voting Republican just because the party is pro-life is problematic

[Gordon Tubbs]

And here is a video which explains why.

[Spero]

Good video, Gordon. Like I’ve always said, Christians need to focus more on culture, and less on politics. The efforts of the Apostolic Age were centered on spreading the Gospel among the populations...and not generating moral change through a political power grab. The latter only produces tension. And as society changes, the laws naturally follow to reflect the moral climate of the culture.

I guess some may ask what that dividing line might be, however. For example, let me ask you if you would be a single issue voter if infanticide were legal - permissible to kill an infant, say, within the first thirty days via a pill that painlessly causes death. I was asked such a thing once from a family member. I gave a response which provoked, shall we say, a somewhat harsh rebuke.

[noncontingent]

I remember Pope Pius XII's concordat with the nazis.

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2003/09/01/vatican-concordat-hitlers-reich-concordat-1933-was-ambiguous-its-day-and-remains

"Voting against nazi's because they're nazi's is problematic" - Pope Pius XII

[Gordon Tubbs]

But in all seriousness, it is the single-minded project of overturning Roe v. Wade that powers the Conservative-Evangelical alliance.

Not only is overturning Roe unrealistic, it won't actually make a large contribute to the reduction of abortions. That's all the video was saying.

[Spero]

But in all seriousness, it is the single-minded project of overturning Roe v. Wade that powers the Conservative-Evangelical alliance.

Not only is overturning Roe unrealistic, it won't actually make a large contribute to the reduction of abortions. That's all the video was saying.

I agree with the video. But I think what the video fails to realize is that a lot of people feel it immoral to vote for any pro-choice politician on principle; that even though overturning Roe is unrealistic, they feel morally obligated to try, and that the State shouldn’t legally sanction abortion. All this, regardless of whether abortions drop in number or not...although that would be the ultimate goal. I think this is how they see it.

[a]

But in all seriousness, it is the single-minded project of overturning Roe v. Wade that powers the Conservative-Evangelical alliance.

Not only is overturning Roe unrealistic, it won't actually make a large contribute to the reduction of abortions. That's all the video was saying.

Every evangelical, tradcath, and the one Orthobro I know cares about issues other than abortion. In some cases, many, many issues. As MacArthur says, one of the parties has adopted the sins of Romans 1 as their platform. Moreover, the primary corporeal antagonist to the Church is the state, and generally speaking, the right is (at this point in time) more anti-state. Republicans are more likely to leave us alone. And with apologies to Piper, an armed citizenry is one of, if not the, primary deterrents to unfettered state expansion.

[Fred]

primary deterrents to unfettered state expansion.

That's a common refrain among many ultra-Conservative, and it seems irrational to me, at least it is if is meant seriously.  So tell me: are you serious?  Would you actually take up arms against your fellow citizens? If so, under what circumstances would you do this?

A friend of mine, who is a devoted Trump supporter, made two interesting posts after the election.  The first showed a US flag, with one star removed - and he announced that Texas (where we live, and a very conservative state) should secede.

In the second post, he mentioned that he'd been in the military and still feels bound by his military oath, to defend the nation against all enemies both foreign and domestic, emphasizing "domestic", and the context was clearly referring to Biden and his supporters.

The irony us that the "domestic" enemies in mind when the oath was composed during the Civil War were secessionists. 

Of course, these were just emotional reactions to an undesirable election outcome, but I do wish everyone would remember that we are one nation, and diversity of  thought is a strength, not a weakness.

[Gordon Tubbs]

The government in no way fears an armed citizenry, even a highly armed citizenry. If the police send a SWAT team to my house, I'm going to need machine guns and RPGs to break their siege. If a militia forms on the streets and squares off against the national guard, what do you think is going to happen? Where does it end -- with a Second Civil War?

What motivates the parties are issues that voters care enough about to donate money towards (either a candidate, PAC, NGO). This is why voters are no longer treated as constituents who need to be served, but as customers who need to be pleased. As soon as a 'product' (such a particular slogan, policy, or candidate) goes out of style, the parties will shift gears and sell us a different one.

The parties don't need your guns, they need your dollars. That even includes the NRA.

[ChristianInvestigator]

The government in no way fears an armed citizenry, even a highly armed citizenry. If the police send a SWAT team to my house, I'm going to need machine guns and RPGs to break their siege. If a militia forms on the streets and squares off against the national guard, what do you think is going to happen? Where does it end -- with a Second Civil War?

What motivates the parties are issues that voters care enough about to donate money towards (either a candidate, PAC, NGO). This is why voters are no longer treated as constituents who need to be served, but as customers who need to be pleased. As soon as a 'product' (such a particular slogan, policy, or candidate) goes out of style, the parties will shift gears and sell us a different one.

The parties don't need your guns, they need your dollars. That even includes the NRA.

Is there a case to be made that gun control won't lower the amount of murders/mass shootings, but will instead make it harder for innocent parties to defend themselves? (In the case of armed robbery, mass shootings, etc.)

[Gordon Tubbs]

If you gave every citizen a 9mm, that still wouldn't stop the SWAT team from kicking your door down, or the National Guard from battling a village militia.

[ChristianInvestigator]

If you gave every citizen a 9mm, that still wouldn't stop the SWAT team from kicking your door down, or the National Guard from battling a village militia.

Sorry, I wasn’t referring to defending themselves against the government, which is obviously a pointless exercise. Take a case where an armed robber or shooter breaks into your home, or your school, or your church. In these cases, the police won’t get there in time to help. Isn’t it good for the citizenry to have weapons to defend themselves?

[Gordon Tubbs]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to get from security is good to therefore, we should have a widely armed citizenry.

There are other ways to secure life and property that don't require a widely armed citizenry. That being said, I'm not opposed to having guns in schools or church. Most churches I know of, including my own, have a police officer on the premises during worship. Same for schools.

I'm of the opinion that we need a "Shooter's License" the same way we have a Driver's License. When I was in the military, I was not authorized to handle weapons until I was properly trained. If at any point in time I went to counseling or took any psychiatric medication, I would've been suspended from standing an armed watch. My point is that training, education, and safety is deeply embedded into our culture when it comes to driving cars, but when it comes to guns, they are just treated as property. Both guns and cars are lethal, so why not have a Shooter's License? The military knows this to their core, but the general population does not. There is a disconnect.

This would allow the issuing entity (most likely a sheriff's office) a chance to screen people, which makes way more sense than gun control policies that are aimed at restricting firearms. An AK-47 in the hands of a good person is a good thing, an AK-47 in the hands of a bad person is a bad thing. The AK-47 in and of itself is neither good or bad; but that is how some politicians are (wrongly) characterizing it.

[OrthodoxJew]

And here is a video which explains why.

fascinating

[Molinist]

The government in no way fears an armed citizenry, even a highly armed citizenry. If the police send a SWAT team to my house, I'm going to need machine guns and RPGs to break their siege. If a militia forms on the streets and squares off against the national guard, what do you think is going to happen? Where does it end -- with a Second Civil War?

What motivates the parties are issues that voters care enough about to donate money towards (either a candidate, PAC, NGO). This is why voters are no longer treated as constituents who need to be served, but as customers who need to be pleased. As soon as a 'product' (such a particular slogan, policy, or candidate) goes out of style, the parties will shift gears and sell us a different one.

The parties don't need your guns, they need your dollars. That even includes the NRA.

Sorry, this is not true - history shows that armed citizens prevent tyrannical governments, and where governments do successfully take guns away, the tyranny begins... *cough* Hitler, Mao, Stalin *cough*.