[Ed Dantes]

Obama was against same sex marriage.

Yes while pushing some of the worst abortion laws we've ever seen...so per their bylaws they could not have supported him


you have to read what I wrote, I said both...one or the other I'm sure we'll see...but both that are mentioned in their bylaws I find hard to believe

Question... serious question here:

Would you rather see abortion be legal and rare, or illegal and prevalent?

I know which one I would choose.

Obama campaigned as someone who wanted to reduce the number of abortions, and believed he could do that by increasing social welfare. I don't agree with that decision personally, but I think it's certainly a reasonable one. After the election, he's struck down laws like the Mexico City policy and the Conscience Clause... but you can't fault the LU Dems for being hoodwinked into believing a campaign promise.

I think there are a lot of Christians, A LOT, who voted for Obama after much soul-searching (I am not one of them. I have a brain). LU's decision cast the message that it doesn't matter, they can't stray from the party line.

[LUconn]

Do I believe JJ, Staver and Hine or a secretary and an 18 year old student? That's not a tough choice.

You don't have to make a choice who to believe...the decision is in writing and was very clear as to what we could and could not do.

I was one who earlier voiced concerns about the decision then realized my info was coming from members of the group feeding bent info to the media.

For instance from your own post:

His final statement was that Democrats cannot possibly be Christians

Where is that quote attributed to Mark by yours trully - in writing?

I think she was referring to the first email that went out from the school to the group. She quoted a few excerpts.

[Baldspot]

She said there's nothing to believe after putting out a quote of that magnitude. I'm interested in her reply.

[SuperJon]

No you're not. You're interested in defending your best friend at any cost.

[Baldspot]

Perhaps the poster would like to answer for himself/herself.

[Baldspot]

After the discussion, I'll introduce her to some libel and slander laws the discoverablility of internet blogs.

Again, an 18 year old and an secretary with 15 minutes of fame vs JJ, Staver and Hine. Not a hard choice.

[SuperJon]

Wow. You're taking this one pretty personally. That makes it even funnier and makes me want her to be right even more.


Also, I'll take Jr/Staver over Hine any day of the week. They're the two that have sounded reasonable in this whole thing. Hine, well, hasn't.

[ALUmnus]

Man this thread is tiring to read.

Whether or not the club was told they can no longer meet on campus, you're focusing on the wrong part of that policy. Read the rest of what it says, not just the part that Mechildress put in bold. Then look at what the club said in its own charter, that they will not support a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate....until the nominations. So basically, once the nominations are made by the party that they support, then they will support that candidate no matter what. And this was born out with their support of Obama.

This whole debate has been so void of logic on both sides there is just way too much more to comment on. My head hurts.

[SuperJon]

My question is if the College Republicans support and campaign for a candidate that is pro-choice or pro-gay would they lose their charter as well?

[LUconn]

Doubtful, because I assume they yield to the RNC's selection when it comes to the general election just as the Dem club does. And the "official" positions of the RNC do line up with our beliefs even if the candidate does not.

[Ed Dantes]

My question is if the College Republicans support and campaign for a candidate that is pro-choice or pro-gay would they lose their charter as well?

My point exactly.



I rest my case.

[4everfsu]

JK37 good post

As far as any republician club on LU campus supporting a pro gay pro abortion candidate I think Jerry Jr gave the answer. So any club, democratic, repub, or independent the following will happen.

Liberty would never endorse a Republican student group that supported abortion rights. Liberty stands for certain core values; not for a political party.

[kiltsareitchy07]

Why is it only the abortion and gay marriage issues that hang so many of you up? What about aggressive and militaristic foreign policy and defense spending at the expense of healthcare for people who can't afford it? The Bush administration's track record at peace-making doesn't exactly resemble beating swords into plowshares. "Enhanced" interrogation, which is a euphemism for "torture," a dreadful gap between rich and poor, and a war for who-knows-what in Iraq with over 200,000 dead Iraqis and Americans doesn't even show up on the radar screen over here. These kind of things show just as much disdain for the image of God as abortion. Weren't Jesus' moral issues poverty and peacemaking? I'm not affiliated with any political party; my political beliefs are the same as my convictions: loving God and neighbor. But how is the Republican party more Christian than the Democratic party? One's in favor of decriminalizing abortion, the other is an advocate of preemptive war. Sounds like both are pretty off base.

[4everfsu]

Let me see the war in Iraq I guess all the repubs voted for it and all the dems voted againist.
Yes I see your point. Thanks

[kiltsareitchy07]

The Bush administration's track record at peace-making doesn't exactly resemble beating swords into plowshares. "Enhanced" interrogation, which is a euphemism for "torture," a dreadful gap between rich and poor, and a war for who-knows-what in Iraq with over 200,000 dead Iraqis and Americans doesn't even show up on the radar screen over here.

This is about more than how many Republicans or Democrats voted in favor of the war. My question is simply why there is so much anger at the Democratic party and relatively none directed against Bush, the Iraq war, or the torture of POWs that went on under his presidency. To non-Republicans, it's strange that so many evangelicals and members of the Christian Right slam the Dems all the time, while never calling Republicans to the carpet except when they waver on their commitment to keeping gay marriage and abortion anathema.

[ALUmnus]

My question is if the College Republicans support and campaign for a candidate that is pro-choice or pro-gay would they lose their charter as well?

My point exactly.



I rest my case.

how can you rest on a case that didn't happen? This isn't about hypotheticals, it's about something that actually happened.

Why is it only the abortion and gay marriage issues that hang so many of you up? What about aggressive and militaristic foreign policy and defense spending at the expense of healthcare for people who can't afford it? The Bush administration's track record at peace-making doesn't exactly resemble beating swords into plowshares. "Enhanced" interrogation, which is a euphemism for "torture," a dreadful gap between rich and poor, and a war for who-knows-what in Iraq with over 200,000 dead Iraqis and Americans doesn't even show up on the radar screen over here. These kind of things show just as much disdain for the image of God as abortion. Weren't Jesus' moral issues poverty and peacemaking? I'm not affiliated with any political party; my political beliefs are the same as my convictions: loving God and neighbor. But how is the Republican party more Christian than the Democratic party? One's in favor of decriminalizing abortion, the other is an advocate of preemptive war. Sounds like both are pretty off base.

Talking Points-R-Us! All these things seems so vaguely familiar. So war, lack of universal healthcare, enhanced interrogation, poverty, wealth, and exaggerated mortality figures are all as morally unjustifiable as abortion. Gotcha. And I like the Bill O'Reilly Christianity, just boil Scripture down to two verses, and we'll be okay, all that other stuff is just fodder for debate.

[Ed Dantes]

The Bush administration's track record at peace-making doesn't exactly resemble beating swords into plowshares. "Enhanced" interrogation, which is a euphemism for "torture," a dreadful gap between rich and poor, and a war for who-knows-what in Iraq with over 200,000 dead Iraqis and Americans doesn't even show up on the radar screen over here.

This is about more than Republicans or Democrats. My question is simply why there is so much anger at the Democratic party and relatively none directed against Bush, the Iraq war, or the torture of POWs that went on under his presidency. To non-Republicans, it's strange that so many evangelicals and members of the Christian Right slam the Dems all the time, while never calling Republicans to the carpet except when they waver on their commitment to keeping gay marriage and abortion anathema.

Because... the "Christian Right" has become a special-interest group for the Republican party. They are no different than the teacher's unions or trial lawyers for Democrats, only they do it under the guise of "The Lord's work".

I raised the flag about this two years or so ago when I visited the Christian Coalition's website and one of the top issues on its legislative agenda was getting Bush's tax cuts extended (no joke)... nothing about reaching out to the poor or downtrodden.

I agree completely with you. I am a conservative, but I say so while adding that the Republican party is a flawed, flawed political movement. Personally, I just think it's better than the alternative.

But you are right. The Republican party is flawed, and people (even Christians) have flocked to another flawed party, the Democrats. These people aren't necessarily evil... unless you talk to Mark Hines.

[Ed Dantes]

how can you rest on a case that didn't happen? This isn't about hypotheticals, it's about something that actually happened.

Ya know... You're right. I paused when i wrote 'i rest my case'. But i did it anyway. I should have thought better of myself.

I think I had a stronger argument when I said that John McCain was pro-federal funding of embryonic stem cell research... which many people feel is akin to abortion.

[kiltsareitchy07]

Why is it only the abortion and gay marriage issues that hang so many of you up? What about aggressive and militaristic foreign policy and defense spending at the expense of healthcare for people who can't afford it? The Bush administration's track record at peace-making doesn't exactly resemble beating swords into plowshares. "Enhanced" interrogation, which is a euphemism for "torture," a dreadful gap between rich and poor, and a war for who-knows-what in Iraq with over 200,000 dead Iraqis and Americans doesn't even show up on the radar screen over here. These kind of things show just as much disdain for the image of God as abortion. Weren't Jesus' moral issues poverty and peacemaking? I'm not affiliated with any political party; my political beliefs are the same as my convictions: loving God and neighbor. But how is the Republican party more Christian than the Democratic party? One's in favor of decriminalizing abortion, the other is an advocate of preemptive war. Sounds like both are pretty off base.

Talking Points-R-Us! All these things seems so vaguely familiar. So war, lack of universal healthcare, enhanced interrogation, poverty, wealth, and exaggerated mortality figures are all as morally unjustifiable as abortion. Gotcha. And I like the Bill O'Reilly Christianity, just boil Scripture down to two verses, and we'll be okay, all that other stuff is just fodder for debate.

I'm not the first one to boil down Scripture to those two points. The Lord did it first in Matthew's Gospel while he was on earth. Look, I detected a lot of sarcasm in your post, which is fine. Before you accuse me of being a Biblical reductionist, keep in mind that I was simply asking a question relating to LU administration's decision to sanction the LU Democrats because their party platform goes against the teachings of Jesus and the mission statement of the university. I'm curious, because I'm a believer on Christ and not a political conservative. All I want is perspective, because I don't understand the decision of your administration. Perhaps I should have said "your administration" instead of "so many of you."

[LUconn]

Why is it only the abortion and gay marriage issues that hang so many of you up? What about aggressive and militaristic foreign policy and defense spending at the expense of healthcare for people who can't afford it? The Bush administration's track record at peace-making doesn't exactly resemble beating swords into plowshares. "Enhanced" interrogation, which is a euphemism for "torture," a dreadful gap between rich and poor, and a war for who-knows-what in Iraq with over 200,000 dead Iraqis and Americans doesn't even show up on the radar screen over here. These kind of things show just as much disdain for the image of God as abortion. Weren't Jesus' moral issues poverty and peacemaking? I'm not affiliated with any political party; my political beliefs are the same as my convictions: loving God and neighbor. But how is the Republican party more Christian than the Democratic party? One's in favor of decriminalizing abortion, the other is an advocate of preemptive war. Sounds like both are pretty off base.

Talking Points-R-Us! All these things seems so vaguely familiar. So war, lack of universal healthcare, enhanced interrogation, poverty, wealth, and exaggerated mortality figures are all as morally unjustifiable as abortion. Gotcha. And I like the Bill O'Reilly Christianity, just boil Scripture down to two verses, and we'll be okay, all that other stuff is just fodder for debate.

I'm not the first one to boil down Scripture to those two points. The Lord did it first in Matthew's Gospel while he was on earth. Look, I detected a lot of sarcasm in your post, which is fine. Before you accuse me of being a Biblical reductionist, keep in mind that I was simply asking a question relating to LU administration's decision to sanction the LU Democrats because their party platform goes against the teachings of Jesus and the mission statement of the university. I'm curious, because I'm a believer on Christ and not a political conservative. All I want is perspective, because I don't understand the decision of your administration. Perhaps I should have said "your administration" instead of "so many of you."

seems like you're kind of picking and choosing issues out of context in the original quote of this giant thing I just quoted. As if conservatives are just chomping at the bit to preemptively attack other countries.

[kiltsareitchy07]

I'm not saying conservatives are rabid and can't wait to attack other countries. What I'm asking is why conservative Christians don't call Bush's administration to the carpet for not sticking to the teachings of Jesus [like preemptive war], except on the issues of gay marriage or abortion? To the non-Republicans, like me, it's odd that the only issues conservative, Christian Republicans seem to care about are abortion and gay marriage. Nowhere near the same anger seems to be reserved for poverty or war. I've never heard Falwell come out as strongly against these issues as the other stuff. My question is "Why is that?". I think abortion is awful and I don't approve of gay marriage in the Church. But I also condemn aggressive foreign policies and billions upon billions of dollars spent for new and more ways to kill our neighbors, whom we're commanded to love as ourselves. Why is it, then, that the Democratic party alone is the focus of the LU administration's ire?

[ALUmnus]

War and poverty aren't inherently bad or sinful. Many Christians actually think that we're called to be poor (I'm not in that camp). Bush has been called out many times by most conservatives, and was not the all-star president we were hoping for, but we were at odd with all the non-stop hatred coming from the liberal critics. It was a bad position to be in for eight years.

[kiltsareitchy07]

War and poverty aren't inherently bad or sinful. Many Christians actually think that we're called to be poor (I'm not in that camp). Bush has been called out many times by most conservatives, and was not the all-star president we were hoping for, but we were at odd with all the non-stop hatred coming from the liberal critics. It was a bad position to be in for eight years.

Doesn't the prophet Amos condemn, among other things, neglect of the poor and taking advantage of those who have little? Didn't the Lord himself say in the Sermon on the Mount that blessed were the peace-makers, and not war-makers? Didn't he call us to give one of our cloaks to someone who has none? Didn't the Lord tell the apostles that the poor will always be our mission field and never to return evil for evil? If we are made in the image of the Creator, is it not "inherently bad" to see it walking homeless down the street picking through the garbage cans and trash for food? War and poverty are tragic, as both result in the degradation and destruction of people, who are all made in God's own likeness.

[LUconn]

Also, in regards to poverty, there's a difference between each individual and or church doing it's part to help the poor vs the government using its power to confiscate others' wealth to redistribute it. Whether it be for living expenses or health care.

[Libertine]

But I also condemn aggressive foreign policies and billions upon billions of dollars spent for new and more ways to kill our neighbors, whom we're commanded to love as ourselves.

You're equating the state with the church, kilts. The church is called to love. The state is called to defend. I have no problem with the state putting in place mechanisms that kill its enemies. However, I'm kind of against it systematically killing its own citizens for the sake of convenience.

The idea that poverty can be eliminated is pure fantasy, primarily because the level of poverty in a society is defined by its affluence. There are obviously those who struggle in this country but what passes for poor in America would be considered, at worst, upper middle class in certain areas of the world.