This is a topic I've been mulling on for a while, trying to decide whether or not I really wanted to broach it. I decided to finally go ahead with this entry after listening to a couple of AM talk radio shows, both local and national, and hearing people identifying themselves as Christians, but Democrats, calling in.
Thing is, you cannot be a Christian and be a Democrat at the same time. It is quite frankly an either / or position. The problem is clearly defining why this is so. Lets set some basic requirements for being a Christian. #1: There can be no other Gods. Jesus is the only God, and he is the only way to Salvation. #2: Christians are to hold a higher moral standard of Living, and are supposed to set the Standard on how to live. #3: There is a clear right and wrong, and it is a moral right and wrong that is determined by what the Christian Bible says.
Now, take these three requirements and apply them to the Democratic National Party, or just Democrats in general. One of the big cultural pushes being made by Democrats today is that of multiculturalism. Everybody's religion is fine, everybody has a different way to get to Heaven. All other religions are equal. This flies in the face of requirement #1. Christians cannot accept Jews, Mormons, Islamics, or any other religion as being equal. Christians can not, for one minute, think that anybody else can get into Heaven without having accepted Christ as their savior.
The issue is highlighted even further by the typical associates of the Democrats, the RIAA and MPAA. If you consider the music and movies, a lot of effort is put into place mocking Christian beliefs and behaviors. In popular movies the Christian is always the square who just doesn't get it, or is always the fool that gets killed first in a production of forced irony. Go ahead and count the number of movies produced by members of the Screen Actors Guild that portrayed Christians as reasonable and intelligent people. It won't actually take very long, and it is doubtful that you would use even one hand counting them all over the past 30 years.
So, being a Democrat means having to sign on as an ally to those who openly mock the Christian Faith. It also means having the party requirement of pushing beliefs and ideas that are directly counter to that of the Christian Faith.
Consider for requirement number #2, the standard of living. This again goes back to the music and movies industry. When Gone with the Wind was first released, it was given an R rating for it's singular use of one cuss word. Today, or rather a few years ago, Gone with the Wind was re-released into theaters and was giving a G rating. A typical PG film today is laced with obscenities and cuss words that most movie goers just take in as part of the experience. If you were to play a drinking game with such words on a current R rated movie, most movie goers would be drunk after a few minutes.
Lets bring that back around to the standard of living. Should Christians really be supporting, and allying themselves, with an industry that prides itself on pushing the envelope of verbal and visual filth?
The problem extends beyond Hollywood as well. Other liberal oriented institutions such as the ALCU and PAW go out of their way to protect and defend sickening behavior across the US. I've lost count of the number of stories about how liberal oriented institutions assisted in establishing gambling and Sexually Oriented Business's across various states, going against the wishes of communities where over 50% of the local population is dead set against such business's. Again, it really doesn't sound such Democrats are trying to set a higher standard of living.
When it comes to establishing socialistic programs such as HealthCare, again, Democrats are not known to set a higher standard. I've already been into that subject before with a post called Government is Not the Answer. Everytime a Government gets involved in a formally private, or also private industry, the Government lowers the standard.
In respect to requirement number #3, that of a clear right or wrong, Democrats fail even basic litmus tests. For example, Bill Clinton's indiscretions in the White House and against his wife. Everything was alright, just as long as he wasn't caught. Liberal Democrats are also known for saying things like anything goes. It is up to everybody to determine their own right and wrong. There are no Absolutes.
Well, speaking for myself, gravity seems pretty much absolute. The three laws of thermodynamics also seem pretty absolute. The point is, the Democratic party has systematically rejected the concept of a moral point of absolute wrong and absolute right. As a whole, the Democratic party rejects the Christian Bible as a standard of how to live, and as the final authority. Should a Christian really associate itself with a party that rejects the Christian's own standard?
I think my statement that a person cannot be a Christian and a Democrat stands then. Now, a Democrat can become a Christian, yes, but at that point, they will no longer be able to be a Democrat. Holding to the basics of being a Christian means rejecting the actions and motives of the Democratic party. The differences cannot be reconciled. One is always in violation of the other's primary beliefs.
***
Now, don't take this article to indicate that I don't like a good alien shooter, or a good monster movie. I'll root for Gojira to take down Tokyo just as quickly as anybody else. I'll also point out that Star Wars Ep4-6 proved you could have an intense action/romance Sci-Fi adventure without being vulgar. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings proved you could bring Epic Fantasy to life, without the typical Hollywood filth.
I'd also point this out: Rob Rock, Chris Impellitteri, C. S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien ... they are / were Christians. Chew on that the next time you go pick up a music cd or a fantasy book.
9 comments:
Fascinating post. Very well thought-out. I must, however, take exception, not with the idea, but with the wording used here:
"Christians cannot accept Jews, Mormons, Islamics, or any other religion as being equal."
We can certainly accept Jews, Mormons, etc as being equal. We must, however, differentiate between the equality of the person and the validity of their beliefs.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I thought that the distinction bore noting.
re: your closing coment about fantasy, Tolkien and Lewis, et al;
Indeed, were it not for Tolkien, the world of Christian literature and thought might have remained unenriched to the degree that Lewis enriched it. Tolkien was instrumental in introducing Lewis to Christ.
BTW, i was surprised that you did not make the linkage between Democrats and abortion.
Thoughts on that one?
Thanks for all the writing you do. I enjoy reading you.
-handydan918
I appreciate your perspective, and share many ideas with you. I am a registered Republican. While I cannot tolerate abortion, a value held high by most Democrats, a Democratic Christian would challenge supporting a party who puts Big Business interests before helping the poor and defending the environment. While I can't understand voting for a candidate that supports abortion, I do see that many ideals Jesus would champion are shared by the Democratic Party.
Have you heard about the Red Letter Christian political movement? The movement is made up of registered Republicans and Democrats, but supports neither party. I was challenged by some of what they've written, being a right winger, but I think that their view of politics is refreshing and necessary.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-Letter_Christian
I think I'll subscribe to your blog. I'm also getting one going at omegamormegil.wordpress.com.
I just can't understand how anyone can be a Christian... Or believe in any other make believe, human-created god for that matter. It staggers me that in this day and age, Christian concerns even warrant mention.
I can understand how you feel - most people that feel as you do likely think that those that believe in God are delusional. The fact is, I don't believe in God because I want to, or because I think it's a fancy idea, but because I know it to be true. Ghandi said it better than I ever could: " In my tour last year in Mysore I met many poor villagers and I found upon inquiry that they did not know who ruled Mysore. They simply said some God ruled it. If the knowledge of these poor people was so limited about their ruler I who am infinitely lesser in respect to God than they to their ruler need not be surprised if I do not realize the presence of God - the King of Kings...That law then which governs all life is God. Law and the law-giver are one. I may not deny the law or the law-giver because I know so little about it or Him. Just as my denial or ignorance of the existence of an earthly power will avail me nothing even so my denial of God and His law will not liberate me from its operation, whereas humble and mute acceptance of divine authority makes life's journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier...But He is no God who merely satisfies the intellect, if He ever does. God to be God must rule the heart and transform it. He must express himself in every smallest act of His votary. This can only be done through a definite realization, more real than the five senses can ever produce. Sense perceptions can be and often are false and deceptive, however real they may appear to us. Where there is realization outside the senses it is infallible. It is proved not by extraneous evidence but in the transformed conduct and character of those who have felt the real presence of God within. Such testimony is to be found in the experiences of an unbroken line of prophets and sages in all countries and climes. To reject this evidence is to deny oneself. This realization is preceded by an immovable faith. He who would in his own person test the fact of God's presence can do so by a living faith and since faith itself cannot be proved by extraneous evidence the safest course is to believe in the moral government of the world and therefore in the supremacy of the moral law, the law of truth and love. Exercise of faith will be the safest where there is a clear determination summarily to reject all that is contrary to truth and love. I confess that I have no argument to convince through reason. Faith transcends reason. All that I can advise is not to attempt the impossible." For the full quote, click here.
Nate, thanks for your considered response. I appreciate that you just know it to be true... but that's also characteristic of Satan worshipers, and various others that society deems to be 'insane'... For me the biggest issue is that those who are god fearing create a serious social problem: they endeavour to make it a virtue to doggedly believe something, the opposite of which is supported by overwhelming evidence. For example, Christians by definition believe that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus was a supernatural being, the "son of God". I cannot accept either of these to be true. I find it especially interesting that the Hindu culture reveres Jesus of Nazareth as a guru, the same way in which you revere Ghandi - a wise but decidedly human being. I don't argue that he lived, but I do argue with his supernatural qualities. Hindu histories record his arrival over the Himalayas and his long life with wife and children... after Christians claim he "rose into the heavens"... who's history is correct? Frankly, the Hindus history sounds a lot more reasonable. But if that's the case, the entire foundation of Christendom is based on mythology and is unworthy of faith.
I can accept that you feel something. But to give it the name God (which inextricably ties it to the Christian flavour of god) seems to me to be quite an arbitrary human decision. Someone in an Islamic culture will feel something similar and give it the name Allah. But again, it's human, not God. Ultimately, people who believe in God must answer the question: If God exists, who created God?
Quoth Lightweight;
"If God exists, who created God?"
While your line of reasoning can be very neatly applied to the big bang theory, i.e.,reducing it to a ridiculous infinite series of regressions, applying it to God misses a fundamental reality.
A basic principle of cause and effect is that no effect can be greater than it's cause. Therefore, if God were an effect, (i.e., created)he would be less than the greatest being or causal agent in the universe.
In other words, God [b]must[/b] be uncaused or self caused in order to be God.
For an excelent explanation of the various modes of causality, see []Not a Chance[/i] by R.C. Sproul.
Daniel
Sorry, Daniel, I'm not buying "uncaused" as an argument. What about all the other "one gods" that people in other parts of the world feel as doubtless about as you do about your god? Are they all the same god? I'm guessing not, given the millions of unhappy people who have died due to arguments about that one...
Personally, I could be happy enough with someone seeing God in the fundamental (and strange and elusive but remarkably consistent) physical laws of our universe, although I doubt that's the god you're talking about. I'm not convinced there's any intelligence in the laws of the universe, and I'm skeptical that, whatever the laws are, they're not likely to have a son called Jesus.
ight:
"I'm not buying "uncaused" as an argument."
And I do not proffer it as an argument. Your beliefs are your responsibility. as long as you can live (and die) with them, I'm fine with it.
You said: "One of the big cultural pushes being made by Democrats today is that of multiculturalism. Everybody's religion is fine, everybody has a different way to get to Heaven. All other religions are equal. This flies in the face of requirement #1. Christians cannot accept Jews, Mormons, Islamics, or any other religion as being equal."
Then...one cannot be a Christian and an American at the same time either, according to you. Your beliefs are outdated by a few hundred years.
Post a Comment