If you are a person of faith you need not apply
 

Do those who identify as extremist progressives have any room left for Christians? Why is it not enough that those who believe abortion a right and homosexuality normal are not content with the triumphs they have made over those of faith that they now target a person's conscience itself?
For example we witnessed Bernie Sanders tirade against candidate, for the Office of Management and budget,Russell Vought. It wasn't enough that Sanders excoriated for his christian belief but Sanders went so far to say his beliefs disqualified Vought from assuming this office.

Believe what you will but the Constitution expressly prohibits religious test for office.

Now consider the following :

ESPN “First Take” co-host Max Kellerman appeared to talk about the NFL (in baseball season, for some reason) and was asked about his reaction to one football player comparing quarterback Colin Kaepernick to boxing legend Muhammad Ali.

Kellerman said:

They both were asked to do things that went against their conscience. In this country, in the United States of America, you don’t have to do that. We are free to make our own choices. And if our conscience is bothering us, we can follow that.

In Muhammad Ali’s case, he was asked to take a step forward and become a part of the Vietnam War, and he was against it on religious and moral and ethical principles, and he refused to take the step and he faced five years jail time but was ultimately vindicated in a Supreme Court case. OK, but he did have his prime stripped, his license revoked and he couldn’t earn a living for four years, all that.

Colin Kaepernick also did not go looking for a protest. It came to him. He was asked to stand for the national anthem. You do not have to stand for the national anthem. And even if it it was a rule that you did, is that Colin Kaepernick injecting politics in the NFL? No. That’s the NFL injecting politics by playing the national anthem and putting pressure on you to stand for it in the first place.

Yes, the NFL is injecting politics into football.

Personal Best Regards:

There are all kinds of Christians in Congress of both parties. Abortion rights also involve the control of a woman over her own reproduction system. Why should the state dictate what a woman does with her own life and that of her unborn child? I do not get this as Republicans as so adamant about limited government and the like and then they argue that the government should be involved in one of the most important decisions in a woman's life when she is capable of child birth.

Supporting women's rights does not make us less Christian. This is what I would hope my cousins, nieces and grand nieces would have available to them. The right to have control over the decisions that involve the rest of their lives.

Colin Kaepernick was acting out about how he saw African-Americans treated in the US. You can see a lot of that racism he was protesting about by not standing for the National Anthem on this very TOTV Political Board of at least one very prolific poster who looks like he should be posting on some KKK bulletin board or writing in one of their local rags in the 1940s or 1950s.

If Christianity and being a Christian means following the teaching of Jesus Christ as described in The Bible, then what would Jesus tell us about:

(1) Feeding those who are hungry, including the unemployed and those receiving public assistance?
(2) Healing the sick, which in today's world means providing affordable health care for everyone (insurance)?
(3) Welcoming refugees into our country who are fleeing war and destruction in their native land?
(4) Treating women with respect?
(5) Punishment for crimes committed?
(6) Pastors of mega churches and media ministers who live an extravagant lifestyle?
(7) Environmental issues?
(8) Income inequality and the capitalist mentality of profit first?
(9) War?
(10) Donald Trump?

You don't get it...religion...the "laws" you're supposed to follow...that's for "us", the little people...not for them...our rulers.

Donald John Trump seems more like the Romans Jesus was sometimes criticizing. Materialistic, hedonistic, selfish, greedy, lustful, power hungry, cruel, etc.

Why would you even worry about it?

As demonstrated by your posts...you're no Christian.



Deepest Sincere Wishes: :wave:

I disagree...Kaepernick did go looking for a protest. He had stood many of times for the National Anthem and then decided he would not anymore.

The NFL's mistake was; they had control of what is broadcasted and they choose to show him protesting the National Anthem. I did not watch a game since (not even a minute of any game). It seems many others felt the same way, as the NFL's TV ratings were down double digits last season.

I believe it was hypocritical of the NFL to get involved in players personal lives (claiming their off the field actions brought a dark light to the NFL's image) and then they did nothing to curb or diminish Kaepernick's UN-american protest.

Screw the NFL, I would rather watch hockey than National Anthem protesting losers. Interesting fact: The NHL players are respectful enough to stand for 2 National Anthems!!

It seems you need to go back and reread the bible. I don't believe it states any of those things. Many a bible thumpers claim the bible says things to support their personal beliefs, when it really does not.

Please provide the 10 verses you are referring to.

The war one made me LOL. You have to acknowledge that there have been quite a few religious wars over the years...

But don't let me discourage you, please share the 10 verses you are referring to.

A Brief Examination of "Biblical" Justifications for War - Global Ministries


This is an interesting link.

I do not believe that we have the right to take away a woman's right to sin by having an abortion, I just don't believe that the US taxpayers should pay for them.

There is a huge bigly amazing difference between being a Christian and a Christianist, or a member of the Christian Taliban.

What progressives argue is that religion belongs in your home, in your place of worship, and not in the public arena. When you are asked is your policy going to be governed by the secular law and are you willing to completely put aside your religious beliefs in your public position and you cannot say yes to that, go home.

Many of those who decry Sharia law instead want their fundamentalist Christianist law imposed. Both are fine in the private sphere and anathema to public service. When JFK ran one of the most important statements he had to make was that he would not allow his Catholic faith to influence his decisions as President. Russell Vought was completely unable to make a similar statement and that is what Senator Sanders attacked. Read Kennedy's words:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all....
Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

While Senator Sanders' questioning was abrupt, the nominee did not dispute that his words
Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.reflected his actual religious beliefs and he was not reassuring that he had either the interest or the ability to completely put aside his religious dogma if confirmed. Kennedy was clear and Vought was not.

I strongly suspect that if Obama had nominated an Islamic individual who had publicly written that Christians are all condemned and deficient because they do not accept Allah, you and the rest of the right would have been vigorously opposing that person, and correctly so.

Here is the exchange, I have highlighted certain words. Notice Mr Vought never said I am first an American, never said he would put aside his faith in his public office. Answered every question by first and foremost announcing his faith.

Sanders: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?
Vought: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and . . .
Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?
Vought: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College . . .
Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?
Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian . . .
Sanders: I understand you are a Christian! But this country are made of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?
Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals . . .
Sanders: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?
Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.
Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.

After reading all the responses let me repeat the operative word in my original post "conscience".

Posters have been discussing "rights"while my post refers to "conscience"

I would be happy to engage posters on the issue of the right to abortion and the right to choose one's sexual identity but that is not the subject matter here.

Essentially those proponents of all things homosexual being normal and those proponents absolute on the right to abortion refuse that same "right"
to a Christian's right to follow his/her conscience.

A devout Christian who believes abortion is wrong or homosexuality is no normal have a right to operate based on their belief. The issue we all are aware of the baker who refused to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding had that right. The homosexual couple could have gone to any other baker...heck I am sure there are pleny of homosexual bakers around. But their age agenda wasn't a cake but to make a legal statement that homosexuality MUST be accepted by everyone as normal.

As to Colin Kapernick but for those men and women who suffered blood and treasure you would not be able to show your disrespect to this nation

it would seem to me blacks have been accorded many opportunity to share in America's blessings . It seems the government still affords a manufactured advantage to blacks

Christians have every right to actively practice their faith.

Personal Best Regards:

The Supreme Court has decided that same sex marriage is legal. Don't forget it was only back in 1958 that it took a Supreme Court decision to declare inter-racial marriage was legal. It is not a Christian option to obey a Supreme Court decision or not. It is the law of the land. No, the law does not say you must think the gay life is normal - it says you cannot discriminate against them.

The same thing applies to abortion. A Supreme Court decision made it legal. It is the law of the land. It is a personal choice that cannot be infringed upon.

Christians do have every right to actively practice their faith - but not at the cost of infringing on anyone else's rights.

EXACTLY!! :BigApplause:

When they legalized bestiality...inter-species marriage.

Worst decision they ever made...nah...they've made a LOT of bad ones...corporations are people...cities can take property if they can make more money giving it to someone else...and other bad ones too.

You should take a look at the movie Loving.

Loving (2016) - Rotten Tomatoes

Why? To see something that hardly ever happens? A white man marrying a black is so rare.

"0.4% of all Whites were married to a Black partner"

MOST being a white woman and a black man.

This is interesting and needs to be explained or the wrong conclusion is reached:

"White wife/Black husband marriages show twice the divorce rate of White wife/White husband couples by the 10th year of marriage,[11] whereas Black wife/White husband marriages are 44% less likely to end in divorce than White wife/White husband couples over the same period"

White women leave black men because they realize what a mistake it was to marry an animal. They're stupid and violent.

Some white men will take ANY woman...some white men get mail order brides...for some white men, looks and sex is what matters...so a FEW marry blacks...but they also marry MORE Asians and others.

White men don't like "black" women. Mildred Loving did not LOOK very black.

Mildred Loving - Google Search

Asians don't like blacks either:

"the total numbers of Asian American/African American interracial marriages are low, numbering only 0.22% percent for Asian American male marriages and 1.30% percent of Asian female marriages"

Africans are a different species.

Does this "turn you on"? I doubt it...it's why Playboys are illegal to sell to kids but National Geographic isn't. NO 13 y/o boy is beating off to these "women".

Women from the Balete tribe of Botswana participate in a ceremony dedicated to bringing back to life an ancient tradition of women's initiation, in Ramotswa main Kgotla, 30km from Gaborone on Augus... Pictures | Getty Images

according to the hyde amendment (which is the law of the land currently) the us taxpayers do not pay for abortions.

MOST Republicans will never read this, and many claim to be Christian
 

God does not need defending. You can either believe or not believe. Your choice. But, you are the one that has to live with any consequences.

It seems easier to NOT believe when you advocate abortion.
It seems easier to NOT believe when you advocate gay marriage.
Neither one of them affects me. I vote against them with confidence. You vote for them and live with the consequences.

If I am wrong, nothing happens to me. If you are wrong, well lets just say a whole H3ll of a lot happens to you. You might say that I have LIFE insurance.

You actually think we are going to hell because we support the right of a woman to chose as well as that of a gay couple to marry.

Ask God, not me. But, according to his book of rules, it would seem that your hypothetical reasoning would be on shaky ground. What I think does not matter.

Two words "Planned Parenthood"

Personal Best Regards:

The decision as to how these folks will be judged and how they will be dealt with I leave to God .

Again I believe a Christian has every right to follow his/her conscience.

The fact is that abortionist and homosexuals continue to try and silence Christians because they demand 100% acceptance of their decisions

it was recently explained that the nerve endings on the skin of fetuses actually are more sensitive than previously thought so that a baby being aborted actually is experiencing more pain than previously recognized

A woman's choice in my view is "don't get pregnant" . In this day and age there is no reason why a responsible woman should get pregnant.

Personal Best Regards:

Planned Parenthood does not receive dollars from the US government for abortions. However, it does receive dollars for routine care procedures like pap smears and pelvic exams.

COPUFF OUT WEST IN THE MILE HIGH STATE!

Then I take it you would support birth control should be covered by all medical insurance plans?

And research for a male birth control pill should be fully funded.....

Well, Mr. Holier Than Thou, you are NOT above the Law of The Land.

The Law says "homosexuals" have ALL the same civil rights as YOU!

The Law says Pro-Choice women can have abortions - WITHOUT your approval.

Your self-proclaimed "Christian" beliefs are yours to enjoy but NOT at the expense of infringing upon the rights of those who do not enjoin your train of thought.

Did you think the same way (or still do) about the 1958 Supreme Court decision that allowed inter-racial marriages? How about the ratification of the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery?

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

Let's see how the Republican health insurance plan treats birth control pills. 13 republican men most of them old. Say goodbye to birth control pills for women covered by insurance, but Viagra will be untouchable.

There justification will be old white men are not attracted to poor young women. Of course, you could look like Mitch McConnell. His looks are the perfect birth control device.

Lena Dunham: Losing Birth Control Could Mean a Life of Pain - The New York Times

You just summed up RubiTHECon...in four short words. :thumbup:


Thinking himself some kind of a deity, also explains why he likes to preach lies from his pulpit...while NEVER providing links or proof. :ohdear:

so you personally inspected everyone of their facilities and audited their books and can offer an unqualified opinion that not one penny of government subsidy goes toward abortion. Yet Planned Parenthood is the premier abortion clinic in this nation. Hmmmmm

it my understanding that Planned Parenthood considers pregnancy to be an item that falls in line with routine healthcare because they have so many repeat patents...and the cure abortion.

Personal Best Regards:

I reject the notion that any form of birth control be covered by insurance plans. I reject the notion of Viagra, etc from being covered by insurance plans. I reject the notion that transgender surgeries be covered under insurance plans.

And I especially reject the notion that all of the above be subsidies by the government. Why? Because like any program subsidized by the government comes control, rules regulations, etc. They own you lock stock and barrel and they can manipulate the hoi polli in any manner they choose good or bad.

I'll stop here because the issue of government subsidies is a separate issue altogether and a complicated one

Personal Best Regards:

Yes, PP DOES receive gov. funding. Anyone can put a label on something and declare it something else. Only someone that is very, very ignorant or one that refuses to acknowledge the truth would assume that PP does not use gov funding for abortions. If you believe them when they assure you that they do not, then I have some ocean front property in AZ that I will sell you real cheap.

You did not ask me, but I will throw in my two cents anyway. I do NOT believe that the gov should MANDATE that Insurance companies provide any particular service, period. They are a private entity and should not be under the thumb of the Fed Gov. unless they are being contracted by the gov to provide gov employees health care service. Then they should be told what services the gov wishes to provide their employees and make that a factor in whether or not they get the contract. Otherwise, it is not up to the gov to mandate what service a private business must provide.
And only a liberal would assume that it is up to the gov to provide funding for any kind of research. You liberals seem to think that someone else is always responsible for your well being.

totally agree

Does Tal tie your shoelaces?

Do bedroom slippers have laces?

Lol! X2

Democrats endorse PP because it conducts abortions, and they know that most abortions are performed on liberals, and a lot on blacks in the inner cities. And you know the history of Dems with blacks. They were the KKK, voted against abolishing slavery, etc. NOW, I have almost no problem with liberals being aborted, but I know that my saying this will suddenly upset the lefties on here. After all, it is their idea to pay to kill babies, so my feeling is that since they will mostly be from liberal families, there will be less liberals in the world. Of course, I am sure that the liberals are looking at it more like there will be less blacks in the world since most of the abortion clinics are in the inner cities. So, since the constitution says abortions are lawful (if not moral) then I will take comfort knowing that there will be less liberals in the world. Kind of a lawful party genocide. Kind of hits on that old saying of "cutting off the nose to spite the face."

i no understnd the hole thin but i drink for bees read this on. berryberry intesting i makin copy fore the heffa monyana. he teel i for sureyl .