Aren't We Called to a Higher Standard Than This?

[jpholding]

For my next experiment...I have a question that begins with this narrative from one of my recent blog posts, about First Baptist Orlando, the extra-large Baptist church here, and some reasons why it is in decline. Here's one in particular suited for this sub-forum.

What tells the story even more in my mind, though, is something Mrs H and I happened to catch one of those Sunday mornings when we had to stay home. Despite [Pastor David] Uth’s shortcomings, we would turn on the First Baptist broadcast, if for no other reason than that Mrs H is a traditionalist when it comes to Sunday morning being about church. One Sunday, though, we turned on the broadcast and were appalled by what we saw and heard.

No, it wasn’t heresy. In some ways it was worse, to the extent that it tells the story of why FBO’s broadcast from now on will be occupying the same position as reruns of Dora the Explorer on an obscure UHF channel. What we saw was a special guest in the pulpit whose presence turned our stomachs: The current governor of Florida.

I have commented here lately, now and then, on this present governor, who will not be named here out of contempt for his sordid record. Before being elected, his greatest claim to fame was as head of a major hospital chain which was found guilty of the largest case of government payment fraud in history up until that time. Despite this; despite running a filthy campaign; despite an almost unparalleled record of corruption, deceit, evasion, and outright lies since his election, FBO invited him to speak from their pulpit – and spend several minutes giving his re-election talking points (thinly disguised as a sort of personal testimony).

Don’t you suppose the world sees this? Do you know what they will think of it?

This is a Florida example, sure, but my queries can apply anywhere. And I realize wherever you live now may not have such problems. The queries:

1) Is there any inclination anyone has seen in the church to ignore the moral shortcomings of certain candidates and politicians, just because they're on "our" side respecting certain issues?

2) When we see such candidates/politicians, even if they are on "our" side, should we not be calling them down for their failures, or in a worst case scenario, working to replace them with candidates that can meet a higher standard?

3) If the answer to 2 is yes, why are we not doing this?

4) The most daunting query: Given a choice between e.g., a candidate who is pro-choice but has a clean moral record, and a candidate who is pro-life but has an unquestioned and extensive record of corruption, who would you vote for (if any), and why? Or what would you do otherwise? (I know the options are highly polarized.)



I'd like to hear from anyone except certain persons under the delusion that Florida's governor is actually a highly moral person.

[Paprika]

3) If the answer to 2 is yes, why are we not doing this?

Group dynamics. Or to be more specific, if he's on "their" side people are much less inclined to attack him when the "other" side is already taking every opportunity (and some) to shoot him down; people are much more likely in the face of such attacks to band together and close an eye to the moral indiscretions of those on "their" side.

[KingsGambit]

#4 assumes that all other things are equal but I think it would be easy to make the case that nearly any instances of garden variety political corruption are dwarfed by the moral issues involved in abortion. State governor may be one of the few political offices that actually can do anything about abortion, and I'd want to be sure that the politician in mind actually intends to do anything about it and is not, like a sizable number of elected Republicans, posturing to leverage Christian votes.

[Yttrium]

4) The most daunting query: Given a choice between e.g., a candidate who is pro-choice but has a clean moral record, and a candidate who is pro-life but has an unquestioned and extensive record of corruption, who would you vote for (if any), and why? Or what would you do otherwise? (I know the options are highly polarized.)

Your questions seem to be pointed directly at Christians. The fourth one is a little more open, and I'd probably vote for the pro-choice candidate with the clean record. If the moral records were reversed, I would probably vote for the pro-life candidate.

However, I've seen people around here call abortion murder. Such people would obviously not see the pro-choice candidate as having a clean moral record at all. In fact, supporting murder would trump the bad behavior of the other candidate, which would very likely lead them to vote for the pro-life candidate. I'd be interested to see if I'm mistaken about that.

[Cow Poke]

However, I've seen people around here call abortion murder.

And we call murder sin.

Such people would obviously not see the pro-choice candidate as having a clean moral record at all.

That's a good point, but.. and I might get slammed here... I think sometimes we shoot ourselves in the foot with single issue voting. I wonder if somebody is "pro-choice" because of peer pressure, but is not actively engaged in pushing for such legislation... I'd really have to look at the candidates and their voting records.

In fact, supporting murder would trump the bad behavior of the other candidate, which would very likely lead them to vote for the pro-life candidate. I'd be interested to see if I'm mistaken about that.

My issue is that it's almost impossible to run as a democrat without being "pro-choice" - it's like a litmus test. And the "pro-life" candidate might just be claiming that to get the votes of the conservatives....

It's not what they say, it's how they vote.

[KingsGambit]

And we call murder sin.



That's a good point, but.. and I might get slammed here... I think sometimes we shoot ourselves in the foot with single issue voting. I wonder if somebody is "pro-choice" because of peer pressure, but is not actively engaged in pushing for such legislation... I'd really have to look at the candidates and their voting records.



My issue is that it's almost impossible to run as a democrat without being "pro-choice" - it's like a litmus test. And the "pro-life" candidate might just be claiming that to get the votes of the conservatives....

It's not what they say, it's how they vote.

I recently saw a Christian (a very intelligent person) on Facebook say that he would vote for the Republican candidate on abortion, no matter what. I asked what he would do if a pro-choice Republican like Chris Christie got nominated, and he said he would probably still vote for him because he might at least nominate a pro-life judge. This guy is clearly well intentioned but I think people like him are sending an implicit message that the Republicans have their vote regardless of what they really do. Some states (like mine) have gotten some good pro-life legislation passed; I'd like to see more action on a national level, or at least in more states.

[Cow Poke]

I recently saw a Christian (a very intelligent person) on Facebook say that he would vote for the Republican candidate on abortion, no matter what. I asked what he would do if a pro-choice Republican like Chris Christie got nominated, and he said he would probably still vote for him because he might at least nominate a pro-life judge. This guy is clearly well intentioned but I think people like him are sending an implicit message that the Republicans have their vote regardless of what they really do. Some states (like mine) have gotten some good pro-life legislation passed; I'd like to see more action on a national level, or at least in more states.

Yeah, and it's complicated because a guy (in either party) will run in a primary appealing to their base, then in the general election, they play down whatever might be offensive, and play up whatever they see as an advantage.

I like to look at the voting record, assuming, of course, that this is not their first run at politics.

[Truthseeker]

Nobody is perfect. We will never have anyone perfect to vote for.

[Teallaura]

So, tacitly letting babies be murdered is better than having a scumbucket in his personal life that is otherwise politically astute? Morally upstanding except for his support for baby killers?

So the choice is Scumbucket A or Scumbucket B - so which issues get shrifted? Mr Morality letting baby killing continue or Mr Sleezebag doing what, exactly?

Nearly fifty years now - frankly, I'd rather have the scumbucket that doesn't kill babies since a non-scumbucket isn't an option.

[jordanriver]

"representatives" are playing pro-lifers and prochoicers like fiddles.

"representatives" represent whoever footed the bill to get them elected.

[Epoetker]

Since I don't actually hold Rick Scott as a MORAL EXEMPLAR so much as a hapless but not actually lifeless Private Pyle who's at least on the right side, I'm going to assume I'm exempt from the exemption.

1) Is there any inclination anyone has seen in the church to ignore the moral shortcomings of certain candidates and politicians, just because they're on "our" side respecting certain issues?

The church does have the inclination to ignore moral shortcomings of candidates and politicians when they actually talk about them(what does 5013c mean?,) but this is utterly immaterial next to the members of their own flock whose ignored or encouraged moral shortcomings ruin the reputation of the church itself among the young men who could empower it. It is thus immaterial, because it has already been fully compromised by the Enemy.

2) When we see such candidates/politicians, even if they are on "our" side, should we not be calling them down for their failures, or in a worst case scenario, working to replace them with candidates that can meet a higher standard?

Our enemies are quite happy to call them down and misquote us in the worst possible way during the general elections, and they have an entire sympathetic media apparatus on their side. So no, we're not going to hand our enemies public propaganda on a silver platter.

3) If the answer to 2 is yes, why are we not doing this?

See above. Were we still one moral and religious people with one moral and religious republic, obviously the tactics would be different.

4) The most daunting query: Given a choice between e.g., a candidate who is pro-choice but has a clean moral record, and a candidate who is pro-life but has an unquestioned and extensive record of corruption, who would you vote for (if any), and why? Or what would you do otherwise? (I know the options are highly polarized.)

Not daunting at all-the one who is "pro-choice" is a member of a warped and disconnected ruling class who is highly likely to have other major problems, like, say...turning away well-qualified applicants for government jobs if they happen to be the unfashionable race, telling poorly researched lies to flood the country with inassimilable foreigners that take jobs away from the youngest and dumbest in the land who traditionally needed and could benefit the most from them, and being instrumental in the nomination of John McCain to the presidency of the United States, who exemplifies all of these categories except by being worse. Nominating him is like nominating Benedict Arnold for control of your armies after he betrayed you.

This is a forum on politics: i.e., what power you can exercise with the wretches you have. Call this lesson Politics 101: a degenerate wretch who reliably fights on your side is always, always, always always preferable to the man who is Totally Not a Spy and Totally Not Working For the Enemy, He Just Gets Along With Them So Well, and Gets Things Done With Them Too!

This is not debate, a boxing match, or even a wrestling match, this is an actual fight with actual consequences, and actual lives and territory lost. (There is occasionally what may be termed "kayfabe", but the consequences for breaking it are not just monetary.) Kindly start acting like you're in one if you're posting in the forum with my name on it. Until you pick a side and fight for it, you are not under anyone's protection or worthy of anyone's respect. If you don't happen to like democratic politics and its written and unwritten rules, you're absolutely free to read up on the alternative ideas of some of my more monarchist and anti-democratic friends and fellow-travelers.

As you are obviously rather new to the details of how actual politics works and has worked, I do forgive your ignorance in advance, as you have shown at least some willingness to educate yourself in the past. Try not to learn the wrong lessons this time.

[jpholding]

Since I don't actually hold Rick Scott as a MORAL EXEMPLAR so much as a hapless but not actually lifeless Private Pyle who's at least on the right side, I'm going to assume I'm exempt from the exemption.

No, you aren't. You're precisely the example of moral wretchedness that is not welcome, as this semantic gyration, and your entire post, demonstrates.

Hit the road.

[jpholding]

So the choice is Scumbucket A or Scumbucket B - so which issues get shrifted? Mr Morality letting baby killing continue or Mr Sleezebag doing what, exactly?

For the sake of argument, I have in mind someone like FL's current governor, but if you don't know his record, just imagine that Scumbucket B has done every possible moral wrong that can be done in politics without going to prison for it, has done so for decades, is completely unrepentant about it, and has a new scandal every week.

[Christianbookworm]

How hard is it to get a nonscumbucket to get in office?

[Paprika]

How hard is it to get a nonscumbucket to get in office?

The better question would be: why do you guys keep voting in scumbuckets?