As someone who has studied philosophy (both political and religious) and the bases of our system of governance at length, let me first say that I appreciate your response. It is as thoughtful as any I've seen here in a long long time. That being said...

quote:
The arguments should speak for themselves, not be supported or destroyed based on the quality of the person making those arguments. That's called an ad hominem fallacy.

The structure of the republic is such that our elected representatives are expected, if not REQUIRED, to be more virtuous than their constituents, this is borne out explicitly by James Madison in the Federalist Papers. Further, regardless of ideology, elected representatives are duty bound to represent the interests of ALL of their constituents.

Tell me, do you honestly believe that a man who is uninterested in the sexual autonomy of women and young girls be fit to represent their interests?

quote:
For many if not most Evangelicals, it has to do with their Eschatology. They are primarily pre-millennial dispensationalists who believe that Christ's return has to do with bringing the nation of Israel back into the fold of the Church.

Put more simply, they want to trigger Armageddon.

quote:
I support Israel from a practical standpoint and out of respect for their stance in regards to their geographical and geopolitical position in the region. They have the testicular fortitude to do what they need to do to protect themselves and their people in spite of calls of "tolerance" and political correction that actually threaten their security.

Do Palestinians not also deserve the same respect? Are "tolerance," peace and nonviolence not central tenets of Christianity?

quote:
Israel is an ally to the U.S. and we've traditionally fought for and died beside our allies in conflicts. The argument isn't about fighting for or with an ally, but why they should be our ally in the first place.

There's a practical aspect to them being our ally in that we've got a good foothold in the Middle East with a friendly country (to us). It's good for us to have a presence there or at least a safe space.

Yet Trump has done things that demean not only the Israel-U.S. alliance, but also our alliances with basically the entirety of the industrialized world, save Russia, China, and Japan.

Also, for as long as Israel has been an ally of the U.S. there has never been recognition until now because policymakers want to make sure that the U.S. retains a position of authority and respect on the international stage. This move demeans those interests and undoes whatever progress has been made toward a two-state solution.

quote:
I would suggest that it has to do with the thought that there's not going to be a peaceful solution without one side or the other giving up something they aren't willing to give up.

So, the argument is, because it doesn't seem like it will get better, it should be made worse?

The argument I'm making is simple. Aside from political or religious dogma, there is no substantive reason to contravene standing U.S. policy, as well as the advice and policies of all of our international allies (except Israel) by recognizing Jerusalem OR moving the embassy from Tel Aviv.

Further, as Christians, you and "evangelicals" alike believe that we will all one day have to answer for our actions during our time on earth.

How do you think the argument that voting for Trump and Moore's political stances despite SIGNIFICANT evidence of their moral impropriety (and continued support for them in spite of actions that have deadly consequence) will be received?

This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 7:40 pm

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Sid in Lakeshore

Member since Oct 2008

41956 posts

Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:00 pm to Guava Jelly

quote:
and continued support for them in spite of actions that have deadly consequence

I'm gonna need some examples to back up this bit of hyperbole.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

41834 posts

Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:26 pm to Guava Jelly

quote:
The structure of the republic is such that our elected representatives are expected, if not REQUIRED, to be more virtuous than their constituents, this is borne out explicitly by James Madison in the Federalist Papers. Further, regardless of ideology, elected representatives are duty bound to represent the interests of ALL of their constituents.

I'm of the opinion that our representatives--as all public figures--should be pictures of the best of us. I believe that they should be Christians and give God glory in all things and do all that they do ultimately for the glory of God, in subjugation to Christ as King, for the benefit and well-being of all of humanity.

...but I'm obviously a little different than most in this regard.

Unfortunately our society has devolved into every manner of debauchery and licentiousness, seeking pleasure, comfort, and recreation above all else and consequently has become atheistic, either in belief or in practice, and therefore deserves representatives who are like them in this regard. We push pornography and treating other humans made in the image of God as objects to be used for our own gratification and then get upset when public figures do the same? Why do we hold our representatives to higher standards than we hold ourselves? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

Not to mention we've had representatives like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton for as long as this Republic has stood. One party has tolerated if not extolled their behavior (at least in recent history) while the other has shunned it, only to be caught doing those very things and having that higher standard used as a gallows for hanging.

The truth is that we should hold our representatives to a higher standard but we should also understand that they are just as human as you and me. We should expect more but we should also be forgiving as we would like to be forgiven. They are politicians, not priests, after all. Those who do act morally (Pence, for example) are ridiculed for it, and they are targeted to make sure all of their faults are put under a microscope to show the world that they are actually hypocrites (as if any of us aren't).

quote:
Tell me, do you honestly believe that a man who is uninterested in the sexual autonomy of women and young girls be fit to represent their interests?

Of course not, but we have to examine a person based on who they are and what they do, not on who they were and what they've done in the past (to a point, at least). It always strikes me as odd during elections that both sides point out what the other person has said and done 20, 30, or 40 years ago as if that is representative of who they are today. Show me what they said last year, not 20 years ago. Show me what their positions are today, not what they were in college. We all grow and change and (hopefully) mature over time.

We also have to make sure that accusations are grounded in fact. We live in a political atmosphere that cares nothing for the truth. Whatever wins the day is the motto that both parties are living and dying by. In that atmosphere, we have to be especially careful of accusations without facts because both sides have no qualms about lying to gain points and these men and women who aspire to be our representatives are still human beings with reputations; we should not murder those reputations any more than we should murder their bodies, yet politics is about character assassination and getting more dirt on the other guy than they get on you. Yet for some reason no one cares about that.

quote:
Put more simply, they want to trigger Armageddon.

I suppose that's one way to look at it. Another way is to desire for Christ to return and take His people to Heaven as soon as possible. In a world full of suffering and sin, it can be desirable to want it all to go away as quickly as possible and be with God in paradise.

Others aren't focusing so much on that aspect as they are wanting others to be saved. In this case, those who hold to this eschatological view believe that the Jews are apart from God at this time but will be brought near to Him again at the end of days, ensuring their salvation. Not a bad motive at all, even if I think it's theologically incorrect.

quote:
Do Palestinians not also deserve the same respect?

All people deserve respect for being made in the image of God, but I'm not talking about that. I think it's a noble aspiration to be willing to defend your people against the hatred and attacks of others. Israel as a nation has been dealing with that since the people were re-located after WWII. The Arab nations that surrounded Israel hated the idea of the Jews taking up residency there and thus Israel was attacked time and time again. Being surrounded and yet continually beating back attackers is inspiring.

The Palestinian people are also deserving of respect, but those among them who would be willing to kill innocents, including women and children, deserve no respect, and the same goes to those in Israel who would do the same.

quote:
Are "tolerance," peace and nonviolence not central tenets of Christianity?

They are, but there's a reason why I phrased it that way. Tolerance, peace, and nonviolence seem to be chanted by the world against Israel when they retaliate against strikes against their peoples, yet no such chants are aimed at the people of Palestine when they attack innocents in Jerusalem; it's always assumed that the Jews are evil and deserve it when they are attacked and are perpetrators of evil when they retaliate against violence committed against them. Neither side is righteous in this thing, but there's been a slant against Israel for a long, long time.

quote:
Yet Trump has done things that demean not only the Israel-U.S. alliance, but also our alliances with basically the entirety of the industrialized world, save Russia, China, and Japan.

Trump is an opportunist who makes deals and takes actions that are ultimately in his best interest. I honestly believe that he is now acting as President in what he believes is the best interest of this country and therefore will say and do things from time to time that may appear insulting or demeaning to some of our allies. Germany is our ally and he's said some bad things about its leadership, as he's done with other allies. When the rubber meets the road, though, he's doing what he believes is best for the U.S. first, and our allies second. He's not in the business of kissing rings and flattery, but he wants to make strategic partnerships that are beneficial and hold our allies accountable for their role in our relationships. At least, that's what it appears like to me.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

41834 posts

Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:39 pm to Guava Jelly

quote:
Also, for as long as Israel has been an ally of the U.S. there has never been recognition until now because policymakers want to make sure that the U.S. retains a position of authority and respect on the international stage. This move demeans those interests and undoes whatever progress has been made toward a two-state solution.

We have not been respected for a long time. We've been the joke of the world for several decades at least and I think the last President did more damage to our image than any others did before him.

With that said, Trump said in his speech on the subject that after Congress passed the resolution recommending Jerusalem being recognized as Israel's capital, there has been two decades of waivers and delays to do anything substantive about it in the name of peace, yet no real progress has been made during that time. We've been in a holding pattern for years and the same conflict still rages. That said, Trump said he and the U.S. are not taking sides on borders or disputed territories and that he's going to continue to work with them on a lasting peace agreement. Recognizing what we've already done two years ago doesn't change that.

quote:
So, the argument is, because it doesn't seem like it will get better, it should be made worse?

Of course not. Trump doesn't think he's making things worse. He claims to be doing the obvious in recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when all of it's important government agencies live there. Trump is pragmatic and doesn't like to do things on ceremony. It's why a lot of people voted for him.

quote:
The argument I'm making is simple. Aside from political or religious dogma, there is no substantive reason to contravene standing U.S. policy, as well as the advice and policies of all of our international allies (except Israel) by recognizing Jerusalem OR moving the embassy from Tel Aviv.

Like I said, I think this move is pragmatic. I also think it's a negotiating chip showing that we aren't going to turn our back on Israel when we ask them to cough up something for the sake of peace. Israel doesn't trust us and there's no reason for them to give anything away when the perception is that it won't be good enough. Israel gets something big and in return they do something big for Palestine. Doing nothing but talking hasn't really done anything thus far.

quote:
Further, as Christians, you and "evangelicals" alike believe that we will all one day have to answer for our actions during our time on earth.

How do you think the argument that voting for Trump and Moore's political stances despite SIGNIFICANT evidence of their moral impropriety (and continued support for them in spite of actions that have deadly consequence) will be received?

Not sure exactly but I think if we are given the privilege of saying who our representatives are, we should participate in doing so to the best of our abilities. In this case, voting out a worse evil may very well be met with approbation.

Like I said previously, I'm not voting for priests and preachers, but politicians. These people are generally corrupt and if I only voted for a person that I'd accept as an elder in my church, I'd never vote; they are generally scoundrels. And with that, I have to vote my conscience. I could not in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton, and though I don't live in Alabama, I could not in good conscience vote for Doug Jones. while not pleased with Trump from a moral standing, I believed him less morally repugnant than Hillary because though he seems like an unrepentant sinner (like Hillary), his stated policy positions were better for the overall well-being of this country than Hillary's. I wasn't voting just for a political candidate but for the future of this country, and I believe that the country would be better off under a Trump presidency than a Clinton presidency.

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board