Really? So do the Taliban seem reasonable to you? They are very religious
Not talking about the Taliban here. You're missing my point on this front.
My point is that Christians believe God supports rational policy. Therefore, Christian Democrats believe God endorses their stances on issues. If a Christian didn't believe their policy ideas were endorsed by God, they wouldn't believe them. Therefore, the party that endorses those ideas is the party of God. This applies to Christian Democrats as much as Christians who identify with other parties. The reason you see Christian Democrats claim to be the party of God less is because it isn't politically popular among the many atheists in the Democratic Party. However, Christian Democrat politicians have been known to quote scripture from time to time to appeal to other Christian Democrats, inadvertently claiming to be the party of God if not saying it outright. In a vacuum, it would be somewhat common, but compared to Christian Republican politicians (who have less atheists, but not none, in their base), it is rare. Regardless, both parties have Christians and atheists who believe a variety of things about God's place in politics and what policies God would endorse, to pin an entire party based on the actions and words of some is ridiculous.
Your logic, which ignores all nuance about what individuals believe about what God endorses and condemns, would assert that Cuomo a hypocrite, since God hates divorce and Cuomo got one. By association, the Democrats would be a party of hypocrites, since they have individuals who believe their party is the party of God but are getting divorces.
Of course, that logic is silly, and so would the hypothetical argument about Cuomo that it rests on, as well as the argument you've made about Conway.
That is my point, given in detail.
Are you kidding? Republicans believe and assert:
All of your examples fall into one of two categories:
1. It is not a mainstream position within the party, or Christianity.
2. There are non-religious arguments for this position.
Let's go over them.
God doesn’t want gay people to marry .
It is a sin. However, they are free to do so at their own risk. I have yet to see an outright ban on gay marriage become a mainstream idea, most Christians I've talked to on this hold the same position I do.
God doesn’t want abortions
Abortion is murder. The definition of life by status of need is arbitrary and unscientific.
God doesn’t want gay people to raise children. (no adoption)
One doesn't need to invoke God for this. There are negative psychological effects on children raised outside of the traditional family structure.
God doesn’t want blacks to marry or procreate with whites
Lol, just lol. Not even remotely close to being argued in any mainstream capacity. The few Christians who believe this base their claims on flawed theology and a general misunderstanding of why God told the Israelites not to marry the Caananites. Hint: Inter-religious marriage is banned, not interracial marriage.
God doesn’t approve of contraception
Some churches believe in contraception, some don't. Those that don't (like mine) rarely argue for a complete ban on contraceptives. It is seen as a sin, but those who use them are free to sin at their own risk. However, this only applies to contraceptives that prevent egg releases. Contraceptives that kill a fertilized egg or prevent one from attaching the intrauterine wall should be banned, since they kill the unborn. This falls into the same category as my abortion argument from earlier.
Regardless of whether or not you agree, it is foolish to say that one needs to invoke God to hold these positions, and foolish to assert all of these positions are mainstream, or that every Christian Republican agrees with them.
Even if you acknowledge the Christian Republicans that do not hold any of these positions, the ones that don't believe in all of these positions, and the ones that have non-religious arguments for their positions, your argument still attempts to smear them based on association. This is an obvious logical fallacy.
But of course, fallacies are your MO. To be honest, the only thing in your argument that surprised me was the mention of racist sentiment, because your claim there was completely laughable. I'm sure you'll spew a ton of insults at me in your reply. Doesn't matter to me. I can't take anything you say seriously anymore, if I even did in the first place.
Simply put, you never argue in good faith, so you're not worth my future time. You can go ahead and have the last word. I won't bother responding. In fact, I won't bother replying to anything you say in the future.
Goodbye.
