Talk Elections

As brought up in the other thread proving how opebo is not socially conservative.

As stated I partially agree with a few but none do I fully agree with so I vote for NOTA. Well I guess I do agree with #7 but since this is already absolutely guaranteed by the First Amendment it's pretty obvious what they mean is something different than what it simply means.

Plank number 7.

Like BRTD it's free speech.

DUH!

1,5, and 7, but nothing else.

I took this to mean on a personal level rather than a question of legality, so 1,2,3,4,7, and 8.

5 almost had me until it started talking about the "New Israel" stuff.

Also, I'm not totally in agreement with 8 if it's asking for complete abstainence from those things instead of just not abusing them.

Geez, welcome to the 19th century. I don't support any of this crap, though I might come a bit closer on the patriotism thing if it wasn't for all the bullsh**t insinuations that small govt, low taxes, armed forces, Christian America and the bizarre lunatic New Israel stuff.

1, 2, kinda 4, 7, and 8.

What exactly do they mean by seven. Is that just random feelgood bullsh!t, or something more sinister?

I might personally support some more but I only agree with government action on about three or four of them.

Only #7, which is already constitutionally protected.

None of the above - these people should be fed to lions.

Two: 1) Opposition to "liberal" immigration reform (reform without first securing the U.S.-Mexico border), and 2) Freedom of Christians attempt to convert non-Christians. 1) actually overstates my position a bit, but opposition is closer than support, so I checked the box.

     7 & sorta 8 (I dislike those things, though I think they should all be legal). 5 was mostly good until they got to the white supremacist cant at the end.

what does "opposition to pornography" mean

That the Religious Right and "Feminists" are trying to out-compete each other for most obnoxious people in America?

no, it means something else.  what does it mean?

Everything they don't like should be banned, and everything they do should be encouraged. Duh.

Right to life (against abortion and euthanasia)    Yes, but depends on what is meant by euthanasia
Sexual fidelity in marriage and abstinence before marriage     Ideally, yes, it's preferable - but it's important to be realistic that not everyone's going to do this
Opposition to homosexuality and other "deviant sexual behaviors"  No
Opposition to pornography  Eye of the beholder - use good taste and don't get too carried away
Patriotism (supporting national boundaries, the Armed Forces, political participation, free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, personal responsibility, and Christian America as the New Israel of God's Covenant to His People)  Yeah okay, except for that last part
Opposition to "liberal" immigration reform (reform without first securing the U.S.-Mexico border) No, but both should be achieved
Freedom of Christians attempt to convert non-Christians Yes, absolutely - if the convert is willing!
Addictive behaviors (with opposition to gambling, the legalization of addictive drugs, alcohol, and smoking) Not really. Addictions are generally a bad idea - doesn't mean everyone who does these things are addicts, shouldn't be illegal.

I suspect by plank #7 they mean trying to influence Muslim countries to allow Christian proselytism.  However since they don't phrase it as a general right for all religions to proselytize, I didn't check it.

None.

Only 7... Which christians may attempt with me at their own peril.

None. Tradition is literally just an excuse to keep doing bad things. Someone invented a word for it (Tradition) so that you don't have to call it "Keeping on doing bad things".

Though technically I agree with the Freedom of Christians attempt to convert non-Christians, just as much as I agree with the Freedom of non-Christians attempt to convert Christians.

6 & 8 in some form. lol'd at #5.

How are their version of patriotism and their position of immigration considered "Traditional Values"? I can see most of the other stuff considered traditional values. I would think they would limit themselves to social issues and avoid foreign policy issues.

Personally, I think most of those are good to live by, but most are not the role of government to legislate.

There's nothing in this sack of utter bullsh*t that I could even come close to supporting, except #7 - and even then, it is so obvious and pointless that it probably has some hidden meaning which I'm pretty sure I wouldn't suppport either.

Some of those start out reasonable, but get a little weird at the end.  The only one I fully support as written is the right of folks to try to convert people to their religion.  I voted for that one only.

You sure you're not misquoting or taking them out of context?  Out of curiosity I went to their website and from what I've read I conclude that you have not quoted them quite accurately.  In particular, you have mischaracterized Patriotism, as they define it, and you haven't even mentioned two of their planks.

See for yourself:  http://www.traditionalvalues.org/content/defined

1 and 5.

I support the 1st clause of number 2, but no way the 2nd.

5, until the nutty bit at the end.
6
and 7, but like most of you, by the wording of it and the people it's coming from, it probably aint really a good thing

second wave's been over for a few decades now tbh

Most of them.

by the way to clarify, since nobody went down the road I was hoping.  I "oppose pornography" in the sense that I believe it is a warping thing, for the user especially, a negative thing that opposed the notion of human connection within sex, which is what makes sex so valuable and special.  counter to my purported 'nihilistic' tendency.  this of course does not mean I think it should be banned as a bunch of pro-Iraq War "Christians" probably would.

Cheese and Rice...

Basically this.

5, excluding the bit about a 'New Israel'.

6 and 7 and the 'opposition to the legalisation of drugs' part of 8.

None, just because the Traditional Values Coalition needs to get [Inks]ed.

7 only.


I'll agree with this, too.

NOTA.

This.

Modified versions of 2, 4, and 7.

NOTA

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7. Although the New Israel part is weird... people seriously believe we've been specifically chosen as a promised land or something?

Just caught the Israel part.  What in the [Inks]?

-1 to -9.

Not even close to supporting any of them.

All of them.

Of course people do.  This idea has been hugely influential in the formation of America's self-identity. It goes way back to the Puritans, up through Manifest Destiny, Joseph Smith, to Teddy Roosevelt, and today in Christian Reconstructionism.

Freedom of Christians to convert. Obviously not if taken to Intimidatory levels.

4, 5, 6

That Traditional Values Coalition have a very strange interpretation of patriotism.

Only the freedom of Christians to attempt to convert non-Christians -- I am actually Jewish, but I believe proselytizing, while annoying, is nevertheless an example of free speech.

1, first half of 2, and 7.

On a personal level, all 8.

With regards to "opposition to homosexuality", this means, to me, recognizing from a perspective of religious conscience that homosexuality is a sinful deviation from God's intention for us to be fruitful and multiply. However, this does not mean, in any way, that I have a personal animus towards homosexuals, and I always try to treat all people with dignity and respect.

Exactly one: Freedom of Christians attempt to convert non-Christians

None, all are disgusting to me. And "Freedom of Christian missionary" is bad too because it implies freedom only for them and excessive freedom that would include harrassing people. No thank you.

NOTA.

Kinda 1, 2, 4, kinda 5, 6, 7

What does that even mean? If it is protecting free speech in a way that doesn't limit the speech of others? Sure.If it is teacher led prayer or maybe allowing  the literal interpretation of the Bible in public school science class, then I am in opposition.


Does 1 include the death penalty? What is "euthanasia"? Does it mean that everyone who needs care must receive care until they die? Does euthanasia include euthanizing murderers?

And that's just one thing.


A lot of this stuff isn't even discussed in the Bible. This is just virtue signaling and identity politics at its finest.

I think society should tackle addictive behaviours, although with presumably different methods to that of the TVC.

I agree, but considering illegal marijuana is one of the main planks here, nope.

Problem with number 7 is that with unrestrited rights to proselytising, you have the potential to exploit those who are most vulnerable.

I mean, I used to wonder why it seemed that Jehovas Witnesses and assorted other cults' temples seemed to congregate around universities. And then I realised, where else do you have a populiation of potentially isolated/lonely/homesick/anxious young people ripe for the picking?

it's not an especially comforting thought tbh

A few of these I partially adhere to in my personal life, but none as political principles, so I voted NOTA.

This.

Fidelity in marriage is also I personally like but feel isn't something the state should be in charge of. Plus abstinence before marriage is dumb IMO.

1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and chunks of 5.

None, but I partially agree with all of them except 3.

But non-"unrestricted" proselytization violates the First Amendment and presumably any other Western democracy's equivalent. Also not sure how to limit it in even ignoring that. Should it be illegal to invite a friend to go to church with you?

BTW you also explained why hipster Christianity grows so fast with its demographic.

If that is God's intention, why did he make some people infertile?

6-8. Thought I agreed with 5 until I read "Christian America as the New Israel of God's Covenant to His People." I'm still very pro-patriotism, just...no.

I am pro-choice but wary of euthanasia. I have sympathies towards #2.

Holy necroposting, Batman!  Still, I'll repeat what I said before.

God, in his infinite wisdom, has plans for each of our lives and challenges some spiritually more than others. Infertility certainly leads to suffering among many, yet it is a call for those who are its victims to develop an even closer relationship to God. As the Church (I'm Catholic) said in the document Donum Vitae (The Gift of Life), "The community of believers is called to shed light upon and support the suffering of those who are unable to fulfill their legitimate aspiration to motherhood and fatherhood. Spouses who find themselves in this sad situation are called to find in it an opportunity for sharing in a particular way in the Lord’s Cross, the source of spiritual fruitfulness."

 Homosexual acts, unlike infertility, are a conscious decision to do something contrary to the will of God, whereas with an infertile couple, that is not the case.

None.

keeping people from reaching out to isolated/lonely/homesick/anxious young people is a cure worse than the disease.

Freedom to evangelize is protected by the Free Speech clause.  Of course I support that, although it would be a total waste of time to hit up me. Well maybe not. I have had some interesting conversations with some. The rest are no, just no.

2, 4, 7, and 8.

Voted NOTA, but should've voted 7. 6 is okay as well, but only to some extent.

I more or less support all of these privately but dont necessarily think that its the governments job to enforce it.

But how far does that freedom go? Should people be allowed to spam or harass others? Personally, when people like the Traditional Values Coalition say these kinds of things, I believe they mean Christians have the freedom to proselyte to the point of harassment, while Muslims, for example, don't have that freedom. I'd support nothing this so-called coalition promotes, if only because most of its planks are fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-freedom and, dare I say, anti-American.

All of it (sane 1518 swing voter).

No, or course I don't support harassment, and personally I think knocking on someone's door to proselytize is just plain rude. Most people don't want to be disturbed by that sort of thing.

NOTA in legislation. We have freedom of religion already, and the "Patriotism" clause just pushes a Judeo-Christian only country (though I agree with parts of the statement).