Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sharon Lindenburger on October 12, 2012 at 12:10am

I'm not an American so probably shouldn't comment, but generally I feel that the "mind of God" leans more toward the Democrat position than the Republican. Republicanism appears to be based on an exclusionary agenda of catering only to the wealthiest sector of society. Democrats appear to have more concern for the middle class, the poor, the sick, and the unemployed. Since most religions advocate compassion, I would say that the Democrats model this more than the Republicans.

 

Permalink Reply by Lorelle Taylor on October 12, 2012 at 1:14am

I'm not American either, but in my opinion, God doesn't have an opinion. God would simply ask you, given where you say you want to go, which one would offer the best means of getting there? According to the law of attraction, we attract the government which is a vibrational match to our vibration, so if we we want a government that spreads peace, we need to be peace; if we want a government that provides abundance, we need to believe in abundance; if we want a government that is generous, we need to be generous. Which government are you attracting?

Love

Lorelle

Permalink Reply by Jill Celeste on October 14, 2012 at 8:53pm

I am American and I have to say that I agree with both Sharon and Lorelle.

The question is not which way God leans....but how do we vote to lean more towards God?  I think there is a large portion of voters who go to the debates and the voting booth with a "What's in it for me? attitude. Rather than, "Based on principles that I believe to be good and true...which candidate can lead this country in the highest and best way"

We can no longer be in it just for ourselves, we are world citizens...We must ask ourselves: "Who can lead this country with the highest principles of kindness, intellegence, compassion,inclusiveness and forgiveness? Who is able to embrace the whole regardless of beliefs and  lift up the down trodden?" "Which candidate supports a platform based on love rather than fear?"

The most apalling fact of the eight years under George W. Bush was that he stood in front of the American people and basically sold them on the fact that we must live in Fear.....The fact that the American people bought it is even scarier!!!!

What happened to "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" .THAT is a  truth, I can stand by!

 I don't call myself a Democrat or a Republican or anything else. But in this election, I feel the man the majority of us elected on principles of hope, love, freedom and change,  should be allowed another 4 years to work out his plans.

I generally don't make political comments...but the principles of Mitt Romney are scary....His truth came out uncoached when he said that 47% of the American people.... are not his concern. The 47% which includes me, and the firefighter down the street and the policeman across the alley, the teachers in my grandkid's school and most of my friends...... In this election I feel the candidate with principles more alligned with Divinity is the democratic candidate,Obama....that is from my heart not from my pocketbook.

Besides, as my daughter, an animal rights advocate, keeps screaming...."Mitt Romney tied his dog to the roof of his friggin'car!!!" That, says it all.

Permalink Reply by jeff herman on October 16, 2012 at 2:11pm

Frank, and frankly, the question falls outside my concept of the Divine, which is to allow all of us to be what we are and do what we will do. And because I see the Divine as being unimaginably non-human, I can't envision it having any kind of preferences in ways we conventionally understand. Reality delivers bad news everyday, but we can't be sure what that means to the Divine Plan, or if it even means anything. I believe we can talk and be heard beyond ourselves, and we can reach and touch something beyond ourselves, but we better be very discerning about what we think is touching and talking to us, because we are imperfect fragments and our egos can overrule our Divine flame. That send, I think Democrats are closer to Natural Law in that they want to share available resources with the needy, and I think Republicans are closer to Natural Law because they want people to be self-accountable and to push against apparent obstacles. Combining the two approaches would be ideal, in my opinion. Help those who can't help themselves. And  help those who can help themselves to actually help themselves. 

Permalink Reply by Sharon Lindenburger on October 16, 2012 at 2:22pm

Good point, Jeff. We need a good "middle way" party, both in the US and Canada that will combine social compassion and self-accountability and will also address the vast structural issues that get in the way of people's ability to achieve self-efficacy.

Permalink Reply by Jill Celeste on October 16, 2012 at 2:49pm

I read a book once a long time ago by Sorenson which set up a proposal for a joint leadership, rather than a single president in Washington. A republican and a democrat, with equal power at the top..It seemed like a great idea...However.I wonder if it might be reduced to closing the two of them in a roomand telling them they can't come out until they figure out how to govern cooperatively and let them let them duke it out..

That's my version, not Sorenson's

Permalink Reply by Sharon Lindenburger on October 16, 2012 at 9:56pm

I like your version, Jill.

Permalink Reply by Frank L. Jordan III on October 17, 2012 at 10:22am

Or closing them up in a Town Hall style debate! ;o)

 

Permalink Reply by Frank L. Jordan III on October 19, 2012 at 8:37am

What political agenda the mind of God leans toward, or which agenda better reflects the attributes of the mind of God, is an extraordinarily complicated question, in my mind. It helps me when addressing the question to explore two fundamental realities. The first is that each political party has positive characteristics that we can imagine God supporting, but that those attributes within each given party can be lost or overshadowed by negative aspects found at the extreme ends of each party’s agenda. The second reality is that evidence about God’s nature can be gleamed from the entire political spectrum because this spectrum reflects the workings of the evolving governments God’s most advanced species known to date, human beings. If one believes that nature for the most part reflects the attributes of God, like I do, then one can see God’s hand in the best that politics has to offer.

Now as for the positive characteristics of each agenda, The Republican agenda embraces freedom, the freedom to live your life unencumbered by the long arm of the Government with its regulations and taxes. The Republican Party says, “Leave us alone. We can perform much better in the free market without your assistance, thank you.” The Republican agenda emphasizes a strong work ethic, with a special emphasis on self-reliance. And it champions ownership. To the Republican Party, ownership is the ticket to success. And they are willing to defend this freedom and right to ownership to the death, finding honor in the defense of their country and their country’s interests. In its purer forms, I can see God valuing such an agenda.

Unfortunately, like everything else in this world, The Republican agenda can be corrupted. Too much individual freedom can lead to extreme greed – an insatiable thirst for more money, power, property, and prestige. This greed can lead to the oppression of the rights of persons that those of the Republican persuasion sometimes view as under them, either as their employees or as marginalized people in general – such as minorities and undocumented immigrants. The freedoms that the Republicans espouse are no longer extended to these groups of people, because they fear losing control over them or over the situation in general. The “status quo” is now defended to the death, and virtually no progress is made in the way of providing equal rights and equal opportunities to everyone. I believe that this mentality is far from the mind-set of God.

The Democratic agenda places a heavy emphasis on equality. It promotes the belief that these freedoms the Republicans hold so dear should be extended to every citizen – regardless of their race, religion, gender, national origin, and (as of late) sexual orientation. The Democrats are quick to recognize institutionalized systems, whether at the grass-roots or corporate level, that put up obstacles to the recognition of the fundamental dignity within each person. It is this fundamental dignity that leads the Democratic Party to turn to the Government to provide assistance to the most vulnerable of its citizens, its elderly, unemployed, impoverished, and disabled. This assistance is currently being extended to the populace at large in the form of a watered-down version of Universal Health Care. However, this is the closest our government has ever gotten to enforcing the Democratic Party’s belief that health care is a basic right for all of its citizens, and not just a privilege – and that it should be affordable and assured for everyone in any situation. It seems that God has made it clear in many faith traditions that Spirit has a special regard for such vulnerable people, and would be in favor of the Democratic agenda in its purer forms.

But like the Republican agenda, the Democratic agenda can be corrupted when taken to extremes. That regard for the fundamental equality of each person can morph into the belief that this somehow forms a collective equality that can produce a society that is entitled to the goods, services, and taxes of the individual, thus infringing on the basic freedoms of that individual. It becomes obvious here that the Republican Party doesn’t have a monopoly on being greedy for too much power. The Democratic Party can become power-hungry as well through the expansion of government, with a diminishing regard for some of the rights of individuals.

Now to the second fundamental reality that helps me when trying to sort out which political agenda is better supported by the mind of God. That reality is that evidence of God’s nature can be gleaned from the full political spectrum because this spectrum reflects the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of the most advanced species yet known in God’s universe. Being a believer in the doctrine that we are made (or have evolved) in the image of God, I also believe that much can be deduced about God from human nature and the natural world at large. An important part of human nature is its adherence to the political process as a way of governing societies. So the political spectrum in general could throw some light on just where God most supports it.

I like to envision the political spectrum as a football field – as in American football – where the Democratic Party occupies the half of the field on the left and the Republican Party occupies half of the field on the right. The end zones of each party hold the most extreme elements of those particular parties. It’s these extremes of each party that are the most easily criticized by the opposing party. As a result, more “points” are made in each party’s end zone by the opposing party than elsewhere on the field. On this political spectrum football field the most moderate positions of each party are found huddled around the 50 yard line. If we could imagine humans being perfectly divided between the two parties, they would stand smack dab in the middle of the field – on the 50 yard line. I suspect that such creatures are as mythological as unicorns! But where would we find the heart and mind of God on this field?

Personally I’m a Christian, so I look for clues of God’s character in the personality of Jesus. Much of what Jesus advocated for does indeed seem otherworldly; it encompasses a love rarely seen among ordinary human beings. Teachings like “turn the other cheek”, “pray for those who despitefully use you”, and “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword” seem to undercut the basic notions of defense that the Republican Party holds so dear. But was Jesus really saying to stand by and let an aggressive nation or terrorist cell attack our country and our country’s interest?

Jesus said to care for the sick, the poor, and the disenfranchised. But was he really talking about taxing citizens and paying for this care indirectly through the Government, like the Democratic Party advocates? Or is Jesus advocating a more personal approach – like what a private charity attempts to accomplish? After all, Jesus did say, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” But are private charities enough to deal with the real and present problems of want in this country? What do we do if they aren’t?

And finally, what about those sensitive life issues? I can easily see Jesus standing beside an incarcerated, unarmed man or woman who has been sentenced to death by the State and saying, “The Government has the right to take away this person’s freedom, but not to take their life. The Government didn’t create that life, and it has no right to take it away, no matter what this person has done.” But what about the Pro-Life cause? Would Jesus advocate for abortion-on-demand, or would he seek to extend human rights into the womb before birth, maybe all the way back to conception? Where does Jesus stand on the privacy issues of the mother?

Many of these questions remain unanswerable, but we can come to some conclusions about where Jesus, and in my mind, God might be found on the political spectrum football field. We might be able to deduce HWJV – How Would Jesus Vote?

Jesus valued people above everything – above power, property, and prestige. He always favored the working class over the privileged class, the so-called “sinners” over the self-righteous. But there were those individuals in the privileged class, like Nicodemus and the Centurion, who did find favor with Jesus – not because he conformed to their teachings, but because they conformed to his. So we have to ask ourselves, “In general, what party’s agenda best encompasses the values that Jesus espoused?” For me the answer is the Democratic Party, but with some elements of the Republican Party. I envision Jesus on the 40 yard line of the Democratic Party side of the political spectrum football field, give or take a few yards.

But then again, that’s about where I would be.

     

Permalink Reply by Lorelle Taylor on October 20, 2012 at 4:07am

Thought you may be interested that an Australian newspaper conducted a poll of who people preferred to win the US presidential election and 84.8% chose Barack Obama and only 4.6% chose Mitt Romney. 

Interesting.

Love

Lorelle

Permalink Reply by Jill Celeste on October 20, 2012 at 9:42pm

That is interesting Lorelle....Has anyone seen polls from other countries around the world? Sometimes, we may be so closed to a decision we are blinded by the rhetoric.....How do other countries see us? How would they vote if they lived here? Might they have a larger world view than we do ourselves? Inquiring minds would like to know....;-)