http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/01/the-gop-is-not-my-religion-reader-post/#more-29982

Exactly.

>>I was continuing the hypothetical question of whether it is healthy for a Christian to sign over, carte blanche, his allegiance to any political party>>

You’ll need to explain how allegiance to a political party conflicts with someone’s Christian religion. Now you specify “carte blanche”…if by that you mean that you’re willing to accept a party although you disagree with a position that you feel is morally wrong, then the Christian has some ’splainin’ to do. You know – like “I support the party – but I disagree with “whatever”.” Lieberman did that, and the Dems refused to support his nomination. I think he took a principled stand – although he still caucuses with the Dems.

But you haven’t established a political position the GOP takes that is offensive to Christians. So what’s your beef?

I was more after a continuation of my post under the Planned Parenthood section. If I get frustrated that a person doesn’t “sign on the dotted line” for every supposedly GOP position, is it enough to call that person a RINO?

More importantly, can ANYONE accept every plank of the Republican or Democratic party platform, and have a mind and conscience of their own?

To be fair, the subject Phil is writing about in his post is pretty extreme, and I wasn’t arguing in her favor. I was continuing the hypothetical question of whether it is healthy for a Christian to sign over, carte blanche, his allegiance to any political party, and if not, is it then also unhealthy to deride someone for refusing to do same.

Let me rephrase that sentence:

“Could someone not necessarily accept all the planks in the GOP platform, yet in GOOD CONSCIENCE, run under the Republican ticket?”

In other words, a person…well, we can’t call him Joe…that would be asking for trouble… someone named Mike is a good Christian. He feels that he can contribute to the good of his local town if he runs for office. He has to choose one of two parties.

He:
a)completely agrees with one party.

b)completely disagrees with both parties

c)agrees with some of one party and some of the other party.

Take your pick. a) is easy. b) probably means he will run as an Independent. c) presents the real problem. Now…he makes his choice. The voters have to make _their_ choice.

You question, I think, is whether I – as a voter – should choose the Mike – who I know is a good Christian, but whose political positions I disagree with – or the other guy – whose political positions I agree with, whether he’s a good Christian or not. (I’ll stipulate here that even if I don’t know his religious affiliation, I know he’s honest and ethical – just to take out the obvious bad guy).

In other words can religious beliefs and political beliefs be separated?

Is that basically your question? That our first loyalty should be to other Christians regardless of their political positions?

_WHAT_ is the sign of compromise of Christian ideals?

_WHAT_ is “this”?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/democrats_attempting_a_coup_fo.html

Or, I can retort, “Be the man you should be and assume first I am telling the truth when I say something.”

I tied everything I said to my post under the Planned Parenthood entry this morning…which you summarily wrote off also. Everything I said was in that context.

Who said that? I only offer my cautions,

You did.

The quote that you clipped from my comment to suek spoke directly of the need to move the Republican party to the right. Something about that triggered your fear that I’m somehow adding something to Christianity. However, the comment was not offered in a Christian context, it was a discussion between two Republicans who agree on the need for a strong, conservative party and are wrestling with how best to achieve that. The fact that we’re both Christians is incidental to the discussion. There exists, in the clip you quoted and in the entire comment from which it was lifted, not the slightest hint, nor the faintest echo, of any claim that she or I are confusing our Republican strategies with our devotion to Christ.

What, precisely, am I adding to Christianity? And don’t give me “I didn’t say that.” You did. Be a man and say what you mean for damn change.

As to the answer to your question:

“Why, precisely, does attempting to move the Republican party in the direction of conservatism necessarily require that I compromise my commitment to Christ?”

2 sentences:

Who said that? I only offer my cautions, and indications that the cautions are warranted, that the “conservativism” you are pushing for is Christianity plus a whole schmeal of political philosophy plus the vested interest of those in power at the GOP.

Calm down, take a deep breath, and then… try to answer this in no more than two sentences:

Why, precisely, does attempting to move the Republican party in the direction of conservatism necessarily require that I compromise my commitment to Christ?

The exercise of attempting to distill the answer down to two sentences should demonstrate to you why it is that I’m having trouble getting a handle on what you’re trying to get across.