On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:28:13 -0800, "gregpresley"
wrote:
wrote in message motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you
get into the realm of which candidate
truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would
prove
that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion.

A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is
their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with,
that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational?

It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to
be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people
vote based on their personal beliefs?

Swyck

First of all, I consider myself Christian, so I don't look in the mirror
every morning and say "gosh, what an irrational creature you are".....LOL
But belief is private and acceptance of fine points of dogma, an individual
matter - not a matter for politics. . Over 2/3rds of the world's Christians
(Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians) believe that the defnition of
Christian is "follower of Christ" - embedded in that definition is, of
course, a belief that Jesus is the Savior, but also strong in that tradition
is the answer to the biblical question, "how will you know they are
Christians? You will know they are Christians by their love". In that
tradition of Christianity, people are not going to accept a statement of "I
have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior" from a public official (or
from any individual) for that matter, as being significant. They are going
to look for the acts, or the works, if you will, which translate belief into
action. And those acts, if a person has digested the new Testament, will
necessarily have to be fully living out the Beatitudes and similar
suggestions of Jesus on how to live a holy life. From a public policy
perspective, I have no interest in a politician's political beliefs, but if
he/she consistently votes in favor of policies that ease the lives of the
poor and downtrodden, whether for school lunch programs, or making sure that
children have shelter, on in international policies, if he/she votes for
sustained diplomacy for peace-making efforts above war, I have all the
"moral-values" information I need on that candidate - who could be
Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist , or atheist for all that I care.

Well said, and that's how it should be. You vote for those that are
applying and acting on your beliefs, as well as they can.

My contention was with your statement that you cannot have a rational
discussion with someone who considers "Jesus Christ as their savior."
Though I don't agree with their point of view, and don't follow it, I
also don't believe that the people making those distinctions when
voting are being unreasonable. There are many people that vote
entirely on the basis of Roe-Wade, the environment, the economy, how
the candidate looks or some other single issue. The politician they
are supporting may just be a vote grubber that will promise anything
to get elected. How is that any different or better?

I'd like to see your analysis of Kerry's voting groups for comparison.

Swyck