Scott Brown Wins the People's Seat!!

It may be because some Christians are more political than spiritual.

 

Same here. I would much rather vote for a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage candidate. But if none is available, then I have to start looking at the other opinions of those who are available.

 

And some a sincerely trying to follow the word of God as best as they can, but acknowledge that we live in a fallen world full of fallen men and that sometimes, the best you can do is to try to do the best you can with what you've got.

It's easy for you to look down your nose at us for being glad Coakley lost, and I really do understand why someone who's so insecure in his own faith would feel the need to do that. But what you don't seem to understand is that there was no other choice.

This is Massachusetts, for goodness sake! It isn't as though there were crowds of pro-life, pro-traditional marriage candidates vying for our attention.

 

President Obama has not killed any babies either, but that label is applied to him. Is there blood on the hands of those who supported Sen Brown?

My problem here is a lack of consistency on the part of the American Religious Right. The only issue here was health care. Nothing else mattered, not abortion, not his support for g@y civil unions, nothing. All of that is pragmatically acceptable as long as he opposes the current health care reform.

Pragmatism, like situation ethics and hypocrisy goes both ways apparently.

 

Your accusations of support are over reaching. You cannot prove the "religious Right" supports him in any way.

 

OK. Why don't you just put us all in our place once and for all and tell us the name of the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage candidate who was on the ballot?

 

Not sure, but I would guess that Joe Kennedy, the Libertarian candidate would have been closer to the views of the Religious Right.

 

I am one of the people that says a vote for Obama was a vote for murder. I believe that a vote for Obama makes you just as guilty of murdering a child as the abortion doctor and the "mother".

I also believe that a vote for Scott Brown is a vote for murder. Rejoicing that he was elected is rejoicing the murder of innocent children.

If there isn't a pro-life person on the ticket, I'm not voting. I won't compromise on a life and death issue such as abortion. I won't celebrate when any person that supports abortion is elected to office, regardless of their other views.

 

I'm curious, Matt, if you would have refused to vote for Thomas Jefferson based on his unwillingness to abolish slavery. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand your position.

 

What is happening here with these disingenuous and false attacks on those who are relieved that the Marxist takeover of health care is most likely at an end at this point, is born of our sour grapes.

We would be equally excited if any existing liberal senator opposed it and was the reason it came to an end. But since this opposition is now the fruit of an election, which is irrelevant to the excitement, they want to spin the irrelevant election aspect into something it is not.

We had strong hopes that a couple of Demcoms would oppose what the libbies are calling health care reform and looked to those possibilities with equal anticipation.

The election is not Germain to the excitement. His position on on the issues are. And none of it means we would cast a vote for him at any point with the exception on one poster. He is not to be used to paint everyone else.

 

I haven't given the topic much thought, and admittedly I'm not a history buff. A brief look at the wikipedia article on Jefferson shows that he was opposed to slavery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#On_slavery

Am I missing something?

 

Actually, if you would have read what I've said on this same thread, you would have noticed that I am not looking down my nose on anyone. I stated earlier that I was happy that he won because he could slow down President Obama's more radical agenda.

By the way, why is it that I am insecure in my faith because I see that maybe conservatives are grasping at straws. I understand that in Massa chusetts that there was no other choice, but we should not be acting like this was a great step forward towards a more moral nation.

 

post deleted

 

Jefferson, although personally opposed to slavery (ironic, since he was a slave owner), refused to write into the Constitution any provision that would make slavery illegal. His view was that slavery was, at that time, a necessary evil, one though future generation would have to tackle. Even Lincoln acknowleged that he would have preserved slavery if it meant preserving the Union.

All that's a little off topic, sorry. What I'm getting at is that we rarely (if ever) have a perfect candidate. Often, it's a matter of selecting the person who is best suited to deal with the direct issues at that moment, rather than issues of an idealist nature whose status quo will not change by the person being in office. That said, there's nothing at all wrong with how you choose to vote or not vote for a candidate. Neither is it wrong for another to vote for a non-prolife candidate if the abortion issue were not the primary issue which that person is likely to tackle during his/her tenure in office. In short, I'm sayng it's not necessarily wrong for a pro-life person to have voted for Scott Brown.

 

Ok..maybe I'm a bit slow today, but where did I criticize a former history professor's undertanding of history?

 

I'm sorry. That was MattBlack. You're Matt Wade.

That was my fault. I confused you with somebody else and I'll edit that post out.

 

Thanks...I may be operating slow today, but I'm still operating I guess .

 

Again, I haven't given the topic much thought, but on the surface, no I would not have voted for Jefferson.

 

You at least would get points for voting consistently, Matt. I myself would have been abolitionist, but would have voted for Jefferson. Again, that's strictly me. Neither position is wrong.

 

I missed that. Who is doing that?