What's with the governor?

[weunice]

Actually, I agree with you to a point on the moral thing but there is a level at which a line should be drawn.

Our country has drawn many such lines. The United States has legislated morality on many things including theft, murder, slavery, driving fast, alcohol consumption by minors (well, they blackmailed all states into making the age 21 .. but that is for another thread), the number of folks you can marry etc. I am all for freedoms but I realize that there is more freedom in a society with well defined laws than one in complete anarchy. I heard a story along these lines at something called Alpha that my church is doing ...

The speaker (Nicky) was taking his son to a soccer scrimmage. The coach of the team was late and Nicky was chosen to "coach" and referee the match. Well, Nicky was not very familiar with the rules of soccer and as the scrimmage started complete havoc reigned. Fouls galore. Hurt egos. Angry parents. Then the coach showed up and ENFORCED the rules. When that happened, a great scrimmage ensued and everyone was happy ... Freedom is best enjoyed within the confines of a proper standard of behavior. That is why we have laws in the first place.

Anytime a law is written, it is in essence legislating morality. After all, morality supposes to be the proper standard of behavior that most of us, even without a lick of religious knowledge, happen to know something about.

[Champ967]

Alriiiiiiighty, then. This thread is just too good. I have officailly been lured out of the woodwork.

Markay ...

And, scripture says that if a man does not work that he shouldn't eat.

Indeed, you are correct. But what role should the church (or govt) play in determining who is working? Who appoints the "responsibility police"? Are Christians qualified to declare "Enough welfare for you!" when we perceive that the recipient isnt trying hard enough?

Cant find anything like that in my Bible ....

I also agree with you that it should be the Church's responsibility to care for God's poor. The only explanation for the existence of govt intervention is that the Church has failed in this area.

You also mentioned that a nation that upholds God's laws will receive his favor. But doesnt the Bible make clear that the "nations" God sees lie within the hearts of men and not in maps and constitutions? Does the Bible not also make clear that all the nations of the world are forfeit to the Adversary?

You're kidding yourself if you think the Church can "take back America for Jesus". If that were possible there'd be no need for the Second Coming. We could just vote all evil out of existence. Pshaw!!!


weunice ....

Anytime a law is written, it is in essence legislating morality. After all, morality supposes to be the proper standard of behavior that most of us, even without a lick of religious knowledge, happen to know something about.

The difference between religion and plain-ol "civic morality" is a belief in the supernatural. This non-religious morality (lets refer to it as "ethics") can justify the illegality of murder: when folks be killin folks, stable society deteriorates and the work doesnt get done.

The anti-abortion movement has yet to produce a purely ethical argument. All of their logic relies upon the RELIGIOUS belief that life begins at conception. They have yet to produce any kind of discourse that doesnt begin with "God says ...."

That is the difference between morality & religion. And also why abortion cannot be equated with murder in a secular society.


Turbo ....

And how's that supposed to jive with the American pursuit of getting filthy rich?

This conundrum lies at the very heart of the fallacy that is "Christian conservatism". It was the realization of this paradox that pushed my own political beliefs to the left.

The fact is ... it does not "jive". It never will. "Christian conservatism" is philosophically flawed to its very core. Sadly, I only see it's popularity growing. With the Clinton scandals, the war on terror, and the floundering economy, I only see an acceleration in the belief of "holy capitalism".

If current trends continue, I fear the nation will continue to swing to the right. If so, I personally think that this unholy alliance between the Apostate Church and consumerist capitalism will eventually bring about the fall of America. Perhaps even in this century.

If, in fact, the End Times are upon us, I cant help but think that "Christian conservatism" is going to play a role in matters. And it wont be a godly one.

But you can roll your eyes and blow me off. Or at the very least, take me with a grain of salt. It wont hurt my feelings.

[weunice]

Very good Champ, all solid arguments and in fact I can go one further on the abortion argument ... to play devils advocate ... The Bible does not clearly deal with the issue of the unborn. Thus the definition of a human life is not clearly defined to us, especially if one aspouses to a very strict sola scriptura doctrine as being the basis for which all communications from God to man are conveyed. However, if you believe that God communincates beyond that (and most Christians do) then belief in the beginning of life happening at conception is reliant on the supernatural reality that is the Holy Spirit. You have to believe that God is telling this to you (or someone you have great faith in as a prophet) and for most of the secular world the idea that God talks to folks is not only completely foreign ... it is asinine.

Now, the assumption under which your entire argument rests is that we ARE a secular society and that the "ethics" for which it stands are the standard for which moral law should be based. Since when are the values of secularism the standard by which we justify making our laws? If you believe much of the Christian right, the country is founded on the ideas of Christians, or even diests as many of my liberal friends like to point out. Either way, I submit the following hypothesis that the core values of this country are based on the belief in a God and that HIS values are our values. Most of western-civ has a very Judeo-Christian undercurrent and it would be very hard to show that our society has developed without a reliance on our religious beliefs. I need not point out the numerous references to a God that exists in the documentation set forth by the founders of this country. It is the opinion of many Christians that the ideal of perfect moral law indeed comes from God and thus the ideal under which MAN should be governed is based on God's idea of morality.

That changes for a country of nothing but Christians, however that is a reality that will have to await the second coming ... Right now America is a melting pot of beliefs but the vast majority say they are Christian believers and since this country IS a democracy, the founding ideals of "one nation, under God" still apply to this day. You cannot divide ones morals from their religious beliefs. The religious beliefs are fundamental.

Now, on to your "pursuit of riches." I am mostly in agreement with you there but I think that is a personal choice that should be left to the likes of those in pursuit of wealth. This "choice" differs from abortion because the pursuit of wealth, while possibly adversely affecting ones life while on earth (be they on the good or bad end of the deal) does not affect their initial existence in the first place. Miserable folks still have to opportunity to choose and serve God. Conservative stances on pursuit of riches are bound more by economic freedoms and depend on folks to do the right thing. We know that ideal is not perfect and that is why certain "socialist" laws have found their way into our economic laws. The general basis of our economy is free market and as long as you have folks not bound by any kind of moral ethic (be it secular or not) you are going to have abuses of the system ...Hhowever, it is the belief of MOST conservatives that the freedoms of such an economy are more valuable in that presumably more gets done in a free market economy ... that is economics though. Many conservatives get sick when they see Republicans catering to the rich in a manner that is harmful and destructive to society. Our "side" unfortunately has to deal with folks whose pursuit is less than admirable. Some of us "granola conservatives" actually like the idea of driving, as one controversial campaign stated, "what Jesus would drive?"

Honestly, I am curious as to what secular moral ethic states that polygamy is a bad thing ...

Forgive any words I spelled wrong or bad sentence structure ... English is not my best subject ...

[Champ967]

I think we're mostly on the same page here.

But let me rebutt the thinking that America is a Christian nation. In all of the early American writings you cite, one reigns supreme above all the others in terms of its significance and longevity: the Constitution.

Interestingly, this document makes NO mention of God, Jesus, nor the Church. If something is of God, it will acknowledge Him. And what "constitutes" America if not the Constitution? America is not a nation-state like the ancient Isrealites or modern Ireland, etc. America's "nation-ness" is found in a set of ideals, and those ideals are encapsulated in our Constitution.

The fact that the Constitution does not mention God is proof-positive that America is NOT a Christian nation.

As for the other writings you cite: journals, speeches, papers, etc ... those were the works and writings of individuals. And those individuals may indeed have been Christians. Yet, when it came to time to establish the nation, their Judeo-Christian beliefs strangely did not make it to the parchment. This goes to reinforce a point I used to hash out on the old board :

A bunch of Christians does not a Christian nation make. Nor do a few catchy Christian slogans (ie "In God We Trust") .

However, one CAN divorce some secular human-based utilitarian morality from supernatural belief. If you speed down the highway, you are more likely to cause harm. So let's set a speed limit. No God necessary. Just a respect for human life and safety.

As soon as the Church can produce such an argument for outlawing abortion, the Courts will likely embrace it. There have been none to date. (Same thing for polygamy ... it just isnt a hot button issue these days.)

In fact, America is a secular society. If you want to pass a law you had best have some secular justification or else the Courts (and by extension, the Constitution, and by extenion the NATION will shoot you down). That's why I roll my eyes when I hear Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye et al. talk about "taking America back for Jesus". It was never His to begin with!

And if you doubt that, look to the Scripture where Satan tempts Jesus with all the nations of the world. Did Jesus contest Satan's ownership of them? NO. Why would that even have been a temptation if the nation's werent Satan's to give? Do you somehow think that Satan owns all of man's nations EXCEPT America?

As for your "pusuit of wealth" argument, I dont think I follow. Please reiterate. All I know is that greed is bad and pride is bad. And no amount of economic success can justify them. They are still sin. Thus, sin drives our economy. But THIS is not a reason to outlaw capitalism. If I wanted to outlaw something I would present a secular argument, not a faith-based one (ie greed=sin)

This IS however a reason for Christians to avoid the ideals of consumerist capitalism. Just as we avoid abortions. But because we personally avoid them doesnt mean we're going to try to pass legislation against them. To do so would be futile in a secular society.

[weunice]

You are right we are mostly on the same page.

I UNDERSTAND the liberal thought process. I have much less of a problem with folks who go through some sort of logical thought to arrive at their beliefs.

IMHO the biggest difference between social liberalism and social conservativism is that one side believes that laws should stay out of most moral issues. The other side believes that the "standard" of moral behavior for which we set should be high, and as such, they want impose their own moral beliefs (usually Christian) on the world. I tend to be a little more socially liberal than even my own friends and family but I do think there should be high standards of law based on something beyond that which mankind is given by default. I draw the line at abortion, which *I* consider murder. I will glady admit that my beliefs do affect that and I DO think it should be law. You and I BOTH know that a "secular" justification of that will likely never arise, just as it is impossible to tell a man who has never seen before what the sunset looks like or to tell an atheist that there IS a God that you know exists, but that requires that first step of faith to even perceive. If God were to tell us the answer in an obvious manner, our limited senses and meager understanding of reality will prevent us from implementing it for the very same reason. We are incapable of understanding because of the limits of the flesh.

It all boils down to "The only thing you are certain of is that you are wrong."

The biggest difference between fisical liberalism and fisical conservatism is directly realtional to how MUCH one feels that government should be involved in the economic system. I think you will find that many conservatives have selfish motive and greed driving their desires for the government to have less control. Thus good hearted liberals can demonize them. By that same token you have folks who want tons of federal dollars to fund their own agendas and would just as soon have the government fund everything. Thus good conservatives can demonize them. Either motive is selfish and the "ideal" of either system will not work to its capacity because the good people proposing their great ideas are working in cahoots with those that are inherently selfish ... it is a problem we all have. It is no wonder that all of us, liberals and conservatives, spend their entire lives on the defensive.

I am of the opinion, despite the contrary messages of my conservative counterparts, that folks politics often have very little to do with their moral standards. I am Episcopalian you see, I go to church with more liberals than not and for folks to tell me that the people I see working our garden every week are not Christian because they happen to vote the party line for Democrats is absurd. I personally think the same respect is owed to all mankind, including your Utne Reader susbscribing friends and fellow Utne Reader burners ...

[weunice]

On pursuit of wealth, in relation to your statement ..

I do not think that God is against economic success. God blesses some folks and they end up wealthy. After all, everything you have is God's and thus your blessings are from Him and should be handled as such. Nothing you have IS yours. The wealthy have a much bigger burden than those of us who are blessed with simpler things.

I think you are correct in the motive of many wealthy folks. They do not treat their riches as those of God but rather their own. The venom of wealth can be deadly. However, even in a perfect world there would likley be wealthy folks who spent a great deal of time USING their wealth to further the kingdom of God. The "fruit" that makes it obvious that the "eye of the needle" scripture is valid, is how few wealthy folks use their resources in this manner. There are those however that do and that is how we know wealth is OK. The burden of social issues in society ultimately fall on those who have to give of their own will to those who do not. The list of folks who abide strictly by that ideal are few indeed ...

[markay714]

Doesn't the scripture say... Well, fer instance, didn't Jesus tell the rich man to sell all his stuff and give the money to the poor? And, the part about the camel passing through the eye of a needle...

How come we don't do that? Jesus said it, that settles it. (or so reads the sign out front of the church I drive by a lot.)

And how's that supposed to jive with the American pursuit of getting filthy rich?

Yes, Jesus did say that. And, scripture also clearly talks about saving as well. You've gotta check context on scriptures sometimes. And, scripture says in Acts that in the early church they all gave to each other as they had a need. That's WAY different than the government taking it from folks and giving it to other folks without knowing or caring if they're working or not. I absolutely believe in putting others as more important than myself and love to give to help others - I just like to let the Lord lead me as to who/how to help them. If the government takes my resources so that I have to do that with, then I sure do lose the joy of giving and sharing with others who really do have a need.

Being wealthy doesn't conflict with being a Christian either. Job had a lot, lost it all, and the Lord restored it more. There are plenty of biblical examples of those that the Lord blessed materially. Clearly being greedy with the money that came from the Lord is not His plan. Looking out for #1 has never been a scriptural principal.

[markay714]

Champ,
We've covered some of this ground before. I'm a big time sinner and mess up all the time, but just because me and the others like me at my church don't always do the right thing, I don't think that means that the government should intervene and take away my money and give it to the poor or needy that I should've been helping. I may see the error of my ways, repent, and do it right the next time. And, God might put it on someone else's heart to help the one I missed.

I'm in the middle of a project now, so I'll have to continue this later.

Markay

[PawDawg]

"Anytime a law is written, it is in essence legislating morality. After all, morality supposes to be the proper standard of behavior that most of us, even without a lick of religious knowledge, happen to know something about." - weunice

God gave his people some laws one time. They couldn't keep 'em. SOOOOOO He gave all of us a way out ..........and a great model to go by. I just need to remind myself of this from time to time.

[Dirtydawg]

"Anytime a law is written, it is in essence legislating morality. After all, morality supposes to be the proper standard of behavior that most of us, even without a lick of religious knowledge, happen to know something about." - weunice

God gave his people some laws one time. They couldn't keep 'em. SOOOOOO He gave all of us a way out ..........

Whew. I'm glad for that. Since I have a way out, I think I'll go kill someone. Nothing like having a way out.

[Champ967]

I don't think that means that the government should intervene and take away my money and give it to the poor or needy that I should've been helping.

I agree. The govt should NOT HAVE TO intervene. But God's work WILL be done; His poor WILL be fed. And just as the rocks would cry out if men were to cease praising God, so must God employ the crude cumbersome bureaucracy of man's govts to care for His people when the Church has failed.

But if you dont want the govt to take away your money, give God the first cut. Problem solved.

[Champ967]

weunice ... Great posts! I think we're seeing eye to eye about a lot of this stuff. Just one thought:

You and I BOTH know that a "secular" justification of that will likely never arise

Actually -- I dont think this is out of the realm of possibility. If anti-abortionists could convince society through science or medicine or logic that "human-hood" begins at conception, they would have a case.

[weunice]

Actually nothing is completely out of the realm of possibility ...

When it comes to defining life, IMHO greater understanding is required and that is a question that science, or the natural observed world, is unlikely to answer on its own. What I might perceive as life (conception) or someone else might perceive (heartbeat, viability, birth) are different ways of looking at what is perceptable... Unfortunately souls are not visible and likely to fall outside of the perceptable view of the world ... I could be wrong though, and honestly, I hope that I am ...

In the case of the observed, I choose to go with the most conservative stance here. If there is even a possibility that I might be taking a life then I do not want to be any part of it. To me the burden of proof is on those proving that conception ISN'T when life begins. After all we take the high road in legal issues. We are innocent until proven guilty. Why can't we be alive until proven otherwise?

[Champ967]

We are innocent until proven guilty. Why can't we be alive until proven otherwise?

THAT IS EXACTLY the kind of reasoning I'm talking about. It's humano-centric and draws from a non-religious precedent. Why dont more anti-abortionists begin their arguments with this line of thinking instead of "The Bible says ...."?

I regret, however, that this argument is quickly debunked, as follows:

Human-ness (or the soul, as many call it) is essentially self-awareness. This sense of "I exist" appears to be the defining characteristic that seperates humans from the rest of natural world.

While it is possible (even probable) that developed fetuses (feti?) may possess this sentience (however primitive), it seems much less likely that an early-stage human zygote or embryo has such self-awareness, since these cells lack the neuro-physiology and brain structure typically associated with the sentient mind.
........................................

That stuff said -- I think you get the idea of the kind of secular thinking that anti-abortionists need to adopt if they are to pursue their agenda any further.

[markay714]

I don't think that means that the government should intervene and take away my money and give it to the poor or needy that I should've been helping.

I agree. The govt should NOT HAVE TO intervene. But God's work WILL be done; His poor WILL be fed. And just as the rocks would cry out if men were to cease praising God, so must God employ the crude cumbersome bureaucracy of man's govts to care for His people when the Church has failed.

But if you dont want the govt to take away your money, give God the first cut. Problem solved.

I'm a tither. End of story on that. But actually, the government takes the "first cut"(significantly bigger portion than my tithe I might add! Therefore, my tithe has to come after that. And, I still give offerings as well (amazing I have anything left or motivation for that matter. We are to pay taxes and that is clearly a biblical mandate, but nowhere in scripture does it say that the government should take up where the church should take responsibility for helping people - at least that I can find! I'd love to see it if you can point that out to me.