Disgusted,

My apologies. I mistakenly interpreted your initial question as an attempt to bait me into an argument. Your response would indicate that this was not your intent, and the foul is mine alone.

If Jeanette Rishell claims that her “Christian Beliefs” dictate that convicts be “forgiven their sins” then they must be forgiven their voting rights, but yet she can be pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, I ask how can she possibly reconcile these positions? ”

My answer: I believe she’s lying!!! Given the choice between voting for Rishell and a cat, I’d vote for the cat because it couldn’t create the problems and bungle the job that Rishell would. Ms. Rishell is insincere and wholly unequiped to be a delegate. I seriously doubt she has any Christian beliefs. She uses the old bromide of telling the voters what they want to hear. Why would you actually believe her?

By the way, I didn’t state anything about my beliefs in my question to you. Cheap shots only serve to undermine what is otherwise a well researched position.

And James Young…you’re a lawyer. Enough said!

So I guess the only honest folks in politics are those Indies, right?

However, I am willing to entertain the possibility that all Democrats are felons.

Anybody wonder why Kalifornia is broke?

Now as a non-Christian, I guess I can help with some, er, unbiased view, right? We all do share a common view of moral principles, many of which are codified into law. Laws against murder and theft are easy examples that come to mind. We tend to get a little more mired in describing legal application to other activities, such as abortion, adultery, etc. Under just about every major religion, abortion (when not done to save the life of the mother) is considered sinful and is considered the same as murder. I hope that no one (and especially no one who is running for political office) wants to promote abortions, but clearly those who are pro-choice, for example, clearly cannot reconcile those views with religious beliefs given the pretty strong morally absolute statements from just about every major religion. If they want to hide behind legalistic arguments, or even admit to political pandering, fine, but don’t try to justify it religiously.

The illegal immigration issue is also just so much crap. Yes, we all understand how it’s wonderful to help the poor and needy, but the fact is, anyone who comes into this country illegally is pretty much stealing the place in line of someone who is following the law. So the religious argument cuts more strongly the other way.

The main problem as I see it is that many on the left are trying to use religion as a cover for socialism while refusing to recognize the moral absolutes that make religious belief, as well as society work. Unfortunately, the logical consequence is that society breaks down, and these leftists are the last to figure it out (at least until it’s too late).

You tell’em!

Hey Not-Ilana,
Explain your understanding of separation of church & state, please.”

My understanding? I think I understand it quite well. The words “separation of church and state” do not appear anywhere in the US Constitution. They are a construct of secularists who point to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

My interpretation: You are free to practice any religion that you want in this country, or none at all. The government will not pass any law establishing a state religion, nor any law that interferes with your ability to practice your religion, nor will they pass a law forcing you to be religious or reverent to a God or gods in whom you do not believe, nor adhere to religious practices in which you do not believe, or are counter to those in which you do believe.

Perhaps I am assuming too much, but I have submitted to a higher authority than the US Constitution, and the interpretations of it by those in authority, and you have not. That is not to say that I do not support or obey the Constitution fully. Christ commanded that we submit to and obey our government and our laws. You see, I can do both, as the Constitution was written by Godly men, and is not counter to those things that Christ commanded. However, the secular-humanist cannot. He believes that there is no higher authority than man, no one to answer to accept himself. He practices moral relativism, or “if it feels good, it must be good”.

Now, I believe that I have answered your question. Now please answer mine, which is to my original point:

If Jeanette Rishell claims that her “Christian Beliefs” dictate that convicts be “forgiven their sins” then they must be forgiven their voting rights, but yet she can be pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, I ask how can she possibly reconcile these positions?

I say no intellectually honest Christian can. No one who has submitted to Christ and all that He has commanded can. Were she just some random person on the streets, it would be between her and her Creator to work this out. But she IS campaigning to be my representative. Therefore, if she’s knocking on doors or making public statements to the effect that her “beliefs” are based on a flawed view of scripture, then she needs to be rebuked. She needs to be questioned. She has born false witness against her neighbor, when her campaign flat-out lied about her opponent. She has fought for gays to be able to marry, which flies in the face of everything the scriptures point to regarding marriage. She defends the “right” of society to kill the unborn, which is indeed murder. She advocates for confiscatory levels of taxation, which is theft. She belongs to a “church” that welcomes pagans, screens homosexual films, and promotes the gay life-style. She has hired a campaign manager that advocated for porn to be stocked in the school library. She has openly supported those who break our immigration laws.

Taken in this context, why would any intellectually honest, obedient Christian question her sincerity when she states that her “Christian beliefs” guide her to a certain position? I would much prefer she be honest, and not insult my intelligence. She should admit that she is a liberal secular-humanist and move on from there. She, for once in her political life, should tell the truth, and stop hiding who she is. We don’t need another Obama.

Quien es mas macho?

Ricardo Mantalban es mas macho

There are approximately 40,000 different Christian denominations in the world. I always am amused when any one person claims the right to decide what constitutes a “Christian”.”

There may be, but there is only one scripture. Sure, the Catholic Bible might have a few more books, but the scripture that forms the basis of the core beliefs of Christianity and it’s various denominations is the same throughout. The commandments are the same throughout, the gospels, etc. Therefore, you cannot claim that your “Christian beliefs” drive you to one position, if the scripture is clear that your position is counter to that which is contained therein.

Not too long ago, Nancy Pelosi visited the Vatican. When the Pope called her to task for her support for abortion, she tried to argue her position from a doctrinal perspective. Dumb move arguing Canon Law with the Pope.

So, “just saying”, I suggest you pick up one of those Bibles and familiarize yourself with its contents. Also, Christians are supposed to “vote their values” and leaders are supposed to be “Godly men” and women.

I”m going outside to offer a burnt offering now…