Post Reply
4 years ago  ::  Jul 01, 2010 - 1:04AM #1
Vistronic
Posts: 1,830

Christianity is favored in the USA.


Ipso facto Christianity is the political litmus test.  I know the law says it should not be but in reality it appears it is.


 


Case in point #1 
Barack Hussein Obama. I think there is little chance of him being elected if he was not a Christian, Ipso facto Christianity is favored.


 


Case #2


 


Hey, Look Who’s Calling Nikki Haley a ‘Christian, Indian-American Woman’ Today


 



www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230...


 


" But today there are no Sikh references are on her website or campaign literature. And that website language has become more overtly Christian. When asked to specifically address why Sikh references were more overt in 2004 than in 2010, Pearson didn’t provide us with an answer to that question."


 


Ipso Facto Sikh most likely not elected.


 


So regardless of "the way it should be" the reality is Christians are favored for elections.


 


My comment "as it should" represents my own historic opinion on the matter per our Christian population.


 


Not official US policy.


 


Besides that Christianity is the unofficial religion of the USA. That is why it is favored.


 


Yes, Yes I know it should be this, and that, but lets talk reality here.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jul 01, 2010 - 11:08AM #2
Doneau
Posts: 29

The reality is that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1797 and signed by then President John Adams clearly states that "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


One can only conclude that those who vote for a candidate primarily on their religious persuasion rarely look at the character of the man or woman for whom they are voting. Slapping, "Christian" on a person, after all, clearly "proves" they are "Christ-like" - at least using the logic presented in this post.


Matthew 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."


Voting for someone simply because they call themselves a Christian is irresponsible stewardship. Not voting for someone simply because they do not identify as Christian is just as irresponsible.  I'd rather vote for a non-Christian with a proven record of sound judgment and compassionate than for a Christian who says all the right words to get elected but their record shows them to be self serving.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2010 - 7:24AM #3
DGMelby
Posts: 968

The fact of the matter is that as long as we keep our "winner take all" voting system, our politics will continue to be dominated by the Republican and Democratic parties.  And one of those two parties has wrapped itself in the Cross while promoting very unChristlike public policies.  (The other is so diverse that it has a hard time coming to a consensus even among themselves.)


The fact that non-Christians have a harder time says less about us being a Christian nation and more about the fact that bigotry and prejudice is still alive and well in this nation, especially given the fact that non-whites, non-males, and non-heterosexuals also have a harder time getting elected in this nation.


Well, that and apparently for a significant portion of the electorate, "I'd like to have a drink with this guy" is far more important than "I think this person would do a good job in office."  Which is just sad, IMO.

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook