Had any late night chats abt the Republican victory recently? hehe...
If you are from Malaysia, chances are, people are disappointed that Kerry lost. That was the mood in Ibridge forum also. Can't believe that Bush, shoot-from-the-hip cowboy got a second term. Why?? There's complaint about evangelical Christians are being too myopic for voting on 'core' issues like abortion & gay marriage.
Btw I'm opposed to the Iraq war, but feel Farenheit 9/11 is slanderous, conspiracy theory. Bush blundered massively to bring the war to Iraq, but I'd still vote for him
because of ONE issue - Abortion.
(Sorry for importing this non-issue into Malaysian soil, but I think ethical issues like killing the unborn are not conscious of national borders)
While being pro-life doesnt make Bush a good president, I think endorsing killing an unborn child (as Kerry would) automatically disqualifies him from holding public
office... just as endorsement of racism, rape, fraud or bribery would
disqualify a person from public position.
If abortion is killing an unborn human being, and each year 5 million abortions are performed, this holocaust alone makes the war on Iraq and the poverty issues look like a picnic. These are important economic/political issues of faith and morality, I'm sure, but a holocaust of this magnitude makes me prioritise differently.
No one quality makes a good wife (ie pretty, cooking skill) BUT some qualities would automatically disqualify that person. John Piper put it this way...
"For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the
relationship."
Now, once you throw in other huge issues on euthanasia, stem cell research, gay marriages... the evangelical Christian doesn't have much of a choice.
Hey, it's perfectly OK to have differences in political views among Christians, and just having a civil conversation while disagreeing is an accomplishment in itself! heheh... no sacred cows here.
But I'm more interested in the thought-processes in coming to our conclusions than defending Bush/Kerry (not a fan of either, anyway) or to have us toe the party lines.
All of us think 'unneccessary war mongering', abortion, gay marriage, the poor,
the environment are issues of faith and morality. So is the image of the Christian faith before a watching world.
You can't separate your Christianity from such 'politics'.
All of us agree that a politician may not deliver his election promises, though we hope he would.
If possible, we'd vote for a candidate who do well in ALL these issues ie Jesus! But the reality is we dun have that option.
Btw Kerry wanted to wage a smarter war, not that he'd renounce the war altogether.
While we agree that the poor, war, abortion etc. are important, the crux of the disagreement lies in our priority of these issues.
On one side, we complain why pro-Bush Christians dun care about the ozone layer or the condition of slums, and only see abortion as the core issue.
But on the other side, we plead that we do care about all these issues, but we rate the killing of millions of unborn human beings as more important than all these issues put together.
It's as if we are given the choice between stopping another Hitler gassing 6 millions Jews in Poland, or implement a more environment-friendly program of development that will benefit the poor and downtrodden? If possible, we'd choose both... but if we must choose one, I'd say - Go stop Auschwitzh!
If you are from Malaysia, chances are, people are disappointed that Kerry lost. That was the mood in Ibridge forum also. Can't believe that Bush, shoot-from-the-hip cowboy got a second term. Why?? There's complaint about evangelical Christians are being too myopic for voting on 'core' issues like abortion & gay marriage.
Btw I'm opposed to the Iraq war, but feel Farenheit 9/11 is slanderous, conspiracy theory. Bush blundered massively to bring the war to Iraq, but I'd still vote for him
because of ONE issue - Abortion.
(Sorry for importing this non-issue into Malaysian soil, but I think ethical issues like killing the unborn are not conscious of national borders)
While being pro-life doesnt make Bush a good president, I think endorsing killing an unborn child (as Kerry would) automatically disqualifies him from holding public
office... just as endorsement of racism, rape, fraud or bribery would
disqualify a person from public position.
If abortion is killing an unborn human being, and each year 5 million abortions are performed, this holocaust alone makes the war on Iraq and the poverty issues look like a picnic. These are important economic/political issues of faith and morality, I'm sure, but a holocaust of this magnitude makes me prioritise differently.
No one quality makes a good wife (ie pretty, cooking skill) BUT some qualities would automatically disqualify that person. John Piper put it this way...
"For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the
relationship."
Now, once you throw in other huge issues on euthanasia, stem cell research, gay marriages... the evangelical Christian doesn't have much of a choice.
Hey, it's perfectly OK to have differences in political views among Christians, and just having a civil conversation while disagreeing is an accomplishment in itself! heheh... no sacred cows here.
But I'm more interested in the thought-processes in coming to our conclusions than defending Bush/Kerry (not a fan of either, anyway) or to have us toe the party lines.
All of us think 'unneccessary war mongering', abortion, gay marriage, the poor,
the environment are issues of faith and morality. So is the image of the Christian faith before a watching world.
You can't separate your Christianity from such 'politics'.
All of us agree that a politician may not deliver his election promises, though we hope he would.
If possible, we'd vote for a candidate who do well in ALL these issues ie Jesus! But the reality is we dun have that option.
Btw Kerry wanted to wage a smarter war, not that he'd renounce the war altogether.
While we agree that the poor, war, abortion etc. are important, the crux of the disagreement lies in our priority of these issues.
On one side, we complain why pro-Bush Christians dun care about the ozone layer or the condition of slums, and only see abortion as the core issue.
But on the other side, we plead that we do care about all these issues, but we rate the killing of millions of unborn human beings as more important than all these issues put together.
It's as if we are given the choice between stopping another Hitler gassing 6 millions Jews in Poland, or implement a more environment-friendly program of development that will benefit the poor and downtrodden? If possible, we'd choose both... but if we must choose one, I'd say - Go stop Auschwitzh!
Comments
jacksaid
great and balanced post. If I were to vote instinctively, i'd ultimately still be more comfortable Bush than Kerry.
If we are given a choice between "making a good statement by casting a vote for a great guy but who has no realistic chance of getting to do good" AND "actually doing some good by casting a vote for a not-so-great guy who can actually do some good", I think we gotta choose the latter.
"Live by the sword, die by the sword." It is not a good time to live in that country.
But it turned out otherwise... The reason is, the cultural elite in US (hollywood etc) are mostly on the Left. But the political elite is balanced between the Left and Center Right. ("In But Not Of", Hugh Hewitt)
I seriously dun think Bush takes pleasure in maiming Iraqi children etc. He probably may even believe the stuffs he said about 'liberating the oppressed'.
But IMHO, he's wrong or at least, strategically unwise to go-it-alone without UN support. And it leaves a slippery slope ie why not liberate the folks in Darfur also? North Korea? who will US invade next? etc.
1. a psychopath cold blooded murderer - takes pleasure from maiming Iraqi children >:). Well I admit this is highly unlikely, since the US sanctions was already doing exactly that, killing thousands everyday. Maybe he loves drinking blood then.
2. business minded murderer - war is profitable to him, enough said.
3. dumb murderer - liberating by killing more?? what was he thinking?!
either way, his hands is full of blood and for whatever reasons, does not deserve a vote.
as for Kerry, I agree abortion is wicked and evil, and allowing abortion is equally wicked and evil, but at least the people can still make their own decision whether to kill their unborn or not :P
in a war holding a gun, you have no choice but to go trigger-happy ( well of course you could evade joining the force altogether :P )
If he's a business minded murderer, nothing beats invading Kuwait and Arab Saudi along the way!
but he may be dumb, no question about that! haaha!
Normally one can evaluate the objectivity of someone discussing emotive issues by looking at the examples he discusses... ie if all we talk abt is innocent children maimed and grandma losing their sons, we're painting a sob story, basically.
What abt those maimed and killed by Saddam and sons? Have we seen photos of the torture instruments he kept for pleasure? Most Americans thot the 'collateral damage' is worth removing those tyrants. Remember Kerry wud have done the same, (is he a murderer too?) he'd do it smarter that's all
I think both the person who holds a gun and the person who holds scissors have a choice in the matter lor...
if you have a gun, which means u are on battlefield, i think there is not much of a choice, either kill or get killed.
I'm not saying voting for Kerry is a wise choice, my argument is just that Bush is not a better choice. Purely because he is behind many innocent deaths. True, Saddam also killed many, perhaps the innocent death toll inflicted by Bush pales compared to the number of innocent people Saddam killed, but still, no matter how we view the deaths - whether as grandmas losing their sons or hard,cold numbers, theres no escaping the fact that it is, indeed a sob story that could be prevented.
As for Kerry, legalizing abortion = legalizing murder so its not much different. And yeah, I am also aware that he would have gone for a war anyway if he was the president.
My only golden solution to this -> flee the country :D
Let's say if we grant that Bush is guilty of war mongering... for the sake of discussion.
But Kerry wud have done the same! He wud have brought the war to Iraq if he was in Bush's position anyway. But he wud have done it 'smarter'. That's the diff.
It's not like Kerry wud have stopped the war, or prevented innocent people from dying... (who can, anyway?)
Now we have two people who agreed in principle to the war, but disagree on how to do it. I'd say "It's a tie"
Now we take in abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research... who's the better candidate?
(Btw it's debatable if more people die in the current conflict than those silenced by Saddam over the years and his invasion of Kuwait, rite?...)
In my opinion, its very disturbing to vote a war criminal back to helm, but what choice do we have? What has the world come to, that we only have the option of voting for the "lesser evil"??
And regarding my previous opinion about fleeing america, here are some interesting thoughts about it, from the author of "Is There An Islamic Problem?", M. Shahid Alam.
"I came to the United States only after I had tried living in several countries on four different continents. I was born in Palestine, but the Zionists took over that country in 1948, and the Haganah expelled my family from our ancestral village in Galillee. We moved to Korea, but the Americans soon followed us there with a devastating war to defend their "freedom". My next destination was democratic Iran, but a CIA-inspired military coup overthrew its government in 1953. I left the medieval city of Isfahan when the coup plotters restored the Shah to the Peacock Throne. One after another, I tried living in Congo, Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, but each time the CIA destabilized these countires. In 1988, after many misadventures, I finally understood that there is only one country the CIA would never destabilize: the United States. That is when I moved to Massachusetts."
Would you choose to stay in US if you were born there? Thank God I don't have to make that choice :P
But choice is always in our hands, if we are faced with two equal 'demons', it may be wise to abstain from voting altogether? hehe...
Someone once said, "while evil always accompany war, not everyone involved in a war is evil"