This may be out there somewhere, and I think it could be in either topic, but I think it goes better here in my opinion because it deals more with being a Christian than what your political idea is from my vantage point because I think your religion might have more weight than your political persuasion or rather it influences your political affiliation.

Anywho... I once dated a guy who said it was impossible to be Christian and a liberal because to be liberal meant that you had to entertain ideas that were incongruant with a Christian life so you would in essence turn your back on the other to follow the other's ideology.

Any thoughts?

I am a Christian Democrat. I have had to look inside of myself on certain issues.

I don't think god intended on there be Abortion

When a person is a Democrat, it doesn't automatically mean that they are pro-abortion.

I'm a Christian Independent...

I will support a Democrat or Republican that possesses and uses their Christian ideals.

Like Winx, I have to look inside myself.

I have to decide which candidate has the Christian ideals I feel are needed in order to lead the country.

Actually, they are discovering more and more Christian liberals among the current 20 something population. Younger Christians whose main issues are shifting away from the traditional issues of abortion and civil liberties to concerns about the environment and the economy and stewardship of the world in which we currently live.

Care to elaborate a bit?

I mean, for me... I'm Pro Life, but I'm also pro free will. I believe we were all given the capacity to make our own choices be the ones I agree with or not, so then I wonder who am I to completely take that choice away from another woman? Then of course, free will also means I could commit murder, that's my choice right? Where is the line? Know what I mean? It can cause quite a philosophical confusion.

Just wondered how you saw it.

I hate abortion, it should be outlawed, If you don't want kids, Both parties need to do something about it besides Murder.

What about in cases of rape, incest or saving a mother's life?

OK, I don't want this to turn into an abortion debate. There's definitely a lot of other issues to tackle, but on this one... I'll pose the question of what about rape or when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? I don't want to forget that not all abortion happens because there was an oops or something like that.

This is actually one of the reasons why I'm for all intents and purposes pro choice. To me, it's a lot harder to make a decision on something I had no control over to begin with. I can't even begin to imagine how you handle that one.

Mothers life is something else......

I am a Christian Democrat. When concerning abortion, I believe that the government should stay out of this issue. I believe that this matter is between the person choosing to have an abortion and God. Not anyone else.

It's pretty simple really.

If you love Jesus you'll vote for Obama.

If you worship Satan you'll vote for McCain.

It's pretty simple really.

If you love Jesus you'll vote for McCain.

If you worship Satan you'll vote for Obama.

I think you are right Spaceman

Religion and politics are supposed to be separate. I believe that the way it is now is a BIG part of the problem.

Love this question you raise 'shadowseeker'.

And it a matter of fact that a lot of people are torn between their political principles, and religious beliefs.

If you take the religious right, 'cimented' to the GOP, and a smaller share of 'religious-first' democrats, you're probably left with a block of 30-35% of the electorate in the US, whom choose their candidate, and vote from their 'religious' perspective first and foremost.

While it is very much human to mix-up the two domains, 'religion' and 'politics', the forefathers wrote the US Constitution inspired by the 'reality', fact of life, of 'Separation of Church and State', as 'winx' points out.

The reality of democratic governance in modern society, is in no way compatible with the dogmatic and authoritarian dictature of the Church.

Church doctrine and dogma are not up for debate, while 'politics', in a democratic process, is all about debate.

Politics welcomes dissention, the Church marginalises, and ultimately, ex-communicates dissentors.

Church is based on accepting without question, abstract beliefs and dogma. State, on the other hand, is based on hard and concrete reality!

You see it most clearly when it comes to the question of 'abortion'.

No one is 'PRO-ABORTION', or 'pro-killing of babies', as some would have us 'believe'.

And the so called 'pro-life' are not 'pro-life' at all. They will vote for someone whom promises to make abortion illegal, and on the other hand, also promises to wage religious wars against so called 'evil' nations and its people. PRO-LIFE??? Hardly.

The abortion isn't about pro-life, from a religious dogma standpoint. It is a real and pragmatic societal question, which real people, not god, must deal with.

To make abortion illegal, which might egoistically appease the consciences of some dogamtic people, would not resolve anything about protecting 'life'.

Abortions would be performed anyways, with the underground butchering methods and barbaric results which we know all too well from a very recent past.

Making abortion illegal, wouldn't save lives at all, quite to the contrary, it would 'kill' a lot more people, since the back alley butchering methods more often than not, claimed the mother's life along with the foetus.

That is the 'reality' which religious dogma ignores and fails outrageously to deal with, which societal governance must 'manage', and face.

Not everyone is confortable with putting their head in the in some dogmatic religious sand, in exchange for an illusory clear conscience!

Is the 'state' solution perfect?!?!? Of course not. But it is far more acceptable than that the hypocritical and irresponsible position of religious dogma. The state has the duty of dealing with 'reality', not so with th Church. The state arrives always with democratic and pricipled human compromises, dealing with the facts of human 'life'.

That is why pragmatism, objectivity, nuancing, and lesser of two evils political 'rationalism' is of essence, as opposed to the dogmatic, and unnegotiable Church dictate.

While it is noble to aim for human ideals, and high noble principles through religious or spiritual journeys, we must all wake-up and smell the pragmatic and 'political' coffee of reality, and DEAL WITH IT!!! (Pray to god all right, BUT ROW FOR SHORE !!!)

Mixing two teaspoons of 'religious' ideals and dogma, will not 'EVER' change the taste of your morning coffee!!! Nor will it change the imperfect realities of human societies.

Benoit XVI, the Pope, representative of the largest by far, community of Christians described the context of his recent visit with President Sarkosy of France as follows:

'... FAITH is NOT POLITICAL, and POLITICS IS NOT A RELIGION' ... the two don't mix.

That's all there is to it, separation of Church and State is not a matter of belief, IT IS A MATTER OF FACT!!!

I'll vote to that!

I think we should just be true to who we are & the standards by which we live...the heck with trying to be cool. That didn't get many people anywhere or half the population would be in better shape...mentally that is.