My voting habits have changed...

The Religious Right as part of the Republican constituency, is not large enough or powerful enough to do much more than equalize the party with the Democrats. They have an advantage at the moment, but it is razor thin, and they've only pulled down a majority of votes in one out of the last three elections. It's the red-blue configuration that makes it slow to change. In spite of the rhetoric about polls, they are usually pretty accurate. I expect the Democrats to pick up the majority of seats in the House, by a margin of perhaps as many as 5 seats, and as few as 2 or 3. The Senate will be deadlocked, but Rhode Island Republican Chaffee may be the deciding vote. Pundits are saying the Democrats will have to get 55% of the vote in November to have a majority in one house or the other, and the polls show them right at 60% now. The only way the Republicans will be able to stop that is to have Secretaries of State pull Katherine Harris's and certify vote totals that aren't accurate. That may happen in one or two red states, but not enough to keep the Democrats from having a majority in at least one house of Congress.

Third Party votes, therefore, may be quite influential, as politicians in close races appeal to the principles and platforms to try to attract small fractional perentages of voters. The support of a Third Party candidate for one side or the other may make all the difference in the world. So casting a ballot for a third party isn't a wasted vote.

 

I'm anxiously waiting on this reply. :tonofbricks:

 

That must be it. :smilewinkgrin:

As to your comment about the ACLU, the suits they file are over the use of public money for religiously based programs. The ACLU cannot stop a Christian group from starting, supporting and operating a church-based ministry which does anything to lower the abortion rate. The problem is, what you advocate is the state doing the work and paying the bills for you. That's not going to work.

And I'll stand beside what I said before. If conservative, evangelical Christians really had a passion about ending, or at least slowing down abortion, they would find the money, time and other resources they needed to do it.

The ACLU does not, and cannot, interfere with Christians carrying out a ministry in any community, anywhere, anytime, anyway, outside of the scope of the state's resources. That's just an excuse for self-pity and for not really doing anything.

 

Would you please direct me to the scripture reference where God instructs us to kill Islamic facists in the name of Jesus?

I think you are a little bit confused. I've been hearing that it's the other side that advocates the wholesale murder of "infidels" who don't agree with their religion.

The War in both Afghanistan and Iraq both look sure make it seem like America is capable of waging a full scale war, and then some.

 

Maybe not, though they are defending Fred Phelps. He is a card carrying independent, fundamental Baptist, if I'm not mistaken, embraced by many of the brethren on this board with whom he shares much in common, in both attitude and theology.

I'm certainly not going to defend the ACLU's position on many of the cases it chooses, though the civil liberties that tend to be violated most often are those on the extreme end of the system. They do represent some bizzare and extreme cases, but they also just about the only legal organization that will step in and utilize their resources to defend some truly defenseless and powerless individuals. There was a time in this financially blessed and prosperous country when pharmaceutical companies would not produce medications for individuals with rare diseases because it wasn't profitable, or they charged outragous fortunes for small doses of these medicines in the interest of securing a profit, and not for the benefit of those who needed the medication. The ACLU defended several individuals until Congress passed an act requiring the production of medication for these rare diseases, and the provision of them at a reasonable price.

Less than 10% of the ACLU's cases have anything to do with religious issues, and many of those do not have anything to do with Christian practices. And they do not always take the position against Christianity. The ACLU filed "Friend of the Court" briefs in support of equal access, which basically allows students to organize religiously-based, school related organizations and activities in a limited open forum as long as those activities do not interfere with the instructional purpose of the school and do not involve "captive" or coerced audiences.

I don't know what your particular case involved, and I don't deny that the ACLU can appear to be completely anti-Christian, but it is not accurate to say that they are always that way, or that they never advocate or defend the Christian perspective. Christians often bring unwarranted criticism down on themselves when, in anger or bitterness, they lash out at something. ACLU bashing, which seems to be a favorite past-time of many conservative evangelicals, does very little to advance the cause of Christ, is counter-productive, and can have the effect of making Christians look ignorant and ridiculous, especially when they are the ones who are mistaken.

 

What does that have to do with anything? Unless I am misreading your post, you suggested that the best thing that could have happened in Iraq was for our military to kill Islamic facists in Iraq in order to silence the others. You broadly hinted at the fact that not accomplishing this was evidence that liberals (translated: anyone who doesn't accept your personal interpretation of the way the world should be) had so weakened America that we were no longer able to wage a full scale war.

As a Christian, I do not see that the Bible teaches us that the correct Christian response to people who don't accept our beliefs and who may even resort to violence to either defend or advance theirs is to murder enough of them to silence the rest. There is obviously a rather large segment of the Islamic faith who does believe and teach this concept. Apparently, you agree with their perspective.

So I guess that means we're definitely not "like minded" Christians.

 

I wonder how he knows? Try as hard as I might, I have still not convinced God to give me the power to see into another person's soul and determine their spiritual condition. Perhaps he can share his "immaculate perception" secrets with the rest of us.