to vote for someone who holds those same values and enforce laws that prohibit murder. It's pretty obvious you don't like President Bush and assume only Christians voted for him. I'm not a Christian or member of any other organized religion nor am I an atheist but I voted for George Bush. Why? Because he was the most capable man for the job both times he was running.
You also seem to forget that both Al Gore and John Kerry profess to being Christians so why do you suppose all those Christians voted for President Bush instead of them since there seemed to be a level playing field as far as religion was concerned? Thus, if you recognize this fact the original premise of your question is mistaken. Bush was not elected by Christians alone.
But, never mind that. The, so-called, hot button issues of abortion or gay marriage didn't mean squat to me. I simply don't care about either of them. I voted for Bush not because of his towering intellect, for that is not there nor is it in Gore or Kerry, but because he was the best man for the job of the choices we had. Gore and Kerry are both weak sisters like Bill Clinton. Gore is determined to ruin the United States by imposing paralytic economic controls on us in the name of environmentalism and Kerry is so European he would immediately yield our sovereignty to the corrupt United Nations.
At present the democrats are hell-bent on imposing a socialistic order upon the United States. They are not the democratic part of John Kennedy or F.D.R. They are a viscous group who will ruin the U.S. if we give them the chance.
This is why I will again vote Republican no matter who the candidate is even though I'm not a republican and highly dissatisfied with them at this juncture feeling they are quickly becoming as corrupt as the democrats. Yes a Voter;I will never support a Person that supports Abortion or Gay rights,; That would be
a slick slope,start compromise and you will accept anything; I am a democratic Catholic, and a Christian, and I did not vote for Bush. I'm a believer in God and Jesus and I wanted RALPH NADER to win
I actually have some respect for that man and actually think he'd put the WORLD FIRST and everything else second.
Ralph Nader certainly doesn't believe in MY God, but his views of the world are more in line with the views of MY God, than anyone elses!
A President doesn't have to embrace MY religious views. He just has to embrace the ways my Religion feels about the world in general.
Voters, however, would rather have a second rate actor as President. Psalm 146:3,4 - "Do not put YOUR trust in nobles,
Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.
His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish.
God foretells of a time to where he will soon replace all corrupt human governments with his own righteous and problem-solving one. This is foretold in Danila 2:44 where it reads: "鈥淎nd in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite..." | 