Is there a Presidential candidate suitable for Christians?

wolfsbane

Hi, my Irish friends.

Just trying to put myself in your shoes. Is there a candidate - or possible candidate - for the Irish Presidency that you think a Christian could be happy to support?

'Best of a bad lot' will do, but preferably one that on balance you think would lead the country righteously as well as wisely.

********************************************************************
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

Keaton

Dana.

And there is another person, but I can't think what his name is.

mikemac

Gay Mitchell?

Keaton

mikemac wrote: »

Gay Mitchell?

Aye, that must be him.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

'Best of a bad lot' will do, but preferably one that on balance you think would lead the country righteously as well as wisely.

Not to derail the thread, but that is some what of a over statement of what the President does, they don't lead the country, that is the government in the Dail.

The primary function of the President is to refer laws deemed to be unconstitutional to the courts. This would primarily be the role I think that would concern most Christians, as it would involve laws on abortion for example that might contravine the constitution.

They also act as an official, but largely powerless, figure head of the country.

CiaranMT

Gay Mitchell.

gimmebroadband

Dana!

Manach

At this stage, I'd settle for a politician who is not actively hostile and who would act independant of the government. This would be important as one of the few real powers the President has is to refer any bills which may have constitutional implications to the Supreme Court. Whilst I've been burnt voting for Labour before, and would not normally think of voting again for them, on the news yesterday O'Higgins seem to show some deviation from Government thinking (on Presidental terms), so he might be worth a second glance.

gimmebroadband

Manach wrote: »

At this stage, I'd settle for a politician who is not actively hostile and who would act independant of the government. This would be important as one of the few real powers the President has is to refer any bills which may have constitutional implications to the Supreme Court. Whilst I've been burnt voting for Labour before, and would not normally think of voting again for them, on the news yesterday O'Higgins seem to show some deviation from Government thinking (on Presidental terms), so he might be worth a second glance.

He would be the least candidate I'd vote for, for personal reasons!!!

dvpower

What about Sean Gallagher?

Cybercelesta

Vote for me! :D:D

Baggio1

was gonna say Ron Paul but heck thats the USA presidential race hehe

Keaton

Joe Coleman.

Baggio1

haha joe coleman a shew in!!!

AhSureTisGrand

Baggio1 wrote: »

was gonna say Ron Paul but heck thats the USA presidential race hehe

A Ron Paul presidency would allow states to legalise marijuana, gayness, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion and even gay abortion

Dave!

David Norris!

Ahh wait he's not running anymore...

gimmebroadband

Dave! wrote: »

David Norris!

Ahh wait he's not running anymore...

He is....in the opposite direction!

AirBiscuit

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

A Ron Paul presidency would allow states to legalise marijuana, gayness, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion and gay abortion

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

legalise marijuana, gayness, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion and gay abortion

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

gay abortion

AhSureTisGrand

Botulism wrote: »

Just think how God feels

PatricaMcKay2

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

A Ron Paul presidency would allow states to legalise marijuana, gayness, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion and even gay abortion

Ron Paul is anti-abortion, I dislike the man and everything he stands for, but lets be fair.

AhSureTisGrand

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Ron Paul is anti-abortion, I dislike the man and everything he stands for, but lets be fair.

He certainly is, but he wouldn't impose his view on the states

PatricaMcKay2

Wolfsbane what exactly do you mean?

People have used Christianity for political purposes in this country for far too long, north and south of the border, this to me almost borders on blasemphy, yes politics is a necesscity of fallen life but there is an abyss that seperates it from the Gospel whos purpose is for eternity. Christ said that His Kingdom is not of this earth!

Baggio1

Ron Paul for me is the ONLY legit candidate all the others are just pupets of big money interests wall street etc... Paul is the only one with 100% voting record for attending all votes in congress, he's pro life, and anti corruption - wants to investigate and audit the federal reserve you know where those crooks hang out - bernanke and co.....
the mainstream media in usa constantly try to ignore him,, coz their scared of him,,, its always the same watch them soon try to demonise the guy as he becomes more of a challenger... the big money people dont want him to get in coz their lobying will soon start to crumble.. just look at the clown obama surrounded by lobyists after promising oh yeah yet another lie - not to do just that.... general electric and others pay no income tax at all!! anyway political rant over.... lets get back to faith based......

prinz

Nobody catching my eye whatsoever so far. I would give a 'best of the bad bunch' but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any.

Personally speaking it should be an election between the top constitutional lawyers of the land.

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Wolfsbane what exactly do you mean?

People have used Christianity for political purposes in this country for far too long, north and south of the border, this to me almost borders on blasemphy, yes politics is a necesscity of fallen life but there is an abyss that seperates it from the Gospel whos purpose is for eternity. Christ said that His Kingdom is not of this earth!

I'm speaking of one who professes and lives out a generally Christian morality. I mean: should one support a candidate who encourages evils like abortion, the enforcement of teaching that homosexuality is valid, or submission of the State to any church? Not in my opinion. But one may find no candidate who dots all our i's, and we have to find the best among those available.

Christ's kingdom is not of this world - but He has appointed the State to rule righteously and administer justice for Him. When it fails to do so, it bears its guilt. As citizens of a democracy, we are responsible for the State's actions in as far as our vote puts them in power. So we need to be sure we are not complicit in their sin.

*****************************************************************
1 Timothy 5:22 Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure.

wolfsbane

prinz wrote: »

Nobody catching my eye whatsoever so far. I would give a 'best of the bad bunch' but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any.

Personally speaking it should be an election between the top constitutional lawyers of the land.

Thanks for that. But have not the two Mary's shown that one can bring more to the office than constitutional vigilance ( crucial though that is)? Can one not influence or suggest how the nation should progress?

So far Dana, Gay Mitchell, Sean Gallagher, O'Higgins have been (seriously) offered here as candidates. I'm familiar only with Dana.

Glad to have further suggestions - and especially why you think they deserve Christian support.

********************************************************************
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

AirBiscuit

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Just think how God feels

Just think how those who religion persecutes feel.

Fanny Cradock

I'm not quite sure how we went from Irish Presidential candidates to Ron Paul and all the rest of the nonsense. Stay on topic, please.

hotmail.com

What does religion have to do with this election?

pconn062

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm speaking of one who professes and lives out a generally Christian morality. I mean: should one support a candidate who encourages evils like abortion, the enforcement of teaching that homosexuality is valid, or submission of the State to any church? Not in my opinion. But one may find no candidate who dots all our i's, and we have to find the best among those available.

Christ's kingdom is not of this world - but He has appointed the State to rule righteously and administer justice for Him. When it fails to do so, it bears its guilt. As citizens of a democracy, we are responsible for the State's actions in as far as our vote puts them in power. So we need to be sure we are not complicit in their sin.

*****************************************************************
1 Timothy 5:22 Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure.

I was actually reading this thread with interest until you dropped this in, then I suddenly realised I don't want to discuss with you anymore.

ResearchWill

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm speaking of one who professes and lives out a generally Christian morality. I mean: should one support a candidate who encourages evils like abortion, the enforcement of teaching that homosexuality is valid, or submission of the State to any church? Not in my opinion. But one may find no candidate who dots all our i's, and we have to find the best among those available.

Christ's kingdom is not of this world - but He has appointed the State to rule righteously and administer justice for Him. When it fails to do so, it bears its guilt. As citizens of a democracy, we are responsible for the State's actions in as far as our vote puts them in power. So we need to be sure we are not complicit in their sin.

*****************************************************************
1 Timothy 5:22 Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure.

The west wing conveys my opinion on at least the gay comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13)

Fanny Cradock

If people can't stay on topic this thread gets locked. We have had multiple thread on homosexuality before. Trawl through them if you must.

wolfsbane

pconn062 wrote: »

I was actually reading this thread with interest until you dropped this in, then I suddenly realised I don't want to discuss with you anymore.

That's your call. But since you were following with interest, you cannot have failed to read the opening post. This was the question put:
Is there a candidate - or possible candidate - for the Irish Presidency that you think a Christian could be happy to support?

'Best of a bad lot' will do, but preferably one that on balance you think would lead the country righteously as well as wisely.

I wonder what part of my later post do you think does not present Christian morality/righteousness? Have you a new definition of Christian morality?

**********************************************************************
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

wolfsbane

hotmail.com wrote: »

What does religion have to do with this election?

It has everything to do with how a Christian should vote. We have a duty to seek the moral good of our nation, whatever that nation is. Britain, America, Ireland... Democracy means we bear responsibility for those those we help to elect. We cannot excuse ourselves for voting, for example, for a government good at economics but a promoter of moral evil.

*********************************************************************
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

lmaopml

ResearchWill wrote: »

The west wing conveys my opinion on at least the gay comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13)

lol at Martin Sheen, I always liked him as an actor..not so much his son though hehe the sons 'comedy' was really not very..em, funny. To be honest, the biblical quote crossfire scene (typical of so many crap debates) and plucked quotes are a minefield of misinformed reading, and poor research on the actual theology of Christians, on the part of the the writers of the West Wing. It's 'sensationalist', us against them point scoring shyte. You know it get the viewers going...

Anyway, yeah your quote is quite right. 'Love your neighbour as yourself' is absolutely paramount, and respect their dignity of choice and free will is central to Christianity - but that doesn't mean that they can't make a free choice to vote like everybody else? Obey the law of the land, but God's law for a Christian supercedes that iykwim, for them in a 'personal' way. As regards others and their choices, we are only called to love and respect everybody no matter what - absolutely! - and I think we do.

''Render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceaser's, and unto God the things that are God's'' - a Christian will know God's law.

Anyway, the Presidential election Wolfe; I don't think it will make a whole lot of a difference who is in the hot seat to be honest in any real way - perhaps this is reflecting the mood of the nation at the moment?
kinda dismal mood at the moment.. However, I will defo look at the uninspiring lot and make the best choice I can when the time comes. I think you are right though, it's important to 'know' the candidate and whatever mandate they may carry with them...

ResearchWill

lmaopml wrote: »

lol at Martin Sheen, I always liked him as an actor..not so much his son though hehe the sons 'comedy' was really not very..em, funny. To be honest, the biblical quote crossfire scene (typical of so many crap debates) and plucked quotes are a minefield of misinformed reading, and poor research on the actual theology of Christians, on the part of the the writers of the West Wing. It's 'sensationalist', us against them point scoring shyte. You know it get the viewers going...

Anyway, yeah your quote is quite right. 'Love your neighbour as yourself' is absolutely paramount, and respect their dignity of choice and free will is central to Christianity - but that doesn't mean that they can't make a free choice to vote like everybody else? Obey the law of the land, but God's law for a Christian supercedes that iykwim, for them in a 'personal' way. As regards others and their choices, we are only called to love and respect everybody no matter what - absolutely! - and I think we do.

''Render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceaser's, and unto God the things that are God's'' - a Christian will know God's law.

Anyway, the Presidential election Wolfe; I don't think it will make a whole lot of a difference who is in the hot seat to be honest in any real way - perhaps this is reflecting the mood of the nation at the moment?
kinda dismal mood at the moment.. However, I will defo look at the uninspiring lot and make the best choice I can when the time comes. I think you are right though, it's important to 'know' the candidate and whatever mandate they may carry with them...

I agree that each person who votes must do so according to their own belief system. An issue I have with the question posed is that it accepts that there is a single christen view on many topics, which there is not, some christans accept that the bibles teachings on certain areas of morality are not as clear cut as others.

Of course if a person has strong religious views or even moral views on for example gay marriage, then of course that person should vote in a way that they feel reflects their view.

The reason I posted what I did, was in my opinion the main tenant of christan teaching is love thy neighbour, I personally believe some people forget that.

In relation to your view on the debate, I disagree with your view, my opinion of what Sheen is saying is that to take a few small passages of any religious book and build up a huge part of your belief system is flawed, especially if that belief system leads to a contradiction to the theme of the Gospel, which is love.

wolfsbane

ResearchWill wrote: »

I agree that each person who votes must do so according to their own belief system. An issue I have with the question posed is that it accepts that there is a single christen view on many topics, which there is not, some christans accept that the bibles teachings on certain areas of morality are not as clear cut as others.

Of course if a person has strong religious views or even moral views on for example gay marriage, then of course that person should vote in a way that they feel reflects their view.

The reason I posted what I did, was in my opinion the main tenant of christan teaching is love thy neighbour, I personally believe some people forget that.

In relation to your view on the debate, I disagree with your view, my opinion of what Sheen is saying is that to take a few small passages of any religious book and build up a huge part of your belief system is flawed, especially if that belief system leads to a contradiction to the theme of the Gospel, which is love.

Sheen was spouting an uninformed - or deliberately false - argument against the Christian view of homosexuality. (The Christian argument against homosexuality does not rest on Mosaic Law, but on the whole Scripture - especially Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 in the New Testament). An informed/honest anti-Christian argument would simply acknowledge that Christian doctrine condemns homosexual practice, and assert Christianity has got it wrong.

So the Christian voter comes to an election with Christian doctrine foremost in his/mind. Anti-abortion; anti-gay normalcy; anti-oppression of the needy; pro-checks-and-balances on the powerful, etc.

As I hope I indicated, that is not an easy task, unless one votes only for those dotting all the i's. We may face voting for someone who ticks many of the boxes, but not one or two important ones - and another candidate who ticks the latter but not the rest.

I have voted for known homosexuals before, since they were not legislating on gay-normalcy laws and they ticked many of my other boxes.

Historically, I've talked with German Christians whose Christian parents voted for Hitler, as the hope of strengthening and stabilizing the nation. I gather they hoped his rhetoric against the Jews was just that. But when they saw it was not, they regarded him as a very wicked man, one who was going to bring the nation under God's wrath.

To all here: please do let me know if any candidate emerges you think might be fitting for a Christian to support.

*******************************************************************
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

PatricaMcKay2

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have voted for known homosexuals before, since they were not legislating on gay-normalcy laws and they ticked many of my other boxes.

Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

Ireland is under God's wrath, or at least that is what I believe, humanly speaking there is no hope at all though God may have mercy and not allow to drink the fullness of the cup of our own wretchedness.

Out of curiousity what homosexual have you voted for?

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay2 said:

Ireland is under God's wrath, or at least that is what I believe, humanly speaking there is no hope at all though God may have mercy and not allow to drink the fullness of the cup of our own wretchedness.

Amen to that, Patrica! Many of us are praying for God's grace and mercy for our southern neighbours.

Out of curiousity what homosexual have you voted for?

A local Unionist MLA - a very effective politican too.

Homosexuals seem to have as big a part in politics as they do in arts. (Maybe the mindset goes for the public adulation?) Unionism has quite a compliment of homosexuals, I gather. Former leaders and long-standing high-fliers.

I used to speak with members of BICO (The British & Irish Communist Organisation), and several of them were gay. The only Nazi I ever personally knew was also gay. And of course several paramilitary leaders.

The gentle, limp-wristed gay is only one side of the story!

*******************************************************************
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

catchup

I would hazard a guess that there are a lot of homosexuals everywhere.

PatricaMcKay2

wolfsbane wrote: »

Homosexuals seem to have as big a part in politics as they do in arts. (Maybe the mindset goes for the public adulation?) Unionism has quite a compliment of homosexuals, I gather. Former leaders and long-standing high-fliers.

I used to speak with members of BICO (The British & Irish Communist Organisation), and several of them were gay. The only Nazi I ever personally knew was also gay. And of course several paramilitary leaders.

The gentle, limp-wristed gay is only one side of the story!

*******************************************************************
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

Actually homosexuality is as much linked to militarism as to effeminate hedonism, the Samurai in Japan, the FreiKorps in Germany, the Spartans, etc, etc. Im not surprised at all that the only Nazi you knew was homosexual, think of the SA who were the Nazi street fighters who Hitler repressed when he got to power...They had a cult of militant gayness.

Personally I believe that beyond the sexual acts themselves that homosexuality is effect of something gone very seriously wrong. I have known and know homosexuals, and Im friendly towards them...But I just cant trust them.

dvpower

Couldn't we just have a single anti homosexual thread, so all the bile could be spewed into the one place?

wolfsbane

dvpower wrote: »

Couldn't we just have a single anti homosexual thread, so all the bile could be spewed into the one place?

Homosexuality is ONE aspect of morality that concerns the Christian voter. By all means feel free to bring up any others.

And suggest a candidate who would best deal with those matters.

A few come to mind: Abortion; Care for the needy; Separation of church & state; Submergence in a European super-state; State-sponsored gambling; drug-abuse; Immigration.

********************************************************************
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote:

If people can't stay on topic this thread gets locked. We have had multiple thread on homosexuality before. Trawl through them if you must.

Since posters didn't heed Fanny Cradock's warning - the lock he threatened has come into force.

I must say, the obsession of some posters with homosexuality is interesting.