any other liberal-leaning and/or centrist Christians?

[evenifigoalone]

I hold views from both the political liberal and political conservative camps - for instance I am prolife and pro-gun. But I'm also supportive of gay marriage (legally not morally), and am in favor of government welfare and the like. I consider myself a liberal-leaning centrist.
(Theologically I lean more conservative overall.)

 

[jasonc]

Libertarian is closest .

 

[WIP]

I consider myself a liberal-leaning centrist.

You sound like how I describe myself but I use the descriptive, "liberal Republican," in describing myself. Although, I don't support the same things you do. For example, I do not support gay marriage in any form. I also don't exactly know what you mean when you say you support government welfare. That seems like a pretty broad statement. It implies that conservatives are flat out opposed to it but that's not entirely true. The conservative view is that a safety net is proper but it should not be a way of life and I have seen it too often how it can become a way of life in this entitlement society we live in. I've known friends that lived quite well on welfare and were proud of it. I enjoy watching programs like Judge Judy, People's Court, etc. and it amazes me how many litigants, without any remorse, freely admit how they are using the system to its fullest advantage without true need. They actually think they deserve it.

At the same time, the liberal influence on the welfare system makes it nearly impossible for someone to get off the programs. I'll give you some examples from my own personal experience. Back in the mid 1980s after I was laid off from my job during a depression my ex-wife, infant son, and I found ourselves in need. We applied and were qualified to receive medical assistance, fuel assistance, WIC, food stamps, and cash welfare.

Long story short, I eventually found a couple part-time minimum wage jobs and due to the level of income from those jobs, we no longer qualified for medical assistance because our income exceeded the guidelines but just a few dollars. With an infant child, had I known before hand that this would happen, I would have been better off financially to not pick up that second part-time job.

Here's another example. In January, 2012, my wife slipped on some ice at work, resulting in 3 herniated disks in her lower back. After back surgery she was able to walk again but to this day she lives on about 20 different medications as a result. Some to help control the pain. Some for depression, which is a common issue with chronic pain. Some to counteract side effects from others. At one point, her pain meds causes bleeding ulcers so she had to take other meds for that. She lives in constant pain and numbness and is not able to stand, sit, or walk for any extended periods of time without much discomfort.

Eventually, after about four years of applications, she was able to obtain a partial disability and file a claim against her social security. She is allowed to work but she was limited to $1,220.00 per month while claiming the disability. One day about three years ago, she got a letter from the SS administration saying that her disability payments were discontinued for four months and at that time her status would be re-evaluated. The reason was because she stayed an hour late a couple times to fill in for a coworker and she happened to earn $16.00 above the limited income guidelines in one month. For the cost of $16.00 she lost $3,600.00 in SS net pay. What this did is convince her that unless she can earn over $2,400.00 per month, which is not likely because her body wouldn't take it, she's better off not earning more than the limit.

Here's another example in more recent memory. At the start of the pandemic when businesses were locked down and people laid off, the liberal policies gave displaced workers an additional $600.00 per month on top of their unemployment insurance payments. That's the equivalent of a full time $15.00 per hour job. Many of those who were laid off didn't earn that much when working. Businesses pay UC insurance premiums specifically to provide safety nets for workers that are laid off and in times of severe recession government will pass laws to extend those benefits due to the difficulty in finding suitable employment. There was already funds at their disposal and no need for the cash handouts aside from the vote-buying tactic used by the liberal representatives looking toward the up-coming elections.

I've said it before many times. Liberal policies are intended primarily for the purpose of gaining votes. The more people that remain dependent on the government, the more people will vote to retain that dependency, and the more powerful the government becomes.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Not Christian religiously, but culturally yes. 8m more leftist than center however.

 

[Christ_empowered]

hmmmm....

I think (?) I may lean towards what is now considered "Socialism." ugh. I say -now- because what is considered "socialist" in the US is considered just...more or less the way things are...in many affluent, developed nations. Not that the US is "bad" -- far from it! -- just both parties seemed to have somehow veered to the right...until basically now, I think.

so...I'm a big believer in social programs. being unable to work due to severe mental illness is part of that, as one might imagine. honestly, I kind of think...UBI (universal basic income) may be worth a shot. At least...a big, big, big trial, not just a couple of pilot programs here and there. Thing is...

lots of people on the right think of social programs as "liberal" stuff. kind of? truth? The New Deal came to pass in FDR's America...largely to protect America from socialism (real socialism...that would be the left wing menace at the time) or fascism (also a very real, potential problem...then and now, I'd say...). Lots and lots of people have benefited, obviously, but...for "the powers that be," the goal wasn't so much to "help" the masses as to keep class conflict/warfare from getting to the point of intense violence and/or straight up revolution. and now...

with UBI, the money would just be...given to everyone, so that would prevent programs from not getting people who are poor and/or very sick, but -not- poor and/or sick enough for gov't "help." it would also help reduce the bureaucracy involved, because...at least some level of $$$ would just be there, no questions and no strings.

other than that...

I guess "personally (relatively) conservative, politically liberal" would be a good way of putting it? I regard most drugs as bad. no, really. I try to keep my own prescribed stuff as low as possible. But...I think criminalizing drugs, drug users, and the drug trade does more harm than good, so...I think full on legalization is the way to go, eventually. Not because I think drugs are awesome and everyone should get high 24/7, but because...if drugs people want were made available, regulated, taxed...then a lot of the misery associated with drug use and abuse would go away. and I think (sadly...) the gov't could profit, big time, instead of having to shell out for jails, prisons, various forms of "treatment," on and on.

not big on abortion, but....its like the old saying: "don't like abortion, don't have one." as a gay dude, I can breathe easy on that one, lol. I say...go back to the original Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions and try not to let politicians who don't actually care turn it into a hot button issue. privacy is -key- , I think.

gay gay gay...lol. I think, from personal experience, that its...sad. its not really a good, meaningful long term way to go. its just...the nature of the beast. But I do think gay marriage should be available and recognized and that we, "the gays" (LOL) should have protection under hate crime laws.

trans...I dunno. I don't see how an issue that directly affects relatively few human beings, in terms of %, is suddenly another hot button socio-political issue. -shrug- glad I don't have to deal with it. Big on human rights, not so big on a lot of what the (rather authoritarian, elitist) medical establishment sells as "fixes" to what I think (as a Christian...) are problems Jesus alone can deal with, but...

acceptance and human right are -key- , in my view.

OK. Oh, I guess I'd be considered "socialist" because I agree that the -very- rich should be taxed extra, after reaching a certain point of income and/or overall resources. -shrug- I'm not looking for a commune, but I do think inequality is out of hand, and it seems to damage lots and lots of people. anything that would: raise up the poor, increase upward mobility, enhance social programs, stabilize the middle class, and make life better for the working class (and everyone, honestly)...

sounds good, to me, even if mega-billionaires have to pony up. oh well. :-(

ok. that's it from me...for now

 

[evenifigoalone]

trans...I dunno. I don't see how an issue that directly affects relatively few human beings, in terms of %, is suddenly another hot button socio-political issue. -shrug- glad I don't have to deal with it. Big on human rights, not so big on a lot of what the (rather authoritarian, elitist) medical establishment sells as "fixes" to what I think (as a Christian...) are problems Jesus alone can deal with, but...

Yes, I know a trans person personally. Actually at least two of my friends are trans. I think they should be allowed to do as they like w/ with their own bodies, informed consent and all that. I'm not in favor of children medically transitioning, they are just not old enough to make that choice and recognize all the pitfalls that may come with it.
If you are interested in checking it out, there is a trans woman YouTuber named Blair White, and she has a lot of political commentary. She's right wing, though.

 

[evenifigoalone]

You sound like how I describe myself but I use the descriptive, "liberal Republican," in describing myself. Although, I don't support the same things you do. For example, I do not support gay marriage in any form. I also don't exactly know what you mean when you say you support government welfare. That seems like a pretty broad statement. It implies that conservatives are flat out opposed to it but that's not entirely true. The conservative view is that a safety net is proper but it should not be a way of life and I have seen it too often how it can become a way of life in this entitlement society we live in. I've known friends that lived quite well on welfare and were proud of it. I enjoy watching programs like Judge Judy, People's Court, etc. and it amazes me how many litigants, without any remorse, freely admit how they are using the system to its fullest advantage without true need. They actually think they deserve it.

At the same time, the liberal influence on the welfare system makes it nearly impossible for someone to get off the programs. I'll give you some examples from my own personal experience. Back in the mid 1980s after I was laid off from my job during a depression my ex-wife, infant son, and I found ourselves in need. We applied and were qualified to receive medical assistance, fuel assistance, WIC, food stamps, and cash welfare.

Long story short, I eventually found a couple part-time minimum wage jobs and due to the level of income from those jobs, we no longer qualified for medical assistance because our income exceeded the guidelines but just a few dollars. With an infant child, had I known before hand that this would happen, I would have been better off financially to not pick up that second part-time job.

Here's another example. In January, 2012, my wife slipped on some ice at work, resulting in 3 herniated disks in her lower back. After back surgery she was able to walk again but to this day she lives on about 20 different medications as a result. Some to help control the pain. Some for depression, which is a common issue with chronic pain. Some to counteract side effects from others. At one point, her pain meds causes bleeding ulcers so she had to take other meds for that. She lives in constant pain and numbness and is not able to stand, sit, or walk for any extended periods of time without much discomfort.

Eventually, after about four years of applications, she was able to obtain a partial disability and file a claim against her social security. She is allowed to work but she was limited to $1,220.00 per month while claiming the disability. One day about three years ago, she got a letter from the SS administration saying that her disability payments were discontinued for four months and at that time her status would be re-evaluated. The reason was because she stayed an hour late a couple times to fill in for a coworker and she happened to earn $16.00 above the limited income guidelines in one month. For the cost of $16.00 she lost $3,600.00 in SS net pay. What this did is convince her that unless she can earn over $2,400.00 per month, which is not likely because her body wouldn't take it, she's better off not earning more than the limit.

Here's another example in more recent memory. At the start of the pandemic when businesses were locked down and people laid off, the liberal policies gave displaced workers an additional $600.00 per month on top of their unemployment insurance payments. That's the equivalent of a full time $15.00 per hour job. Many of those who were laid off didn't earn that much when working. Businesses pay UC insurance premiums specifically to provide safety nets for workers that are laid off and in times of severe recession government will pass laws to extend those benefits due to the difficulty in finding suitable employment. There was already funds at their disposal and no need for the cash handouts aside from the vote-buying tactic used by the liberal representatives looking toward the up-coming elections.

I've said it before many times. Liberal policies are intended primarily for the purpose of gaining votes. The more people that remain dependent on the government, the more people will vote to retain that dependency, and the more powerful the government becomes.

Mainly I've been socially liberal for about a decade, and when I realized I was no longer fiscally conservative either, I realized I lean more to the left than I do to the right. But I still have some political opinions that are tied to the right, hence me being a centrist.