Scott Brown Wins the People's Seat!!

What do you mean by that?

 

It was a snide reference to our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who inherited the office from Tony Blair without even the election of his own party, let alone the rest of us mere mortals. He will face the British electorate for the first time in our General Election later this year, which he is widely expected to lose. On both counts, then, reading "Brown wins election" is a bit of a shock!

 

Your (young) age is showing.

 

On this I agree - but I will hold Sen Brown to the same standard on abortion that other here hold the Democrats. How many time have we seen comments like, 'I will never support a candidate who approves of even one abortion' on this board?

Apparently that is not the truth of the matter. If a candidate fits the political agenda of the religious right we can excuse the fact that he is 'soft' on slaughtering innocent children.

Thanks for the research on Kennedy, I admitted my point was conjecture and was wrong.

This is very much an example of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mindset. Even if that 'enemy of my enemy' approves of murdering children.

 

Now I get it; I didn't connect that you were talking about Gordon Brown at first.

 

This just illustrates what I said: the ends justify the means is the new ethic.

Defeating the health care bill or going against Obama or whatever reasons Christians are rejoicing over Brown's victory do not, imo, justify being happy that a pro-abortion man has won a seat in the Senate.

 

You're missing the key point - we're not "happy that pro-abortion man has won a seat in the Senate" - but we're happy that another pro-abortion Democrat woman did not win and that the winner, instead, will not support the health care legislation. There's no "new ethic" involved with this. It was a wise decision and it worked. You accusations to the contrary are directed at some very strong anti-abortion and anti-homosexual Christians and I don't think that's very wise at all.

 

Well, I can express my view that I think Christians are more and more comprising for political expediency, and there is always a price to pay for that.

I find it disturbing that I am not supposed to express my view because Brown is a Republican or because health care legislation is involved.

 

Statement by Scott Brown:

The statement above is not a pro-life statement. It's what pro-choice people say to get pro-life conservative votes.

Supporting parental consent and notification laws means little because in many states these don't pass and these laws are always being challenged and do little or nothing to stop abortion. At any rate, these laws only apply to minors, and so mean nothing for anyone who is not a minor as far as stopping abortion.

 

You're certainly free to express your view! I just think you should be careful not to suggest that those Christians who chose Brown over Coakley are somehow in support of abortion or homosexuality because that's just not true.

It is true that we, as Christian voters, don't have a wide and deep of choice between Godly men and women to represent and serve us in government. We should pray for that. But short of that we'd best make the best choices we can and then continue to fight them where they don't represent and serve us.

Personally, I'd like to throw out 95% of all politicians of all parties including the third parties. I'm rarely happy with them. But, if I have to chose I'm going after the worst ones first.

 

I didn't say that. I said that there is an increasing acceptance of "the ends justifies the means." I think this happens especially in politics.

I was reacting to the glee - there is no other word for it - that I saw among some believers over Brown's election. This is from interactions I had outside of the BB.

 

Only because I am not mesmerised by God's Own Party but take an honest look at ALL candidates.

This clown told the whole world that his daughters were 'available.' I am NOT a Glen Beck fan, but heard his remarks on Brown last night. I agree with him on this one.

I agree, yet it has been said over and over here that anyone who supported President Obama supports abortion.

Doesn't it go both ways?

Thanks Marcia - this was my point exactly.

Let us see if the glee continues over the next few months.

 

Okay. I think I understand your point more clearly.

I don't care for the idea that "the ends justifies the means" as a rationale for what man does because the "means" always matter. I think we can't be too careful about what we do and how we do it.

However, I do take not that God does use many "means" to accomplish his "ends" and some of those don't always make sense to man. The whole Biblical story is full of such examples where God uses evil men and tragic events as well as "good" men and happy events to accomplish His will.

I think we must make the best choices we can and pray that the Lord will continue to bless us and our nation even when those choices don't seem very good.

 

No, it doesn't "go both ways". It was the same. In the case of Obama verse McCain the better choice was McCain even though he wouldn't have been a perfect or even great choice. I think that is even more apparent now than it was just a year ago.

But then, perhaps, God is using Obama to show us what can happen to a nation that has turned away from Him. Perhaps the most recent "near miss" of the trading of liberty for state security is such a reminder that our trust should be in Him and not the vain promises of puffed up men who wish to impose their will upon us all.

 

Okay.

God may use evil men but He never does wrong. That is not the same thing as the ends justifies the means. I'm kind of surprised you are using God this way. Does God use evil men because the ends justifies the means? I don't think so. The ends justifies the means is a clearly antibiblical principle if morals are involved.

I agree. I am just disturbed at what sometimes seems to me to be misplaced priorities.

 

Putting the above into the context of the OP...

We can not say that Scott Brown is an evil man.

He does not object to abortion in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

There are Christians on this board who believe this to be reasonable.

I do not believe such (I believe that abortion is ALWAYS wrong) but would hesitate to judge someone as evil for believing as Brown states that he does.

Now if Scott Brown does vote to prevent a health care bill that would provide for abortions that would be a good thing.

If Scott Brown does nothing to increase the legal right to an abortion that would be a good thing.

If Scott Brown uses his new position to put more restrictions the ability of people to obtain an abortion that would be a good thing.

We will have to wait and see.

 

When we say "the end does not justify the means" in reference to our own actions as men I agree it is not so. The fact is we don't do much that isn't evil or, even if it is good, we do it for at least some evil purpose. Paul made that clear in scripture.

God may use evil men because of His providence. He even used one evil man as an apostle to accomplish His will. Whatever means He wills to be are fully justified by whatever end He wills to be. I do not question God's sovereignty.

Voting from Brown over Coakley is a choice that had to be made from what was available and Brown was the better choice. Christians who voted for Brown made the right choice. The alternative was to not vote at all and, thereby, assist giving a more or less certainty to the Democrat's agenda that would move forward quickly. There's no doubt the present assembly of Democrats would look more favorably upon abortion and homosexuality than the Republicans. Therefore, changing the mix a bit helped to lesson the possibility of the Democrats success. This had nothing to do with lowering the standards or justifying the means for the ends. There's probably not a single candidate ever elected that would fully represent every Christian principle over every Christian voter.

Some Christians just need to get over slamming other Christians who supported Brown to stop the health care legislation but still don't support abortion or homosexuality. Given that some versions of the health care legislation would have increased support for abortion it may, in fact, have been a win for that cause as well.

No matter what, it's still ultimately all in God's hands. God's will is still in effect even if we don't know for certain at what step in the process towards His ultimate end He may have us all.

 

I don't think that is the issue here.

He is pro-choice, regardless of what christians here may or may not support.

Brown believe abortion is fine in all cases except late-term. He is for legal abortion. He is pro-choice. Advocating for certain restrictions does not make him less pro-choice.

Yes, it would. But that still does not mitigate his pro-choice views, imo.