Man, party labels are simply a convenience. If you want to win and are in a district that is mostly Republican, register Republican, get cozy with the leaders and convince them to give you a try. There really isn't a whit's worth of difference between the two labels, no matteer what some posters here claim. Most people are middle-of-the-roaders.

We are talking about two different things, here Bob. I agree that there are fewer differences between Dems and Repubs than the parties would have you believe.

There is a MASSIVE difference between two more years of (1) a Repub admin and Repub Congress, and (2) a Repub admin and Dem Congress.

Our votes very often don't make a difference, for the reasons you state.

This year, between choosing a Dem Congress and Repub Congress, your vote WILL make a difference.

other thoughts
 

An interesting feature of threads like this one is how often phrases like "I believe", "IMHO", "I feel", "I think", etc. are used as if matters of religion are nothing more than what one happens to believe at any given time.

It has to be that a) religion, b) which religion, and c) what facets of any religion, are like anything else. They are either true or false. And if someone says there is no true or false, please also prove that such a statement is true. Otherwise, why should anyone believe it?

Some might say it doesn't matter if any of the religions or their teachings are true or false, only that you believe them, or one of them.

However, if a particular religious belief is true and it holds that it does matter a) which one you believe, or b) what you believe, then believing the wrong thing won't be rewarded even if it is fervent belief because the false belief has no authority, i.e., is not in control.

It is not enough to say that you don't believe that any religion has any authority, because "belief" in and of itself doesn't dictate whether there is authority. There either is authority or no authority whether any of us believe it or not, and we live by that principle everyday.

For example, if you go to work tomorrow and decide you're boss has no authority over you and you act accordingly, how long will you have a job. Further, the boss won't reward you just because you believe they will (i.e., heaven) nor will they refrain from discipline just because you choose to believe they will refrain (i.e., hell).

Our belief, in and of itself, has nothing to do with a) causing the boss to act the way we want, b) making God act like we want Him to, or c) have any effect over whether He exists. We simply don't have that kind of power or authority. It is external to us. We can't control someone if they possess more authority over us. We are reminded of that everytime we test the speed limit. Heck, if we have the authority to simply believe something and cause it to be so, I'll just believe myself to be the boss. Hmmm. .... won't work, guess I have no authority to do that, (even though I had the "ability") to believe what I wanted to.

Does this mean that we forget faith altogether? No, we look for the truth and when it is found align ourselves with it and not let go. How do you find the truth? Look for what is supported by the evidence, not just fervency, sincerity, fanaticism, etc. Look at what has the authority over life decisions, including life and death.

For your consideration: Acts 17:22-31

I did. Like I said, he's a good man.

If he is reelected, his very first vote will not be on legislation, it will be a caucus vote to elect the Republican leadership of the Senate. So my vote for him would be a proxy vote for Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns, Mike DeWine, Pat Roberts, and a bunch of other guys that have allowed my country to get in the mess it's in.

I don't want to vote for those guys, so I'm not voting for him.

Re: other thoughts
 

The issue I have mixing religion and politics is that religion chokes political debate.

Want to know what is the "correct" position on an issue? Just do what T_Samner has done here -- quote some scripture. Bang, it's done. Homosexuality is bad.

Now, that is not to say that Scripture is not open for interpretation, it is. But that is a religious debate, not a political debate.

If you want to argue that homosexuality is bad in a moral context, that is your right, and we have a right to hear your voice. That's what democratic debate is all about. But speak to us, give us your reasons. Don't just quote some ancient text that some might believe in, others not.

I look at moral issues from a secular lens, so it's difficult for me to understand fully the religious perspective. It would be nice to have some authoritative source to turn to, but, well, I just can't do it.

I do accept that faith guides citizens on these issues. But I think that when people take these beliefs formed in their church into the secular world of democratic government, they need to make the case without reference to their religious beliefs.

If it's "right," one should be able to explain why without leaning on the bible. Or without leaning on the Koran, for that matter.

Rodeo, what is religion?

I discussed with a 10 year old christian girl one of PPOT's threads where some posters were expressing vehoment anti-religion stances, her response to being anti-religion: "That's stupid, all religion is, is what you believe, and everyone believes something." How can you separate what you believe from your political stance? I mean how can a Christian determine if their anti-homosexual stance comes from secular homophobia, or religious teachings? If someone is anti-abortion because they believe life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder, how does that belief become any less politically viable because they go to church?

Definition of religion stated above is so far from right. Faith is what one believes, despite the absence of concrete evidence. Religion is a code of ethics cobbled together by men for purposes of making people behave in specific ways.

Man created religion....God created faith.

Morality is not necessarily part and parcel of either.

There can be no honest, democratic debate where one side's argument is "God says we are right and you are wrong." That's theocracy, not democracy. That was the vision of the Taliban, not the vision of the founding fathers.

When a group claims God as it's own, and some text written by man as the having the authority of God, there is no longer any reason to continue talking.

There is a dirty alliance between the Republicans and the Christian conservatives, the Repubs get power (and wealth), the Christians get their religious imprint on the United States government.

That's precisely opposed to how a secular democracy should work. We should speak out against this, not be resigned that "it's just the way it is."

'60 Minutes' featured this book and its author tonight. You'd almost think it was timed to supress the evangelical vote next month. Nahh, I guess I'm just being cynical...

Moneyguy, if what you wrote is the working definition of religion for this discussion, then it would indeed be very easy to separate religion and politics. I suppose I was under the impression that religion was based on faith. If you are arguing that voters should vote what they believe rather than mindlessly translating edicts handed down from pulpits into electorate mandates, I agree. But I have found that proponents of religions actually follow the religion because of their faith.

Rodeo, I will emphatically agree that government using religion for political power, or religion using political power to gain governmental influence is wrong. But it is very important that voters vote their beliefs, be they religious or secular, and to say that one set of beliefs is more legitimate in the political process than the other is zealotry.

I also think you'll find that like all political issues, the religious/political issues are at their heart about money. If the passion over hot topics like abortion didn't translate into $, sensible legislation would quickly be enacted. There's money to be made from people who care. If you can be convinced that the religious will disallow you to express what you believe or live like you want, and the religious can be convinced you intend to do the same to them, well that can be a profitable situation for someone in politics, or (and here's the problem for true believers) a religious leader.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

-- John Adams

"I believe in an America where the separation of Church and State is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

-- John F. Kennedy

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it be simply asked, Where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

George Washington

I lead a moral life (subject to human lapses) without believing that JC was the son of God. It's actually no more or less difficult for me, I imagine, than it is for my Christian and Jewish and Muslim friends.

I know one thing for certain. I am more moral than those who use religion for personal gain, and those that use the Bible for the purpose of getting elected and accumulating and maintaining power.

I'm pretty sure that's what Karl Rove does practically every day of his life.

What about your moral standard is so superior that allows you to pass judgement on those who fall short of meeting it?

What is your foundation for determining right and wrong? If it is dependant on your beliefs (your faith so to speak), how can you be certain you haven't crossed the bounds of religion when you apply your morality to the political system?

Not sure what you mean by this ...

Do you mean that if I believe someone in public office is acting immorally, someone representing me in government, I cannot say so, for fear of "passing judgment?" I hope that's not what you mean.

Karl Rove acts immorally every day, in my opinion. The book that started this thread makes clear that he uses people's religious beliefs for the accumulation and preservation of power. That's wrong. It doesn't make me immoral to make this observation.

Rodeo, you certainly are passing judgement. You are applying your moral standards to the actions of someone else. I hope I have not implied that making a moral judgement based on personal beliefs (or faith), is not allowed in the political arena. I understood that to be your position, and took issue with it myself. If you believe that the electorate should make moral decisions, based on their personal beliefs (or faith), in the political arena, then I have misunderstood you from the outset, and we do indeed agree.

Taz:

Respectfully: Think about it. Faith is an individual thing, internal and truly private, and different from person to person. Religion, by definition, is a collective. No matter what we, as individuals may believe or disbelieve, religion codifies these "beliefs" and tries to make them universally acceptable and applicable to all the members, like a club. Members have to "follow the rules" or they really should not remain a member. Look at the myrad "christian" sects, each with different rules, regulations, and code of behavior. Yet, all claim to be Christian. All have a belief in Christ as savior, but that is essentially where it ends.So, did God create christianity and the various divisions, or did man? Did not many of the divisions come along because someone did not agree with the status quo? Henry VIII, Martin Luther and others? The rules change, but the individual still has internal beliefs and for most of us, no matter what sect or for that matter, religion, we may agree with the majority of "isms" but not all precisely alike or to the same degree.

And, just as an observation, too many "religious" people are that way because of the fear of retribution by an angry God, or the anticipation of a reward by a loving God in the next world. Too bad they cannot simply live a just and moral life without the incentives.