And Republicans claim to be Christians? What a hoax?

[Anonymous]

Pew's recent studies confirms many things, but it does confirm that Republicans predominately believe that the govt has almost no role in protecting and supporting the needy amongst us. How Christian! http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0604/Pew-survey-Partisan-polarization-in-US-hits-25-year-high

[Anonymous]

The article ascribes the gap to both parties moving to opposite positions. My impression is that, on the contrary, most of the Democrats' positions are those of moderate Republicans of a few decades ago.

Gay rights is about the only issue I can think of off-hand where there has been a genuine move left (Hurrah!) Can you name others? For example, is there any economic issue on which Obama is as liberal as Ted Kennedy (or even Hubert Humphrey?)

[Anonymous]

I am a Republican. I am not a Christian. Stop making assumptions.

[Anonymous]

After reading this it does sound like both parties are moving away from the center line. I have been a Dem and a Rep and my views never changed. I just wanted a little more say on the Rep side by being able to vote in the Rep primaries.

As a current Rep I can assure you that I am very concerned about the environment. I only buy organic produce and meats, compost, grow my own food, and refuse to use fertilizer because I am concerned with the Bay.

I believe gay marriage should be allowed and have always backed gay rights. Being gay isn't a choice anymore than being straight is. How am I to judge? I do however understand why some people get upset over using the word marriage vs civil union. Lots of straight couples have civil ceremonies but are still considered married so I don't understand why the word "Marriage" should only be used for straight people. It seems stupid to me. DH and I got married in a church and it was a religious event for us but not everyone shares our religion or agrees with it. Fine with me because I don't agree with all the teachings either.

We can't take away Roe Vs Wade. Several priests I know agree, to a point, on that as well. We also can't make choices for other people and insist that our way is the right way or the only way. I actually do believe there are people out there who should never have children and if an abortion prevents tragedy then I think it's actually a good thing. I wouldn't end a normal pregnancy or even one with a disabled child. I would end one where the child has a condition that is not compatible with life and it's become more of a parasitic pregnancy.

I think that my faith makes my life more inclusive because I have been taught tolerance through my religion by following the example set by Jesus. He never turned anyone away because they were poor, disabled, sick, or disadvantaged. He helped them and He showed us that we need to take care of our own. This is where I think a big issue between Dems and Reps expand. Reps give to charity much more, and in larger amounts, than Dems do. Dems think the government should step in and take care of the same people that Reps think we should be taking care of on our own. I think there needs to be some compromising there with each side. They really need to come together on this.

My belief is that there needs to be better funding and resources out there for the mentally ill. We treat them better, with respect, and with better access to care, and a lot of our social problems will decrease. There will be less homelessness, less people on welfare, and fewer in prison. I can only see benefits from this. I also think that we should set better limits on welfare. I think people need to prove they are looking for work and set a time limit and not increase benefits with each new child. It may sound harsh but those in the Military aren't given raises with each new child a soldier has, so why should those who aren't' working get increases in payments. On the other side of this I think single mothers who are working, and having a difficult time providing for their child(ren) shouldn't have to be forced to quit working so they could get benefits from the government. We should supplement their income better. This would decrease welfare and medicaid numbers. I bet you anything that the single parent would feel better about themselves and in turn our government spending would decrease.

I do have an issue with a national health care plan though. Partly because I lived in a country with such a system and it failed. ERs couldn't staff properly and you couldn't have the expense of keeping an MRI or CT scan in use after about 6pm. God forbid you get sick after hours because the tests they can do are very limited and so are the treatments available. I walked into the ER so sick and dehydrated that I had no tears. I couldn't get IV fluids and I had to beg for some sort of treatment. Only after seeing me throwing up and crying a tearless cry did I get a shot to stop throwing up and was told to pick up some Gatorade on the way home. People pay incredibly high taxes for this type of treatment and I couldn't see it going well in a country the size of ours if it went that well in a country smaller than ours.

I do think that all children should be covered and that declining someone because of a pre-existing condition should end. I agree there need to be changes to our health care system but I don't think going with a national plan would suffice. If you have ever had Tricare or known anyone that has you will know government regulated care doesn't work well.

Anyway, just my view as a Catholic Republican who has just given a large donation to the Church to support Catholic Charities. They help anyone not just Catholics.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure that being Christian and opposing GOVERNMENT provisions for the needy are inconsistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Republican. I am not a Christian. Stop making assumptions.

As is Eric Cantor, for example. But I think OP's point, although not precisely stated, is not that all Republicans are Christian, but that many of those who are make a big point of how closely their (version of) Christianity is linked to their Republicanism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After reading this it does sound like both parties are moving away from the center line. I have been a Dem and a Rep and my views never changed. I just wanted a little more say on the Rep side by being able to vote in the Rep primaries.

As a current Rep I can assure you that I am very concerned about the environment. I only buy organic produce and meats, compost, grow my own food, and refuse to use fertilizer because I am concerned with the Bay.

I believe gay marriage should be allowed and have always backed gay rights. Being gay isn't a choice anymore than being straight is. How am I to judge? I do however understand why some people get upset over using the word marriage vs civil union. Lots of straight couples have civil ceremonies but are still considered married so I don't understand why the word "Marriage" should only be used for straight people. It seems stupid to me. DH and I got married in a church and it was a religious event for us but not everyone shares our religion or agrees with it. Fine with me because I don't agree with all the teachings either.

We can't take away Roe Vs Wade. Several priests I know agree, to a point, on that as well. We also can't make choices for other people and insist that our way is the right way or the only way. I actually do believe there are people out there who should never have children and if an abortion prevents tragedy then I think it's actually a good thing. I wouldn't end a normal pregnancy or even one with a disabled child. I would end one where the child has a condition that is not compatible with life and it's become more of a parasitic pregnancy.

I think that my faith makes my life more inclusive because I have been taught tolerance through my religion by following the example set by Jesus. He never turned anyone away because they were poor, disabled, sick, or disadvantaged. He helped them and He showed us that we need to take care of our own. This is where I think a big issue between Dems and Reps expand. Reps give to charity much more, and in larger amounts, than Dems do. Dems think the government should step in and take care of the same people that Reps think we should be taking care of on our own. I think there needs to be some compromising there with each side. They really need to come together on this.

My belief is that there needs to be better funding and resources out there for the mentally ill. We treat them better, with respect, and with better access to care, and a lot of our social problems will decrease. There will be less homelessness, less people on welfare, and fewer in prison. I can only see benefits from this. I also think that we should set better limits on welfare. I think people need to prove they are looking for work and set a time limit and not increase benefits with each new child. It may sound harsh but those in the Military aren't given raises with each new child a soldier has, so why should those who aren't' working get increases in payments. On the other side of this I think single mothers who are working, and having a difficult time providing for their child(ren) shouldn't have to be forced to quit working so they could get benefits from the government. We should supplement their income better. This would decrease welfare and medicaid numbers. I bet you anything that the single parent would feel better about themselves and in turn our government spending would decrease.

I do have an issue with a national health care plan though. Partly because I lived in a country with such a system and it failed. ERs couldn't staff properly and you couldn't have the expense of keeping an MRI or CT scan in use after about 6pm. God forbid you get sick after hours because the tests they can do are very limited and so are the treatments available. I walked into the ER so sick and dehydrated that I had no tears. I couldn't get IV fluids and I had to beg for some sort of treatment. Only after seeing me throwing up and crying a tearless cry did I get a shot to stop throwing up and was told to pick up some Gatorade on the way home. People pay incredibly high taxes for this type of treatment and I couldn't see it going well in a country the size of ours if it went that well in a country smaller than ours.

I do think that all children should be covered and that declining someone because of a pre-existing condition should end. I agree there need to be changes to our health care system but I don't think going with a national plan would suffice. If you have ever had Tricare or known anyone that has you will know government regulated care doesn't work well.

Anyway, just my view as a Catholic Republican who has just given a large donation to the Church to support Catholic Charities. They help anyone not just Catholics.

Dem here. Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. I wish we had more reasonable folks on both sides. I think we would make a lot more progresss than our current approach of hysteria and name-calling.

[Anonymous]

god gives no credit for government action. conservatives give a much higher proportion of income to charity. personal sacrifice is what counts. communism is godless and humanist at its core.

[Anonymous]

Republicans are godless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:god gives no credit for government action. conservatives give a much higher proportion of income to charity. personal sacrifice is what counts. communism is godless and humanist at its core.

This is true only because they give to their churches, which is mostly self-dealing. Most churches give only a small percentage of their donations to actual charity, and the vast majority goes to the donor's benefit. It pays for your minister and staff, the upkeep of your building, your church programs, maybe that tennis court and soccer field nearby. I know, I have read the annual reports from the parishes I have been a part of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:god gives no credit for government action. conservatives give a much higher proportion of income to charity. personal sacrifice is what counts. communism is godless and humanist at its core.

This is true only because they give to their churches, which is mostly self-dealing. Most churches give only a small percentage of their donations to actual charity, and the vast majority goes to the donor's benefit. It pays for your minister and staff, the upkeep of your building, your church programs, maybe that tennis court and soccer field nearby. I know, I have read the annual reports from the parishes I have been a part of.

I think the charities to which Republicans contribute are not serving the poor, disabled, etc. Contributing to your church, your schools, and the arts is great but does little for the poor, disabled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After reading this it does sound like both parties are moving away from the center line. I have been a Dem and a Rep and my views never changed. I just wanted a little more say on the Rep side by being able to vote in the Rep primaries.

As a current Rep I can assure you that I am very concerned about the environment. I only buy organic produce and meats, compost, grow my own food, and refuse to use fertilizer because I am concerned with the Bay.

I believe gay marriage should be allowed and have always backed gay rights. Being gay isn't a choice anymore than being straight is. How am I to judge? I do however understand why some people get upset over using the word marriage vs civil union. Lots of straight couples have civil ceremonies but are still considered married so I don't understand why the word "Marriage" should only be used for straight people. It seems stupid to me. DH and I got married in a church and it was a religious event for us but not everyone shares our religion or agrees with it. Fine with me because I don't agree with all the teachings either.

We can't take away Roe Vs Wade. Several priests I know agree, to a point, on that as well. We also can't make choices for other people and insist that our way is the right way or the only way. I actually do believe there are people out there who should never have children and if an abortion prevents tragedy then I think it's actually a good thing. I wouldn't end a normal pregnancy or even one with a disabled child. I would end one where the child has a condition that is not compatible with life and it's become more of a parasitic pregnancy.

I think that my faith makes my life more inclusive because I have been taught tolerance through my religion by following the example set by Jesus. He never turned anyone away because they were poor, disabled, sick, or disadvantaged. He helped them and He showed us that we need to take care of our own. This is where I think a big issue between Dems and Reps expand. Reps give to charity much more, and in larger amounts, than Dems do. Dems think the government should step in and take care of the same people that Reps think we should be taking care of on our own. I think there needs to be some compromising there with each side. They really need to come together on this.

My belief is that there needs to be better funding and resources out there for the mentally ill. We treat them better, with respect, and with better access to care, and a lot of our social problems will decrease. There will be less homelessness, less people on welfare, and fewer in prison. I can only see benefits from this. I also think that we should set better limits on welfare. I think people need to prove they are looking for work and set a time limit and not increase benefits with each new child. It may sound harsh but those in the Military aren't given raises with each new child a soldier has, so why should those who aren't' working get increases in payments. On the other side of this I think single mothers who are working, and having a difficult time providing for their child(ren) shouldn't have to be forced to quit working so they could get benefits from the government. We should supplement their income better. This would decrease welfare and medicaid numbers. I bet you anything that the single parent would feel better about themselves and in turn our government spending would decrease.

I do have an issue with a national health care plan though. Partly because I lived in a country with such a system and it failed. ERs couldn't staff properly and you couldn't have the expense of keeping an MRI or CT scan in use after about 6pm. God forbid you get sick after hours because the tests they can do are very limited and so are the treatments available. I walked into the ER so sick and dehydrated that I had no tears. I couldn't get IV fluids and I had to beg for some sort of treatment. Only after seeing me throwing up and crying a tearless cry did I get a shot to stop throwing up and was told to pick up some Gatorade on the way home. People pay incredibly high taxes for this type of treatment and I couldn't see it going well in a country the size of ours if it went that well in a country smaller than ours.

I do think that all children should be covered and that declining someone because of a pre-existing condition should end. I agree there need to be changes to our health care system but I don't think going with a national plan would suffice. If you have ever had Tricare or known anyone that has you will know government regulated care doesn't work well.

Anyway, just my view as a Catholic Republican who has just given a large donation to the Church to support Catholic Charities. They help anyone not just Catholics.

Many of your views, of course, are inconsistent with the dominant view of the current Republican leadership, including Rommey, Cantor, Ryan, etc. Moreover, your view of Obamacare is fundamentally wrong. In countries with national health care, the govt either owns and runs the health care system or it is the sole payor in the health care. Under Obamacare, neither of that would occur. Under Obamacare, you have private sector health care providers, and the payors are us through our premiums. Obamacare does nothing more than create some basic legal outlines for the private health care system to operate. The USG does that in many other industries, including broadcasting, telecomm, banking, etc. In my view, if you are in the middle, you should vote Democratic. The Republican leadership has moved much farther to the right; the Democratic leadership has not really moved to left. Yes, there are a few far left Democratics on the Hill, but not amongs the leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading this it does sound like both parties are moving away from the center line. I have been a Dem and a Rep and my views never changed. I just wanted a little more say on the Rep side by being able to vote in the Rep primaries.

As a current Rep I can assure you that I am very concerned about the environment. I only buy organic produce and meats, compost, grow my own food, and refuse to use fertilizer because I am concerned with the Bay.

I believe gay marriage should be allowed and have always backed gay rights. Being gay isn't a choice anymore than being straight is. How am I to judge? I do however understand why some people get upset over using the word marriage vs civil union. Lots of straight couples have civil ceremonies but are still considered married so I don't understand why the word "Marriage" should only be used for straight people. It seems stupid to me. DH and I got married in a church and it was a religious event for us but not everyone shares our religion or agrees with it. Fine with me because I don't agree with all the teachings either.

We can't take away Roe Vs Wade. Several priests I know agree, to a point, on that as well. We also can't make choices for other people and insist that our way is the right way or the only way. I actually do believe there are people out there who should never have children and if an abortion prevents tragedy then I think it's actually a good thing. I wouldn't end a normal pregnancy or even one with a disabled child. I would end one where the child has a condition that is not compatible with life and it's become more of a parasitic pregnancy.

I think that my faith makes my life more inclusive because I have been taught tolerance through my religion by following the example set by Jesus. He never turned anyone away because they were poor, disabled, sick, or disadvantaged. He helped them and He showed us that we need to take care of our own. This is where I think a big issue between Dems and Reps expand. Reps give to charity much more, and in larger amounts, than Dems do. Dems think the government should step in and take care of the same people that Reps think we should be taking care of on our own. I think there needs to be some compromising there with each side. They really need to come together on this.

My belief is that there needs to be better funding and resources out there for the mentally ill. We treat them better, with respect, and with better access to care, and a lot of our social problems will decrease. There will be less homelessness, less people on welfare, and fewer in prison. I can only see benefits from this. I also think that we should set better limits on welfare. I think people need to prove they are looking for work and set a time limit and not increase benefits with each new child. It may sound harsh but those in the Military aren't given raises with each new child a soldier has, so why should those who aren't' working get increases in payments. On the other side of this I think single mothers who are working, and having a difficult time providing for their child(ren) shouldn't have to be forced to quit working so they could get benefits from the government. We should supplement their income better. This would decrease welfare and medicaid numbers. I bet you anything that the single parent would feel better about themselves and in turn our government spending would decrease.

I do have an issue with a national health care plan though. Partly because I lived in a country with such a system and it failed. ERs couldn't staff properly and you couldn't have the expense of keeping an MRI or CT scan in use after about 6pm. God forbid you get sick after hours because the tests they can do are very limited and so are the treatments available. I walked into the ER so sick and dehydrated that I had no tears. I couldn't get IV fluids and I had to beg for some sort of treatment. Only after seeing me throwing up and crying a tearless cry did I get a shot to stop throwing up and was told to pick up some Gatorade on the way home. People pay incredibly high taxes for this type of treatment and I couldn't see it going well in a country the size of ours if it went that well in a country smaller than ours.

I do think that all children should be covered and that declining someone because of a pre-existing condition should end. I agree there need to be changes to our health care system but I don't think going with a national plan would suffice. If you have ever had Tricare or known anyone that has you will know government regulated care doesn't work well.

Anyway, just my view as a Catholic Republican who has just given a large donation to the Church to support Catholic Charities. They help anyone not just Catholics.

Many of your views, of course, are inconsistent with the dominant view of the current Republican leadership, including Rommey, Cantor, Ryan, etc. Moreover, your view of Obamacare is fundamentally wrong. In countries with national health care, the govt either owns and runs the health care system or it is the sole payor in the health care. Under Obamacare, neither of that would occur. Under Obamacare, you have private sector health care providers, and the payors are us through our premiums. Obamacare does nothing more than create some basic legal outlines for the private health care system to operate. The USG does that in many other industries, including broadcasting, telecomm, banking, etc. In my view, if you are in the middle, you should vote Democratic. The Republican leadership has moved much farther to the right; the Democratic leadership has not really moved to left. Yes, there are a few far left Democratics on the Hill, but not amongs the leadership.

I said "a National Health Care System" Not Obamacare. I was just generalizing and sharing my experiences.
I agree that I am in the middle and that my views haven't changes despite my changing parties and the reason behind changing parties. I think I am better off as a Republican because I feel like my ability to vote in the republican primaries is important. I have never, and will never, vote along party lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:god gives no credit for government action. conservatives give a much higher proportion of income to charity. personal sacrifice is what counts. communism is godless and humanist at its core.

This is true only because they give to their churches, which is mostly self-dealing. Most churches give only a small percentage of their donations to actual charity, and the vast majority goes to the donor's benefit. It pays for your minister and staff, the upkeep of your building, your church programs, maybe that tennis court and soccer field nearby. I know, I have read the annual reports from the parishes I have been a part of.

I think the charities to which Republicans contribute are not serving the poor, disabled, etc. Contributing to your church, your schools, and the arts is great but does little for the poor, disabled.

You must be one of these cynics who doesn't attend church, so I guess it stands to reason you don't know what you're spouting off about.

Churches by their nature are benevolent. I'll wait while you look up that word in Google..... So, my church contributions, in fact, do go to the needy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I said "a National Health Care System" Not Obamacare. I was just generalizing and sharing my experiences.
I agree that I am in the middle and that my views haven't changes despite my changing parties and the reason behind changing parties. I think I am better off as a Republican because I feel like my ability to vote in the republican primaries is important. I have never, and will never, vote along party lines.

I'm not sure I speak for others, but when I complain about Republicans, I mean the party apparatus and the tea party leaders who are driving them nowadays. Registration, to me, is a choice you make for a variety of reasons, and yours make enough sense to me that I might follow them if I lived in the right place. In fact, I have switched to Green (and back) because of the particular races that were important to me.

Based on what you have written in this thread, I think many of the spokespersons of the Republican Party would condemn you as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). I agree with them, but coming from me, it's a compliment.