From the National Council of Churches USA website (Vote Carefully

Do you think these are partisan principles, and if so, which party?

Many of the principles do seem to be partisan. Many expound the more liberal approach to problem solving rather than the conservative approach.

Number 1 regards war, while no party looks to engage in war, sometimes it is a necessity. At what cost do we proceed to continue to seek nonviolent approaches to solve crises?? Appeasement for the sake of peace is wrong. People complain about the loss of life in Iraq due to the war, estimated at 35,000 people, however, what of the millions that were killed under the Hussein regime??? During WWII the United States and its allies destroyed cities and loss of life was severe, however, as a result, more people today live in freedom from oppression.

Number 2 depends on how one wants to enact policies that will save the cities and rural areas. Is it one based on the idea of Law and Order, or by other means. We are a nation of laws, in order to secure a better society for everyone, laws are enacted to create order. The best way to rebuild our communities is through the enforcement of laws that protect the citizens from those who wish to commit crimes. The best way to save the inner cities is to make them safe so that businesses and people will wish to return to them.

Number 3 promotes internationalism. National security is the responsibility of the individual nations. France, Germany and Russia opposed the Iraq war, why? Those three nations were receiving huge sums of money from Iraq through the corrupt Oil for Food program, which as a result made Hussein a much stronger, not to mention richer ruler. Those nations looked out for their own self interest, the United States must do the same. Sometimes what is in our nations best interest may not be the same for a neighboring country, do we sacrifice our interest for the sake of another?

Number 4 seeks economic justice through the redistribution of wealth. Christ himself taught that if you give a man a fish, you will feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, you can feed him for a lifetime. The same holds true in closing the gap between rich and poor. We cannot accomplish this by giving those less fortunate money, but we can accomplish this by teach those who are less fortunate how to be self-reliant, how to save money, how to invest money, and how to work hard to better ones self.

Number 5 is vague as to how to accomplish this measure. Is it through affirmative action or quotas. Tell me how to combat judging a man based on his racial background if the programs you use do the exact thing.

Number 6 is one of those that one can question by what is meant by being God's steward, according to God, Man was given dominion over the land and the animals. At what point does one outweigh the other??

Number 7 seems to strike out at those who wish the government to protect the country from illegal immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants, people protest not to prevent immigrants from coming into the country, but to protect the country from those who seek to violate the law. Coming into this country illegally violates the law, to grant amnesty to these individuals means to turn ones back on the law. Is this the message we wish to send?

Number 8 is again an attempt to provide for the common good, but at what cost to others. In a perfect world everyone would be free of disease and sickness, however, this is not a perfect world. Federal law prevents hospitals from turning anyone away who needs care. However, do we wish to go the route of providing care for everyone regardless of the cost or the outcomes? Thanks to the free market health care we have in this country, we are the leading nation in finding new cures and treatments. Do we wish to become like other nations were we only have the ability to treat the sickness and are unable to find new cures??

Number 9 is a fallacy. To eliminate crime one needs to punish those who transgress. If a child takes a cookie from a cookie jar and the parent yells but allows the child to eat the cookie anyway, what prevents the child from doing this again??? However, if the child takes the cookie and the parent yells and takes the cookie away, or smacks the hand and takes the cookie away, the child pays for committing his crime and learns not to do it again. Rehabilitation is a necessity in our criminal justice system, however, so is punishment. The best way to make sure that an individual will not commit a crime again is to make sure that the punishment works as a deterrent first.

Number 10 is again looking at providing the best education possible, a goal of both parties, however, giving money to the problem does not work. Washington DC spends more money on each student than many of the other cities of the country, yet time and again they fall further below the other cities. Money alone does not work and to rely upon that answer is to turn ones back on finding a solution for the problem.

While the basic principles are sincere, the manner in which one enacts them is not always the same. While these issues proclaim many of Christs basic tenets, they also ignore many others. Christ talked of man and wife becoming as one, leaving the mother and the father.

Like it or not, several of the solutions can only be carried out by turning toward socialistic goals, thus sacrificing the freedom of the individual. Not a very Christ like ideal.

dmk

I think Christ was pretty socialist and didn't care a thing about personal freedoms. He certainly wasn't a capitalist or materialist, quite the contrary.

I don't think that those who use Christian values to promote their political agendas are really in synch with what true Christian values, based on the teachings of Christ, are.

Given the points stated in the first post, I'd have to say the Green Party most represents true Christian values.

Well sarge while i truly do respect your opinions ( you seem to know what you are talking about ) i fail to understand what convinces you that world politics is a zero sum game.

IN fact i think this is the basic flaw in conservative thinking. Of course conservative politics will engender conflict if there is a basic assumption that if WE get OURS then somebody loses out.

This is not a fact.. there is plenty to go around.. THat means for instance if you pay 50% taxes you can STILL have plenty to take care of ur stuff.

Jesus was most certainly a capitalist. He taught how to use money wisely and invest. How about the parrable of the unjust servant? He hoarded his money in the ground and did not invest it wisely to gain interest and was scolded for that.

Looking at Jesus's statements to virtually EVERY rich man he encountered, your statements are bullsh!t.

Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.

Luk 6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask [them] not again.

The GREEN Party?

Seriously?

Jesus spoke more about money - and its proper use - than any one other thing.

And it's "proper use" seems to be in helping others...

Jesus was speaking to the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:21. He knew the man's heart. He trusted in his riches. Trusting in riches is wrong. The lesson was to trust in God, not in what you have. No where in any of your verses does Jesus say anything bad about having money. The lesson is about greed.

Luke 6:30 says to give. Christians give more than anyone. Nothing in that verse about having wealth being a sin. It is not a sin to have wealth. The lesson is about giving.

As usual, you don't get the spiritual meaning of the bible verses. That's because your conscience is seared by your life of unbelief.