Well its Started, The C word has entered the Presidential

[_honorentheos]

But I'm really more interested in a positive example from a candidate you recognize as a true Christian. I'd like to see just how their Christianity translates into better decision and policy making compared to someone who isn't a true Christian by your own accepted definition.

Well, that would be why I asked the question.
I specifically stated that being a Christian would not translate into an entirely different set of policy ideals. Why would it?

Actually, I can think of a number of examples of where it has. Here's one - Abstinence Kills

Fact is, I can't think of a single good example where one of the current candidates for office's status as a Christian translates into better policy writing. I CAN for bad examples.

Apparently, since you haven't offered a good example up you can't think of one either.

So why, then, is Pastor Jeffers justified in saying a Christian should be preferred to a person he, himself, would define as a non-Christian? Even if they are otherwise good and moral?

How do you define one's fitness for office? That means lots of different things to lots of people. For me, fitness for office simply means I can reasonably trust that the candidate believes what she says she believes. That she will vigorously pursue her agenda.

Frankly, that's a crap definition for fitness for office. It's not just THAT they believe something that should matter, or even fully WHAT they believe though that matters more. It's also how they will ACT on that belief that defines fitness for office.

It does say something about the follower mindset of some, though. Willing to follow anyone around how acts like they have a destination I guess.

I'd like to see why the Pastor in question is right when he said (paraphrased) being a moral, good man isn't enough when running against a Christian.

Am I forced to agree with him just because you see me as of like mind? Particularly when I've stated no such thing>

Again, you have already said you wouldn't vote for Romney for what appears to be his Mormon beliefs. I don't care about that, but I'd like to see you point out examples from Romney's statements and positions that helps demonstrate why you are justified in doing so. Otherwise, it's just bigotry.

If it's true, you should be able to find at least one good example you could point to given all the self-declared true Christians in the race.

Except for I have no idea who is a true Christian and who isn't. Do you?

Don't care. I'd vote for a moral, good man who I believe will enact better policy regardless of religious belief. Religion is not a gate for me. How I see a candidate making policies and decisions is a gate.

You?

[_Hoops]

Actually, I can think of a number of examples of where it has. Here's one - Abstinence Kills

Ridiculous. You've linked an article where I don't even know who they're mad at? The Guardian? Really? More liberal drivel.

If you're trying to show Bush as the bad guy, you'll have to show that his Christian world view was the driving force for this policy. YOu can't. Second, are you mad at the Ugandan leader and his policy? Based on what?

Here are some gems from the article:

There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by [US policies]," Mr Lewis said yesterday. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

Where is the evidence that the policy is dogma driven?

The condom shortage has developed because both the Ugandan government and the US, which is the main donor for HIV/Aids prevention, have allowed supplies to dwindle, according to an American pressure group, the Centre for Health and Gender Equity (Change).

I'd be willing to be that the Centre for Health and Gender Equity has an agenda that probably doesn't align well with the agenda of an republican candidates. Nonetheless, again, you have to show that the U.S. government allowing condom supplies to dwindle was dogma driven. You can't.

You may be thinking of this from the article:

Recipient countries have to emphasise abstinence over condoms, and - under a congressional amendment - they must condemn prostitution.

But then there is this:


An American Aids official last night denied that the US had forced Uganda to reduce the condoms available, saying the Bush administration supported condom use as part of a balanced programme that included prevention.

And this:

Officially, Uganda remains committed to the threefold "ABC" policy. The initials stand for "Abstinence, Be faithful, use a Condom". The Ugandan government denied yesterday that there is a scarcity of condoms or a policy change. The health minister, Jim Muhwezi, said: "It is not true that there is a condom shortage. There seems to be a coordinated smear campaign by those who do not want to use any other alternative simultaneously with condoms against Aids

Which has resulted in this:

Uganda has had extraordinary success in reducing adult infection rates from 30% in the early 1990s to below 6% last year. This success is largely credited to its president, Yoweri Museveni, who spoke out about what was considered a shameful disease and told people how to combat it

So it would seem that your problem is not that you want AIDS rates to decrease, you want the U.S. government to pay for more condoms.

Perhaps your problem is with the Ugandan First Lady. But I'm unaware if she is responsible for making policy. Perhaps you know?

Fact is, I can't think of a single good example where one of the current candidates for office's status as a Christian translates into better policy writing. I CAN for bad examples.

Please do.

Apparently, since you haven't offered a good example up you can't think of one either.

No, I cannot think of a single example where a candidate's policy position can be tied strictly to one's Christian world view. I doubt you can either.

So why, then, is Pastor Jeffers justified in saying a Christian should be preferred to a person he, himself, would define as a non-Christian? Even if they are otherwise good and moral?

I can't speak for Pastor Jeffers. I would imagine that he might say something like a professing Christian comes to the table being accountable to a higher power.

Frankly, that's a s*** definition for fitness for office.

Absent policy considerations, I don't see anything else to define fitness for office.

It's also how they will ACT on that belief that defines fitness for office.

Which means what? It would seem that "how they act" means one is unfit for office if one effects policy with which you disagree. So your fitness for office relies exclusively on policy concerns. That's fine. I guess I have a broader tent than you.

It does say something about the follower mindset of some, though. Willing to follow anyone around how acts like they have a destination I guess.

I don't know what you mean. Or to whom you are referring.

Again, you have already said you wouldn't vote for Romney for what appears to be his Mormon beliefs.

CFR.

I don't care about that, but I'd like to see you point out examples from Romney's statements and positions that helps demonstrate why you are justified in doing so. Otherwise, it's just bigotry.

No, otherwise, you see, because you want to, a (me) typical evangelical conservative. Not that there's anything wrong with an evangelical conservative, but that hardly describes me.

Don't care. I'd vote for a moral, good man who I believe will enact better policy regardless of religious belief. Religion is not a gate for me. How I see a candidate making policies and decisions is a gate.

Okay. Good for you. How is my position worse than yours?

[_Jason Bourne]

This whole evangelicals bagging on Romney thing has reminded me how annoying and self-righteous evangelicals are. Sure, Mormonism has a lot of baggage. But so do these wackos on the religious right.

QFT