Discussions
Is it right for Christian Conservatives to be so involved in Politics?
Posted by zaboye • 11/01/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Democrats, evangelicals, politics, religion, religious right, Republicans
I have wrestled with this a bit as a Christian myself, but since the candidacy of Barack Obama, I have noticed that a lot of folks (mostly white evangelicals) that supposedly call themselves Christians have shown attributes that have made me question whether or not they are really people of faith. I, on my part do not believe in imposing my religious views on people, although I am pretty resolute but diplomatic in my positions on social and other issues of the day. The religious right, particularly the likes of James Dobson have immersed themselves rather shamelessly in our national politics to the point where they were praying for rain to fall on Senator Obama at his acceptance speech in Denver. That, in my opinion did cross the line and I am asking if anyone thinks the religious right has become too immersed in our national politics, with the Republican Party in particular? I mean, who says God does not like Democrats also....
User Comments
-
I think the separation of religion and politics should be maintained. The US is not only a country where you are free TO religion, but also a country where you can and should be allowed to be free FROM religion.-
It just seems to me that the "Religious Right" has forgotten that we are all God's children. I just get so uncomfortable with their rather judgmental and condemning behavior. I still don't understand the affiliation with the Republican Party considering the characters that make up the upper echelon of that Party. Are they saying there are no Christian Democrats or Independents?
-
@morgantj
I agree with you whole-heartedly.
@zaboye
Would you be kind enough to consider what I posted here please? www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/barack-and-michelle-obama#comment_655523 -
It sounds a little like you are advocating that anyone who has a publicly stated religious conviction should be barred from also making a political one.
Well, that's not exactly in line with the amendment you loosely translate as "separation of church and state".
Also I've noticed that a lot of people are taking the idea of "freedom from religion", a step or three beyond the idea's intent, and seem to be saying that they should be free from ever encountering any statement of faith by anyone.
The actual prohibitions are forcing and preventing religious observance by the government itself. Which, really, is not anything like a separation of church and state, but rather a limitation on state with regards to actions it may take as they relate to church.
IMNSHO, these words get misused, abused and pulled from any reasonable context by both sides. I don't see anything that says people can not, in the public sphere, state their faith. I also see nothing that would exempt those organizations from any burdens placed on organizations as a whole, like, say, taxation. -
Dane, you concluded a whole lot more then I implied.
-
I was really just taking the opportunity that presented itself. When you dig in and question, this is a position being adopted by more and more people.
-
-
Be careful not to buy into any lies that have been presented to you about the so-called "religious right."
James Dobson, for example, is a Christian Family Psychologist who has spent years helping families, marriages, teens, and others deal with life. He is not a politician.
Also keep in mind that disagreeing with a lifestyle or moral choice is not "forgetting that we are all God's children." If you are a watchman on a wall and you see danger and you do not speak you are responsible for the troubles that come! Christians must speak out on moral issues.
As far as Morgantj's assertion about freedom FROM religion is concerned - it is impossible to not live out a worldview. You may have a worldview that includes a God, and you may not have a worldview that does not. I don't believe for a second that "secular humanists" or "atheists" are leaving their worldview at the door when entering the political arena.
It is essential that Christian Conservatives are involved with politics, as well as other areas of life.
The problem is that so many Christian Conservatives are so into "spiritual" view points of things and preoccupation with the "end-times" that they are leaving behind the call to be salt and light and even "yeast" in this world. The ideas of Christianity are the ideas of liberty. It is best for all on the planet for Christians to dig in to God's Word, get to Know God, and then share the application to each area of society, including government.
The world may just decide to reject us and God's ways, but that is not our responsibility. We don't need to "force" our ideas on anybody, but we must bring them to the table, stand on them with conviction, and vote our conscience.
We must, as "Christian Conservatives" vastly increase our involvement with the area of civil government ("politics").-
So it was right for James Dobson's group to pray for rain to fall on Senator Obama? Dude, do these people think they can read God's mind? Heck, if you go through the Bible, you will see that God has always balked at conventional wisdom when using people. Jacob was a swindler, David was an adulterer and a murderer, Paul had been a mass murderer of Christians and Jesus even shared the stake with an armed robber at his crucifixion and told him he would join him in heaven! Trust me, a lot of folks who think they are going to heaven may end up burning in hell 'cause God hates hypocrites and charlatans.
-
James Dobson is not a politician--meaning that he doesn't hold political office--but he certainly speaks out on political issues and endorses candidates. He's also a hateful bigot. -
drj1966, it is clear that you know very little about James Dobson. Do you label everyone you disagree with a "hateful bigot?" That would be a hateful and... well... bigoted thing to do.
-
zaboye, I am not sure what you are talking about. James Dobson and "his group" can pray whatever they want to pray. I wasn't a part of whatever you are talking about.
James Dobson is human, but he is neither a hypocrite nor a charlatan. Those are pretty serious words you are using.
Make sure you research him before making those kinds of statements. I won't make them about you.
:-) -
"So it was right for James Dobson's group to pray for rain to fall on Senator Obama?"
I think it's wrong for a purely religious reason. It presumes that God needs instruction from Dobson and his followers. Not only does it presume that God favors their political candidate, but suggests that they have to give God ideas on how to handle that. I personally believe that God knows what he's doing and doesn't need any stage direction from me. -
What is this "worldview" crap I keep hearing about? Is this one of those phrases that only apply to atheists when Christians are attempting to devalue our morals/ethics.
I've talked with thousands of atheists, but yet not one has mentioned a "worldview".
I suppose it's a better way of life than an "out-of-this-world view". -
-
Zaboye,
"So it was right for James Dobson's group to pray for rain to fall on Senator Obama".
No it wasn't right at all.
Are you suggesting that because a person is a Christian that they must be perfect? Never do or say anything stupid, never make a mistake, never do anything wrong?
What makes us less human than you or any other who does not happen to be Christian?
I as a Christian should be kept from being a part of the political process because I don't hold to the same views as you? Because you might think my beliefs ignorant or dangerous?
I think the secular ideology is based on ignorance and I believe it to be dangerous, but I wouldn't dream of disallowing someone participation in the political process because they believe differently than I do.
The very suggestion is ugly and elitist. -
Thank you DaneMorgan for the link about "worldview."
-
-
Their tax exemption status should be revoked.
-
I tend to agree with this as I believe it will separate the proverbial wind from the chaff. Then we'll really see who the real Christians are.
-
You are being silly. Focus on the Family Action has no "tax-exempt" status. Read their website and learn about them.
www.citizenlink.org/focusaction/A000006808.cfm -
@ ThirstyJon.......
Are you sure??? Oh....silly me!
Focus on the Family, like all other nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, has always maintained a unique relationship with the IRS. The laws governing nonprofit organizations can be complex, and I have no desire to recount them here. You’re probably aware that one of the primary rules governing our operations is that we are forbidden from endorsing political candidates for public office or political parties through Focus on the Family. Throughout our history, we have complied with these regulations. We believe in the rule of law and in the importance of following, to the letter, every aspect of it, whether it is the tax code or workplace regulations as outlined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). We are called by Scripture to do that.
www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000953.cfm
Also...
www.christianpost.com/article/20070911/irs-vindicates-focus-on-the-family-d... -
MarkPogue, you didn't read the link that I posted.
Focus on the Family Action is not the same organization as Focus on the Family. It is a separate group, a separate entity. It specifically states on the site that donations are NOT tax-deductible. I provided the link above to read it for yourself.
Zaboye, do you think that saying that I am the "epitome" of what you are talking about is being civil? I get a little tired of being stereotyped. Perhaps you actually wanted to discuss this topic with people who agreed with you only? -
@ ThirstyJon
You are correct. That was an oversight on my part. "Focus on the Family Action" is the OTHER scumbag organization run by the Imperial Wizard James Dobson. which is the lobbying arm of "Focus on the Family".
Don't you just love it when Christians rail against their Christian brethren(Barack Obama)????(sarcasm) -
MarkPogue, Well, it doesn't appear that we will agree on much, but I have to give respect to anyone who admits to an oversight. Thank you for acknowledging the difference between "Focus on the Family" and "Focus on the Family Action" which are indeed two separate organizations. Of course, I cannot thank you for referring to great organizations as "scumbag."
-
-
Modern Christian, just like ancient Christian, Ancient un-Christians and modern un-Christians, and pretty much every body else on the planet are just flat out chock full of these wonderful things call contradictions.
People are flawed, and that's the case no matter how we came to be here. But the cool thing is that it's often these flaws, while potentially disastrous, that are also what makes us so damn interesting. -
@ThirstyJon
Well you seem to be the very epitome of what we are talking about. Can't disagree without being disagreable? Obviously you know absolutely nothing about business as you should know that a .org set-up is for one thing a non-profit organization and obviously enjoys some form of tax exemption/shelter. And oh btw, I think MarkPogue was talking about religious organizations as a whole. Please do keep it civil as we can disagree without calling each other silly or other unnecessary names.
Peace-
Actually, I was referring to James Dodson's "Focus on the Family", but also I think that any non-profit organization that speaks out publicly regarding politics should be automatically-audited and considered for revocation.
-
Hmmm. Keep it civil, eh? I am into that. Please withdrawal your statements implying that those who disagree with you are charlatans and hypocrites and might find themselves burning in hell. Please also withdrawal your comment stereotyping me as the "epitome of what we are talking about." I get a little tired of being stereotyped. You don't know me (and I don't know you.)
-
-
your views sound good to me zaboye, i think the christian right dont understand the concept of the religion they claim to follow at all, they are effectively fundamentalists, extremists (potential terrorists?), scary people to be avoided, i am gnostic in my beliefs i think.. at a comfortable distance these people need counselling i think, they are deluded and only not marginalised because of their number (and or isolation?) . Reminds me of Scientologists the way they are so deluded.. they should definetly stay out of politics - and more preferably ! 8)
--lola xx
wastedlola.blogspot.com/ -
Gee ... Let me think on this. Our ancestors, for the most part, were fleeing European countries and landed here because they wanted to have religious freedom. Country was set up on separation of church from state. Which might mean that we keep the two separate. As an American US citizen, you have the right to vote if you have reached the voting age. It seems that it is good common sense to vote for the candidate to do the best job governing our people. Putting all of your religious beliefs aside, go vote your conscious. Church and State = separate. Make a decision... you'll feel better. One more thing while we are on this religious theme ... why is it that I only hear this debate or soul searching from Christians? Seems as if peoples of all the other faiths already understand separation of church and state. Think about it.
*Disclaimer* My opinion is only that, my opinion. It is given in order to get you to think.-
I concur with Theresa111's take on this. IMHO any voter who casts a vote based on anything other that the issues is misguided. I believe all citizens who can vote ought to vote on the issues for the candidate(s) that they believe will serve the best interests of the country and its citizens as a whole.
-
Unfortunately they refuse to add "none of the above" to the ballot, so I'll be abstaining from the drive this year.
-
" why is it that I only hear this debate or soul searching from Christians? Seems as if peoples of all the other faiths already understand separation of church and state."
Theresa, I actually think that it might be quite the opposite. I think that Christianity has become so secularized in the United States that self-identified Christians believe a separation is possible in a way that people who faithfully practice other religions would never entertain. Imagine trying to tell a devout Muslim to "vote his conscience" without regard to his religious beliefs! They're inseparable--just as they are for many Christians. "Set aside your religious beliefs and vote your conscience" is a contradiction in terms for me--as I'm sure it is for many other people of all faiths.
-
-
The term " separation of church and state" is found no where in the constitution. This is a common misconception.
Now as far as Christians being involved in politics......it's possible. God uses our votes to elect who he wants to be in office.-
One common argument in favor of the separation of church and state is that the Constitution, which is the founding legal document of America, makes no reference to religion except in terms which would exclude it from government authority, and certainly makes no reference to Christianity. Therefore, the position which argues that Christianity was essential to the founding of this nation and should continue as a partner with the government is supposed to be refuted.
The Christian Right regularly claims that America is a “Christian Nation” and was founded on Christian principles. If this is the case, then those principles should be identifiable in America’s founding legal document, the Constitution. If the Constitution explicitly reflects Christian principles and doctrines, then the Christian Right is correct that America was founded on Christianity; otherwise, their claims are wishful thinking at best. So where are God and religion in the Constitution?
Article VI says: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." In practice this prohibition was often violated, and even today there are unenforceable prohibitions in state constitutions against atheists holding public office. If America is a Christian Nation, why weren't public offices limited to Christians, or even particular types of Christians? Why weren't public offices limited solely to monotheists or to theists?
Some take hope from Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 which gives the president an extra day to deal with a bill from Congress if the 10th day falls on Sunday — known as the "Sundays Excepted Clause." Is this an establishment of the Christian sabbath and thus of Christianity? No, it was a recognition of the fact that many Christians wouldn't work on this day and that an extra day may be needed. It must be noted that at this time, the government continued to deliver mail on Sundays.
At the end of the Constitution, the date is prefaced with "in the year of our Lord." Is this an expression of the fundamental role played by Jesus and Christianity in the Constitution? No, this was just the standard dating convention. It's no more significant than using BC and AD when writing dates now. At most, it's an example of the cultural importance of Christianity at the time; it's not a sign of the political or philosophical importance of Christianity to the Constitution.
The Constitution requires elected official take oaths or affirmations before serving; was this understood as an example of the importance of swearing an oath to God? No — if it was meant to get people to swear an oath to God because only theists could be trusted, the Constitution would have said so (and would not have banned religious tests for public office). Oaths can be taken on more than the Bible and God; the choice of using an affirmation signals that religious oaths were not privileged.
The first amendment to the Constitution also prohibits the government from "establishing" any religion. The meaning of "establishment" is hotly debated and some insist that it merely means that the government can't create a national religion. This reading is too narrow and would make the clause all but meaningless. To have relevance, it must mean that the government can't favor, endorse, promote, or support any religions just as it can't hinder any: it must remain as neutral as possible.
The American Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People," and its significance cannot be overlooked. This establishes that sovereign power rests with the people and that all government power and authority derives from the consent of the people. It's a repudiation of older European ideas that governments are established by God and derive their power or authority from God (for example, the divine right of kings). It's also thus a repudiation of the Christian Right's arguments today.
The authors of the American Constitution were not atheists, though some might be regarded as little more than atheists by self-righteous religious moralizers today. Many of the authors were deists. Among those who were Christian, few seem to have held same sort of religious beliefs common with conservative evangelicals in America today. The Christian Right would claim them as religious brethren, but the two groups are far too dissimilar for that.
Why does the Christian Right seek to make a big deal out of the religious beliefs of the authors of the Constitution, though? They seem to think that if these men can be identified as devout Christians, then it follows that the Constitution is a Christian document which embodies Christian principles and doctrines (as defined by the Christian Right, of course). This does not follow, however. A Christian is every bit as capable of creating a godless, secular document as an atheist is.
Indeed, the fact that many of these men were devout Christians (even if not in the way that the Christian Right imagines) bolsters the case of contemporary secularists because it makes the absence of overt religious and Christian language all the more glaring. If they had mostly been atheists, the non-religious language would be expected and unremarkable. Yet because they were religious and steeped in Christian education, the absence of Christian language and references must be read as both deliberate and purposeful.
What might that purpose have been? To establish a secular government, untainted by the many problems which sectarian divisions, religious violence, and Christian bigotry had inflicted on European nations. For the most part the authors of the Constitution succeeded.
Why does the Christian Right work so hard to undermine and undo what America's founders accomplished?
atheism.about.com/od/godlessliberals/p/Constitution.htm -
That's laughable...at best.
Why not just stay at at home and pray instead of voting?
Just when I thought I heard it all...
-
-
wrong spot - sorry
-
LKS CROCHET ... Now as far as Christians being involved in politics......it's possible. God uses our votes to elect who he wants to be in office.
For those of us who believe, God gave us free will. God would never have used our votes for George W. Bush ... do not believe that for even a mille second.
I believe if Jesus were to cast His vote, it would be for Senator Obama and Senator Biden. What an exemplary campaign they have run. Exceptional and that is the sign of great leadership.-
God can do anything that he wants because he is sovereign. He orchestrated all of the events in the Bible whether we find them possible or not.
-
Common sense is what we need and vote on November 4, 2008 if you will. or not. God is concerned in our love of Him and not in our voting process.
-
@ LSKcrochet
If God can do anything, then why can't he/she heal amputees and re-grow the severed limb??? -
removed by author
-
MarkPogue, Who says that God cannot heal amputees or regrow severed limbs? He can.
-
-
Killing is wrong as it says in the bible. That is the big difference really. Would Jesus support the side for abortion or against it? I think everyone knows the answer already to that one. You can't pick and choose certain things in the bible you like to follow and just ignore the rules you don't like. Abortion is not ok.
The proof of God is US. That is why the universe is empty of intelligent life. He made us in his image. More proof? God could be anyplace out there. That is why we have no physical proof. 14 billion light years I believe the universe is. We only know this part. God could be anyplace in the 14 billion light years.-
That would depend on the context of killing and when life begins.
The Bible also forbids the wearing of gold and braided hair...
Do not let your adornment be that outward adorning of arranging the hair, of wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God (1 Peter 3:3-4).
in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works (1 Timothy 2:9-10). -
You might have done better with that one if you'd skipped the quote, since with the actual text in front of us it's impossible to interpret it the way you suggest.
-
-
Yeah I know other things are in there. But taking a life to me is far more important.
-
@mikeny07
"Thou shalt not kill."
The Bible is silent or abortion, and, as such, the commandment to which you have referred not to word "kill" only applied to those who had been born. However, I'm glad you feel that killing is wrong because then you will agree that continuing to slay Iraqi women and children can't possibly be in accord with what you believe to be God's will being done. You will likewise agree that McCain's war mongering is an unacceptable plan and will not vote for him, right? Because voting for him means an extension of the despicable campaign of sacrificing men and women on the altar of oil. -
Yes. Down with all war and discord!
-
-
I know. That is what Saddam did daily. I hope it will all end soon once they get going again there and the country is rebuilt. It will take many years before they have a normal life again. They are getting there though don't worry.
-
18 minutes ago (new) MarkPogue
@ LSKcrochet
If God can do anything, then why can't he/she heal amputees and re-grow the severed limb???
******************************************************
Oh but he will..... in heaven we will all have new bodies.-
Oh how I love mythology! Will Thor or Zeus be there??
If you receive a new body in Heaven, then why are souls so important?
-
-
I have the feeling that this thread may be headed towards a bad end. I'm wondering if simply addressing only the original question posted may not be a good course of action to take at this juncture.
The questions is: Is it right for Christian Conservatives to be so involved in Politics?-
In that case the answer can only be yes. Just as would be the case for any other interest group you might care to name.
[edit to add]
Or in the least it is not "wrong" for people belonging to interest groups to take an active interest in their nation's governing process.
Though if we could ban Democrats and Republicans for a few years.... Hmmm... let me rethink my premise and look for a loophole i can live with.
[/edit to add] -
Re: the phrasing of the question. I agree.
FWIW I'm a Libertarian and I would be delighted if both the so-called leading political parties in my own country disappeared for a decade.
-
-
In love and patience.
-
I think everyone is forgetting what the original question was. Again, I merely asked whether it was right for the Religious Right to be so immersed in our National Politics that they are in bed with essentially one party? Again, I say yes and unfortunately the likes of James Dobson and Focus on the Family have gone beyond their call of duty to where they have compromised the integrity and the sanctity of the Church, and by extension, the Body of Christ.
-
Zaboye,
the secular/non-religious are essentially in bed with one party as well.
Of course the religious right will tend towards one particular party, which ever party best represents their views.
The secular left also tends towards one party, the one that best represents their views.
So now we have very little room for very few people in the political process if we are to expect that people not tend towards a particular party.
-
-
I wonder if the "Religious Left" should be so immersed in our national politics that they are in bed essentially with one party?
I wonder if "Secular Humanists" should be so immersed in our national politics that they are in bed essentially with one party?
Actually, I don't mind if those groups support a political party. Each of us are responsible to follow our conscience and vote, and it is only common sense that if we believe in a cause we organize together to promote our view. There is nothing wrong with that.
"Christian Conservatives" or the "Religious Right" are no different. They have a right and a responsibility to vote according to conscience and to organize themselves to inform others who agree with their worldview. It all contributes to the dialogue my friend.
P.S. Does anybody else notice an increasing scapegoating of "evangelicals" and very specifically James Dobson? Interesting.-
No one is 'scapegoating' evangelicals or James Dobson for that matter. I am a Christian and by the way, there are more folks in the 'Religious Center' than there are on the so-called 'Religious Right', that I can assure you, as God does not take sides. As past and recent events have shown, the 'Religious Right' has gotten burnt quite frequently by opportunistic politicians on the right who use or dump them depending on how the wind blows. I believe America remains a center-right country and the 'extremists' on both sides really do constitute an unbecoming nuisance, the far-right Religious ideologues in particular.
-
So... You haven't noticed. I have.
-
-
religion should have no place in politics at all...-
Actually it should, but not to the point where Pastors who are supposed to be neutral and oversee their flock now dabble in partisan politics to the point where they are praying for rain to fall on a Presidential Candidate at his acceptance speech, just because he happens to belong to a party they don't like. The Constitution should and will always be the over-arching arbiter of what laws are promulgated in a civil society. Religion, on the other hand can serve as the social and moral conscience of the society.
-
-
Religion was meant to be kept away from government as much as possible. The common knowledge seems to be that our country was founded as a christian theocracy. Anyone who has had even the most basic US history course will be quick to correct you. The conservative christian adgenda has only had a stranglehold on our country for about 70 years (maybe less I don't feel like researching).
One of the best tell tales of this is the fact our money says "in god we trust". Read up on how recent this has happened: www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
What about our pledge? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_G...
The founders of our country would roll over in their graves if they knew how much power we had let the religious zealots regain. They fled their country facing the same problem!
I'll shut up with this:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82-
Oh...a thinker!! Welcome!
-
"Religion was meant to be kept away from government as much as possible. The common knowledge seems to be that our country was founded as a christian theocracy. Anyone who has had even the most basic US history course will be quick to correct you. The conservative christian adgenda has only had a stranglehold on our country for about 70 years (maybe less I don't feel like researching)."
I'll ask you the same question I keep asking in these threads (which is ignored again and again by people who want to advance your view that we began as an irreligious country)--how do you explain little things like George Washington's address upon leaving the presidency?
-
-
It is perfectly fine for them to be in politics. What is wrong is they or any group fail to realize no matter what you believe you are still governed by a constitution which limits what you can actually do when you get any sort of power. This has been ignored for the better part of the last sixty years.-
Brilliant!
-
-
@bradhart - Ditto Sir -
Politics is so important but so is religion, i think people should find a way of participating in both without breaching democracy or committing a sin. Religious people should not make political decisions based on issues like race or loyalty to a party, they should vote based on best interest to the citizens.
-
Politics is so important but so is religion, i think people should find a way of participating in both without breaching democracy or committing a sin. Religious people should not make political decisions based on issues like race or loyalty to a party, they should vote based on best interest to the citizens.
-
This is what Thomas Jefferson himself meant concerning his penned phrase "separation of church and state."
By the way, God cares less if one is democratic or republican, American or Asian. The problem is how we view Him and our standing or lack of standing before His righteousness.
Here's the link anyways:
codybateman.org/2008/10/16/what-separation-of-church-and-state-meant-to-the...-
Thanks Creemos, for the link to codybateman.org/2008/10/16/what-separation-of-church-and-state-meant-to-the.... It was refreshing and inspiring.
The concept of "separation of church and state" is extremely misunderstood in our contemporary culture, and some groups use it in ways that are way outside of Jefferson's intended meaning. The article you linked to clearly shows this.
God Bless! -
I find that hard to believe being this is exactly what Jefferson said:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
Thomas Jefferson. Letter To Danbury Baptist Association regarding the interpretation of the 1st Amendment. January 1st 1802.
Thus based on this statement, I find little room to argue that Jefferson somehow believed this to be a Christian nation.
-
-
Jesus was a radical.-
Not quite sure what you mean by that....
-
Just he wouldn't have been likely to join either political party. He wouldn't have passed the selection process. ;-)
-
He could run as an independent. I'd vote for Him! :-)
-
hang on...
if someone told you they were "jesus" and that they were running as an independent for government, you would believe them? -
No I wouldn't believe him. The prisons and mental hospitals are full of men purporting that they are Jesus.
-
Sorry Siralmo, but I'll be waiting for the real Jesus, not some counterfeit.
:-)
-
-
i think we should combine church and state. we should make scientology the official religion. it's just as ridiculous as other more popular religions. and it's not like politic isn't all stanked up with religion to begin with. let's dirty it up with a newer, religion. Maybe i should start a blog about this new religion i was thinking about starting. It's call noobotology.
i wonder how many generations it will take for christianity to become less popular. Im hoping that scientology will become popular.-
Howdy Bloggernoob. Christianity may become less popular temporarily, but in the end there will always be growth. As in the book of Daniel "it will become a huge mountain that fills the whole earth."
Habakkuk 2:14: "The Earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."
It is inevitable. The testimony of God getting louder and louder until the end. Ain't it just beautiful?
:-) -
Well that could be quite dangerous. I realize that many Christians feel that there is no harm in this because no true Christian would cause harm. However since people often call themselves Christian for the mere fact to gain power over others, this would create a vast array of problems.
What church would we then follow? Christianity? What denomination? It is true that 60 percent of Americans consider themselves Christian but in the same survey, when asked about how often they attend church, the amount of people who go often (once a week or more) drops dramatically. If I remember correctly it was less than 30 percent.
-
-
What about pastafarianism? Much better for a state religion. Guaranteed pasta for all!
-
As long as the pasta comes with hearty meat filled sauce, I don't want a bunch of pushy vegans involved in my state religion. Not only are most vegans obnoxious they are very dishonest about their membership. For every hot woman they put in your face as a poster child for their movement there are a hundred thousand of them in the saggy boob hairy armpit brigade. They lure men in by suggesting that all the women will look hot celeb XX only to let them down horribly that most of them actually look like Rosanne.
-
-
Most of us have some kind of belief in a higher power and we make are political decisions based on those beliefs.
-
It is one thing to vote for a paticular person based on faith. I.e. voting for a morally honest man over a morally dishonest man. However when it comes to the creation of our laws, that should be based off of science and logic, and those two virtues alone.
Rene Monroe,
compromiseoftwilight.blogspot.com
-
-
as a non-believer, i don't mind the Dobson's of the world lobbying their positions. in fact, i want to know what they are thinking. don't even mind the value voters summit, where they all pow wow and get all political there. why not? they have convictions just like i have convictions. and we all want to see them represented by our politicians. what should i be afraid of? any other position by me would be self serving and not intellectually honest.
and based on this past election, i'm feeling pretty good about where we are headed right about now, might even make Dobson and others rethink some of their more limited, intolerant values. wouldn't that benefit all! -
I think anyone or any group should be able to speak out about whatever they want to, or to be as involved as they want to. No one goes in the voting booth for you to cast your vote, or forces you to listen to their speeches, or agree with their opinions, unless you want to. Anyone should be able to at least get their thoughts out there...religious or not. Christian's are part of that whole "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" thing just as much as anyone else...Yeah, i agree that politicians themselves should be as neutral as possible, regardless of what they themselves believe in. But even if they weren't...we make the votes, we decide who is in office so in my opinion we should know as much about that person and their beliefs as possible without them imposing their beliefs on me. Anyone not in a direct poltical position though IMO should be able to hold as many rallies, and speeches, and telecasts as they want to, it's their right. Within reason, of course I don't want to see "wife beaters unite" or something on cbs while I'm having my morning coffee, but you know what i mean.
so the question "Is it right?" well it would be wrong to not allow them to be involved
Hope that made sense, it's early here.-
nicely said!
-
-
I second that - nicely said!
-
can i third that second or is that some sort of breach of discussion etiquette because you seconded my firsted? btw - were you the one with the great eyeball?
-
-
Thank you very much, sometimes I tend to blabber and ramble so I'm not sure if I'm getting my point across, haha.
-
I think one of my recent blog posts is right in line with the OP's sentiments. In it, I discuss both the fallacy of the religious right's alliance with the GOP and the fact that Christians are getting so caught up into the politicization of Christian views that we are losing sight of our ministerial calling.
opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=65
Now, I think Christians have as much right to engage politics as any other human being in the world and we have as much a right to let our world view inform our political opinion as anyone else. We just have a duty to make sure that we are honoring God, not Christian or political leaders who may have lost sight of God's will.-
I do not believe that anyone is saying that a Christian should be censored. That would be horribly wrong. However I do believe that when it comes to the creation of our laws, that should be based off of scientific proof. The very nature of religion is faith which means the belief in something without proof. If we simply run our government based off faith, we will have more incidents like Iraq. Our actions, as a government, and our laws should be based and made with scientific evidence and logic as its guide. Nothing more.
Rene Monroe
compromiseoftwilight.blogspot.com
-
-
As I am sure you have witnessed, the issue of religion and politics invokes very strong, colorful emotions. There are those who wish to claim that America is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, which when looking at history is false. There are those who view America as a naturally atheist nation, which is also false. There is one clue as to how our founding fathers viewed as the proper interaction between religion and the state.
People become so focused on Thomas Jefferson when he said that there shall be a wall of separation between church and state. However what this means often eludes people. Our founding fathers were deists not theist. They did believe in God, however they did not believe in the church because of the likelihood of corruption. Part of being a deist is the belief in God but that God does not interact with the material world.
This belief is at the core of many of America's founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, James Madison, and James Adams.
All of these men have stated through various published works from The Age of Reason, to the autobiographies of Franklin, Madison, and Adams, that religion should remain personal and the State should operate separate from that.
This most easily illustrated through some of todays hot-button issues. In particular marriage and how it relates to same-sex relationships. Now the argument against same-sex marriage is often that marriage is a religious institution. Well therefore according to this philosophy, marriage in and of itself should not be recognized by the federal and state governments since it is a spiritual union. The easist way to compromise this is to keep marriage in the church. That way conservatives are able to protect their own view of marriage while creating civil unions for everyone to recognize the legal union of any couple that decides to get one.
I personally find it distasteful when a man of faith try to persuade people how to vote. To me that simply creates a herd mentality which is extremely dangerous. It is because of the herd-mentality that things such as the holocaust were able to occur. Tell me, does anyone really believe that the holocaust would have occurred if the followers of Hitler were actually thinking for themselves and not letting Hitler tell them what to believe, what to feel, and what to do? Probably not.-
Correction: I did not mean to type "James Adams" when I was referring to John Adams. Sorry about the typo. That would have seriously hindered the credibility of my comment. lol.
-
-
Well, Christianity and conservatism seem to be somewhat at odds. Take for instance the description of the early Church in Acts 4:32-35 (KJV):
"32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."
Not very conservative, was it?-
But that wasn't a state action, an act of violence. That was voluntary submission through faith, hope, love, and fear of God (not state), and many conservatives (myself included) would support that kind of living for when it is needed, as it was in the early church. Consider this writing of Paul:
"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!
7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! " (1 Corinthians 6: 1-9, NKJV)
Not very pro-socialism (or social conservatism, when you think about it), now is it? In fact, it really doesn't support any kind of government!
On God's highway, all the signs are suggestions, there are no speed limits, and if you crash, it's entirely your fault, and the only insurance company in town is Jesus Christ! -
It seems that within the church there was a hierarchy, and indeed coercive power. Not government only by means of semantics, it would seem.
-
Anyone could vote with their feet at any time. The hierarchy was honored out of a sense of purpose for the most part. And overthrowing your hierarchy is a time-honored christian tradition.
I think what it comes down to is these stiff rigidities fall apart against reality, but nevertheless, Christ himself would not have used force, and in this case it's pretty clear that petty government should not be trusted.
Also, Christ himself overthrew the temple, setting an example of positive reforming relationships for centuries to come! -
overthrew the temple? i don't recall that particular passage... o_0
-
Remember the moneychangers? Not to mention his little show of force at the crucifiction, bringing back all those saints and striking the temple with lightning, while a combination of his followers, his prophecy and his action destroyed Temple Judaism completely within 30 years.
-
-
Of course. You're a voter too, and as long as you make legitimate state interest, and not, as Saint Paul would put it, "...[going] to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?" (1 Corinthians 6:1, partial) over religious and moral matters the key aspect of your voting, then yes, by all means. We need more good men in politics.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
