A Biblical Role of Government Primer by Motte Brown on 11/21/2007 at 1:33 PM

Last week's Boundless article from Matt Kaufman, "Dear Voter," lays the groundwork for a basic understanding of the biblical role of government and how it should affect our vote. Kaufman concedes that though the Bible doesn't necessarily provide a blueprint for governmental responsibility, Scripture is not silent on its primary purpose: protection.

Kaufman begins with Paul's letter to Timothy,

In 1 Timothy 2:2, Paul writes that the reason we pray for "kings and all those in authority" is "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." Government is chiefly supposed to play a support role for society: Not to usurp the role of God's other institutions, like the family and the church, but to maintain the basic civil order that enables them to flourish. You can't go about the business of life if you're being terrorized by street gangs or invaded by Visigoths.

We see elsewhere (Proverbs 8:15,16; Romans 13:4) that God established government to make and enforce laws specifically so "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives." Beyond protection, there's no clear mandate for governmental responsibility found in Scripture, even when it comes to the physically poor. Proverbs 29 and Psalm 72 speak of rulers dealing justly with the poor. So the government has some responsibility. But not much. According to the Bible, the needy are to be cared for first by the family, and then the church.

Again, we go to 1 Timothy. 1 Timothy 5:16 says,

"If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need."

Given the government's limited role we see from Scripture, Kaufman argues that a Christian's primary civic responsibility should be to elect officials who make laws consistent with "God's design for the church, the family and the government."

Here's another thing I hope we can all agree upon: A government must not undermine other institutions God made for their own good purposes — such as the family and the church. Should the state "help" those institutions, funneling money toward them through various social programs? Again, we can debate that. But surely the state should do no harm. For example, it shouldn't hand condoms to kids behind their parents' backs. It shouldn't distort marriage by treating "domestic partnerships" (heterosexual or homosexual) as its equivalents. These sorts of things violate God's design for the church, the family and the government.

So what criteria will you be using when you cast your vote in 2008?

A Biblical Role of Government Primer by Motte Brown on 11/21/2007 at 1:33 PM

Last week's Boundless article from Matt Kaufman, "Dear Voter," lays the groundwork for a basic understanding of the biblical role of government and how it should affect our vote. Kaufman concedes that though the Bible doesn't necessarily provide a blueprint for governmental responsibility, Scripture is not silent on its primary purpose: protection.

Kaufman begins with Paul's letter to Timothy,

In 1 Timothy 2:2, Paul writes that the reason we pray for "kings and all those in authority" is "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." Government is chiefly supposed to play a support role for society: Not to usurp the role of God's other institutions, like the family and the church, but to maintain the basic civil order that enables them to flourish. You can't go about the business of life if you're being terrorized by street gangs or invaded by Visigoths.

We see elsewhere (Proverbs 8:15,16; Romans 13:4) that God established government to make and enforce laws specifically so "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives." Beyond protection, there's no clear mandate for governmental responsibility found in Scripture, even when it comes to the physically poor. Proverbs 29 and Psalm 72 speak of rulers dealing justly with the poor. So the government has some responsibility. But not much. According to the Bible, the needy are to be cared for first by the family, and then the church.

Again, we go to 1 Timothy. 1 Timothy 5:16 says,

"If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need."

Given the government's limited role we see from Scripture, Kaufman argues that a Christian's primary civic responsibility should be to elect officials who make laws consistent with "God's design for the church, the family and the government."

Here's another thing I hope we can all agree upon: A government must not undermine other institutions God made for their own good purposes — such as the family and the church. Should the state "help" those institutions, funneling money toward them through various social programs? Again, we can debate that. But surely the state should do no harm. For example, it shouldn't hand condoms to kids behind their parents' backs. It shouldn't distort marriage by treating "domestic partnerships" (heterosexual or homosexual) as its equivalents. These sorts of things violate God's design for the church, the family and the government.

So what criteria will you be using when you cast your vote in 2008?

Comments

[1. Jacob Douvier said the following at 2:26 PM on Nov 21:]

1

Government as having restricted or no power in the case of institutions such as family, church and education is a hallmark of true, traditional conservatism going at least as far back as Edmund Burke, the 18th Century English statesman. Abraham Kuyper, the 19th Century Dutch Prime Minister, pastor, newspaperman and university founder also understood that each of these institutions has authority in its own sphere of responsibility, but that it must not overstep those bounds. More recently, Russell Kirk wrote a number of excellent books, such as The Conservative Mind that convey the idea that, for the good of the people, the government must be restrained.

It is very easy to become lazy and assume that by virtue of it being a large institution able to collect large amounts of money that the government is responsible for the welfare of the poor and needy. This is nothing short of "ends-justifies-the-means" reasoning, which has not place in Christian thinking save as an example of a bad idea that has had bad consequences.

There are many problematic issues in society that cannot be addressed merely by voting in your party of choice. Electing a Republican congress and President will not fix the economy nor solve the illegal immigration problem. Electing a Democrat congress and president will not end the threat of terrorism nor will it result in better education for our children. Some problems can be fixed by hard work and discipline, such as the education crisis, whereas others, such as the War on Terror, require courage and fortitude. Assuming that our party of choice can sweep in and fix everything is delusional and juvenile at best.

[2. John said the following at 3:01 PM on Nov 21:]

2

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The whole purpose of the bill of rights was to limit government.

The founders understood how intoxicating and dangerous unchecked power can be, that's why they created a Republic.

Federalism was crucial to the development of this country.

Many of the representatives at the constitutional convention argued that it begin "we the states".

The states have been basically neutered by an ever expanding federal government.

The "ends justify the means" philosphy has pretty much been the cancer that has killed the check the states were supposed to have had over the federal government. You can, ironically, thank Republicans and well meaning Christians for that.

Wanting so badly to end slavery they trashed so much of the constitutional principals that they ended up opening a flood of wonderful Supreme Court decisions that have hemmed in today's church in America.

Limited government is key to the survival of the church in America and the salvation of millions of souls. That is why I constantly hammer at our socialist/communist education system and Christians inexcusable support of it.

Though it can be argued that the church actually prospers more under persecution than in times or places of prosperity, I gotta believe that keeping the greatest experiment going is worth it.

[3. DT said the following at 3:30 PM on Nov 21:]

3

What I look at first is a candidate's personal beliefs and public voting record on abortion. Everything else comes after that in a lesser-important category for me. If there's a whiff of being pro-abortion, or one vote that seems off, I won't vote for that person. And that's at national, state and local elections. Period.

[4. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 4:10 PM on Nov 21:]

4

The Bible is not a voting guide, and it was not written to be a voting guide. I think when we use it to argue who Christians should vote for, we are sadly reducing it to just another political book. The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government.

"Limited government is key to the survival of the church in America and the salvation of millions of souls. That is why I constantly hammer at our socialist/communist education system and Christians inexcusable support of it."

Gotta disagree there. Here in Canada, which has anything but "limited government," churches are protected. Freedom to express your religion is a a key right. When we included "sexual orientation" in our Hate Crimes Act, it came with an amendment stating that anything said with religious justification could NOT constitute a hate crime.

Seems churches are more protected here than in America.

[5. JJ said the following at 4:58 PM on Nov 21:]

5

Agree with Andrew. I have to say out of the recent political posts this is one of the most offensive. How is it not misusing God's name to suggest we should vote for a certain political party? Vote however you want, but please don't hold up scripture and say it must be this way.

It just pains me to see this kind of manipulation at work here, and as a brother in Christ I encourage you to rethink some of these blogs and articles.

[6. Alex C. said the following at 5:37 PM on Nov 21:]

6

"...flood of wonderful Supreme Court decisions that have hemmed in today's church in America.
"

"That is why I constantly hammer at our socialist/communist education system "

Those are pretty strong statements. Do you have any examples? From my own experiences, I havn't seen/read about too much stuff that would lead me to think the American Church is in great danger of having its rights trampled, or that our educational system is anti-capatilist (Maybe it's just cause I'm an econ major; all of my classes paint communism/socialism in a relatively negative light ^^)

"Kaufman argues that a Christian's primary civic responsibility should be to elect officials who make laws consistent with "God's design for the church, the family and the government."
"
I don't know, no matter how I look at this post and the article its based on, I can't see anything other than an argument for Theocracy, which would not be compatible with the American goverment as it stands now. In theory, our goverment should not be able to pass laws that favor the beliefs and practices of a particular religion over other religions, or that favor religious belief in general to non-belief, but it seems like thats just what Kaufmann is advocating in some situations. The family thing seems to be a good example: The article argues that Family is an important aspect of society according to scripture, and that our goverment should support it, and not "harm" it by allowing things such as Homosexual "marriage". But as this belief is motivated by scripture, if our goverment supports the belief, it would then be violating freedom of religion if it did not also extend support to those who believe differently about family, for religious or non-religious reasons.

Now, there is the argument that things like homosexual "marriage" or alternate definitions of family are damaging to society as a whole, an argument that does not relate to religious beliefs; however, currently the evidence for such an argument is not very strong or convincing to most people, which is I think why we ultimately end up falling back to arguments based on scripture.

I think Christians may have to come to accept the fact that America is, in reality, not constructed to be a "biblical goverment", of the kind that Kaufmann outlines in his article. The things he outlines that a goverment should do may be very good things, things that an ideal goverment should do, but it is likely that they are also things our goverment CAN'T (at least from the theoretical perspective) do without first changing the entire foundation of the goverment.

[7. Jenn said the following at 5:42 PM on Nov 21:]

7

Andrew, are you sure you want to boast about religious freedom in Canada? Have you heard of Scott Brockie? The Christian printer was dragged before a Human Rights Tribunal and fined $100,000 for refusing to print material for a homosexual activist organization due to the fact that it would violate his religious convictions. So much for religious justification.

Our media went nuts over a "God bless Canada " in a speech made by our Prime Minister. Their argument? Religion should have not place in politics. The very mention of Christ is forbidden at official government sponsored ceremonies.

These are merely a sampling of the slow but steady progress of exclusion of the Christian world view in the public square. The Hate Crimes Act of which you speak is feared by many Christians as the very tool that will be used to silence the voice of the Canadian church completely.

So while I agree with you that the Bible is not a voting guide, I must protest that the principles contained in it must guide our decisions, especially when it comes to choosing our leaders.

[8. Motte said the following at 5:48 PM on Nov 21:]

8

JJ:

I find it interesting that you think I used "God's name to suggest we should vote for a certain political party." I did no such thing.

And I would encourage you to rethink posting false accusations.

[9. John said the following at 8:02 PM on Nov 21:]

9

The bible is, in fact, a voting guide and was written as a voting guide.

The bible is much, much more than a book about man's relationship to God.

It is also a book about man's relationship to government.

So the statements to the contrary are untrue and wrong.

Canadian preachers have been put in jail for violating thought legislation.

Where does the post ever say to vote for any particular party?

Examples? Let me count the ways:

1)NCLB
2)Hate crime laws
3)Roe v. wade
4)GOVERNMENT RUN SCHOOLS!
5)Inclusion of almost any ideology in schools
6)Exclusion of Christianity from schools
7)Homosexual "rights" (perhaps the most dangerous)
8)Political speech prohibition of churches

Remember, communism is not only an economic system, but a government system, too.

You need to read more. Try CitizenLink, a production of FOF.

Our government can do whatever the constitution or an amendment to the constitution allows it to do. (legally speaking)

It can, theoretically, erase the 1st amendment and make Christianity the national religion. It would never happen, but theoretically, the way our government is structured, this is possible. (Based on the foundations of our government, the amendment process)

[10. Jacob Douvier said the following at 8:31 PM on Nov 21:]

10

Politics is inherently ethical. Ethics is inherently religious. You cannot escape religion in the realm of politics. Someone's religion will be supported at the exclusion of another. There is no neutral ground.

[11. Jordan Peacock said the following at 8:46 PM on Nov 21:]

11

I agree with many of the skeptics of a biblically 'mandated' leadership or government model.

Jacques Ellul describes how Christ's attitude toward government was more anarchistic than supportive or against. 'an' neutralizes/negates the 'archy'; it's not against government in Christ's context, it's separateness from.

You live in the world, and there's some measure of interaction one must have, but our kingdom is not of this world, and while there is a tolerance of government as it exists and exhortation to not cause more trouble than necessary, there is hardly a straight case of acceptance of earthly authority.

If I could legally vote here in the states at all I wouldn't, as it's behaviour that enables the corrosive systems at play. It's the well-meaning friend who out of a mis-guided sense of care pushes her friend from counselling and true behaviour change and instead recommends quick-fixes-and-failures and a return to the destructive behaviour that has got her friend where she is now.

There is no biblical mandate against supporting government, provided it's not done in an idolatrous fashion as many I've met here in the states (Democrat and Republican) do. As for myself, I endure the state under duress, and strive for a society that addresses it's own needs without the need for artificial structures.

[12. JJ said the following at 9:58 PM on Nov 21:]

12

Motte-

A little more than just a coy remark would be helpful. "Interesting?" What is interesting about it?

I suppose you would be correct that "you" are not saying these things, but simply relaying what someone else has already said. But when you end with the divisive remark "So what criteria will you be using when you cast your vote in 2008?" tell me - what are we to take from that?

If I'm mistaken about your political intentions than please forgive me, but may I suggest more clarity in your intentions. Trust me, I am not actively looking for things to complain about (in fact that was my first comment - sorry it wasn't taken so well) but that is just how I interpreted it.

[13. farmer Tom said the following at 10:02 PM on Nov 21:]

13

The Bible is not a voting guide, and it was not written to be a voting guide. I think when we use it to argue who Christians should vote for, we are sadly reducing it to just another political book. The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government.

Sir, you have a very, very inadequate knowledge of the Bible if you really believe the last part of this statement. The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government

I assume that you have not read the last six of the Ten Commandments let me refresh your feeble memory.

5. Honor your father and mother.

That would be the relationship involved in what constitutes a family. Has nothing to do with you and God, rather you and your parents.

6. Thou shall not murder.

Unless you believe that some fool is attempting to murder God, this verse is referring to the relationship between two human beings, again God in not involved in this equation.

7. Thou shall not commit adultery.

Since it would be heretical to suggest that God is involved in sexual activity, one can safely assume that this commandment is referring to two humans of opposite gender, this also assumes that marriage is a good and normal thing, something to be defended and protected.

8. Thou shall not steal.

This involves the unjust taking of ones property by another, theft, (see Income Tax as example) it necessitates two human beings one being the thief one being the property owner, again all God does in this commandment is endorse the right to personal property.

9. Thou shall not bear false witness.
This one should hit very close to home for you personally, since you have asserted something which is blatantly false about the very Word of God, you have misrepresented the Scriptures by claiming that and I quote you,The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government. Son, God's Commandments are the Law, and they are to be obeyed. The compiling of the Law presupposes a form of Government, for it is the role of government to execute judgment on those who break the Law see Romans chapter 13.

10. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors stuff, again as in the previous five this is referring to an act God disapproves of by one human being upon another human.

Each of these six commandments are proscriptions against activities conducted by a human against his fellow man. I have showed you beyond any reasonable doubt that you are incorrect in saying that The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government because much of the Bible is about man's relationship with man.
Does love your neighbor as yourself ring a bell with you?

If the Bible deals with mans relationship with man then it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the Bible does not talk about mans relationship with government. Maybe you should read the following passage son,

1 Peter 2:11-17:

11Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

12Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Now one more time, whats this garbage about The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government. Try reading the Bible once son, you might learn something.

[14. Simon said the following at 10:20 PM on Nov 21:]

14

That the church in Canada is being "protected" seems to mean protected from prosecution under the government's hate crime legislation. If Canada had true limited government, there would be no hate crime legislation to protect the church from (or more appropriately, *exempt* from) in the first place -- it wouldn't need to be protected from the state.

I stand with John's comment about limited government. Restriction #8, IRS harassment of churches for political speech, is especially egregious. I'm surprised Christians are not more vocally opposed to it, even on grounds of principle if they're apolitical -- the principle that the church's peaceful internal affairs are not the business of the state.

And for those of you who think that churches should not be making political speech, it does not automatically follow that the IRS or any arm of the state should be the one who enforces that "should not" as a rule. Maybe people with low IQs or mental illness should not be making political endorsements either. Should the IRS impose higher taxes on those who do?

[15. Jethro said the following at 2:15 AM on Nov 22:]

15

Discussions like this make me furious. Republicans claim some sort of mandate from God, demonize the 'evil baby killing' Democrats and lament the 'communist public schools'. The Bible does not tell us how to vote. You can extract principles from the Bible to advocate whatever voting pattern suits your brand of politics. Republicans point to the role of the church to malign welfare. Democrats point to the mandate for Biblical charity to promote it.

Everyone in these discussions should at least have the honesty to admit that they are coming at things from a certain political angle. That includes Boundless writers, who would do well to disclose their political affiliations. Motte, I'd bet my first born that you're not a registered Democrat. As for me, in case you hadn't figured out, I'm decidedly liberal in my politics, I'm proud of that fact, and no, I don't kill and eat the unborn for fun.

[16. John said the following at 6:18 AM on Nov 22:]

16

Jacob,

AMEN!

[17. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 8:04 AM on Nov 22:]

17

Golly, farmer tom, it saddens me that you wasted your time writing that, since I agree with what you said. I think you looked at my "The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government" comment a BIT too narrowly.

Of course the Bible is about man's relationship with man! If we want to have a good relationship with God, we need good ones with His children. That's why God gave us those commandments! Because when our relationship with man is hurt, our relationship with Him is hurt!

And yes, I agree with you that the Bible has some verses on government. That does not, however, make it ABOUT the government. Nor does it make it a voting guide (as much as John would like to believe it).

Also, I'll politely ask you not to be so condescending. It does nothing to further this conversation, okay?

John:

You make a lot of statements that you don't back up. But, just for the record, I read CitizenLink everyday. And no, it doesn't name a political party... but if you can't tell which party they are pushing you towards, you need to read a few Wikipedia pages on American politics.

"The bible is, in fact, a voting guide and was written as a voting guide."

Seriously? Seriously?! Go ahead and view it that way, and you're bringing it down to the level of other great political books, such as The Communist Manifesto.

[18. k. said the following at 8:50 AM on Nov 22:]

18

I'm rather wary of the language, "God's design for the church, the family and the government." We're a secular democracy, not a theocracy.

As for families having the burden of providing for the poor, then the church -- the society Paul was writing to is very different from ours. I can't see that model working in a society as large and mobile as ours.

[19. k. said the following at 9:03 AM on Nov 22:]

19

Simon -- Whoa! Not quite sure where you're going with the, "Maybe people with low IQs or mental illness should not be making political endorsements either," comment. Where did this comparison come from? It is COMPLETELY different from a church not making a political endorsement. I actually love the fact that churches can't endorse candidates: churches are not PACs, and their primary mission is not to elect people to public office. I'm a huge fan of separation of church and state.

Also, I couldn't tell if you're putting forward the mental illness/low IQ argument because you actually believe it, or if it just occurred to you as an example. If it's the first case, you would appear to have some gaps in your ethical structure. And if it's the second, you could make MUCH better comparisons. Eesh.

[20. farmer Tom said the following at 9:26 AM on Nov 22:]

20

As for me, in case you hadn't figured out, I'm decidedly liberal in my politics, I'm proud of that fact, and no, I don't kill and eat the unborn for fun.

And therein lies the problem. No one accused you of killing and eating the unborn for fun. What we do believe is that you would kill the unborn or encourage others to kill their unborn child out of a desire for personal convenience. I'm to young, I need to finish college first, I don't want stretch marks when I wear my bikini, and of course, we can't leave out, I have no idea who the father is, because I have the morals of a dog in heat.

All of these are excuses for failing to take personal responsibility for ones behavior. So not only are you an advocate of killing a human being made in the image of God Gen 9:5,6 You are also guilty of failing to remind those who do these things that they will someday stand before the Righteous Judge and will give an account for all they have done in this life. Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
How do you think the Creator God, who created man in His image is going to reward someone who kills their unborn child out of convenience?????

A hint, Luke 17:2
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. I hope you will thank God for the gift of life and His gift of Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ.

I can't resist, one more comment.

I'm proud of that fact

Somehow I'm not surprised by that, in fact that's a symptom of a heart condition. Again I quote the Word of God, may it convict you.

Proverbs 6:16-19:

16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Proverbs 21:4
An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.

2 Timothy 3:2
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

James 4:6
But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

[21. Sara said the following at 9:46 AM on Nov 22:]

21

"Defecting to the democratic side means graduating to the Beatitudes. No where are the Christian Republicans "blessed.""

Again, that's from someone's comment on a previous boundless post about 'young white evangelicals'

[22. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 10:27 AM on Nov 22:]

22

Farmer Tom, I think God will deal with someone who gets an abortion for "convenience" (if you really wish to simplify it that far) the same way he will deal with all other sinners.

Also, what's with the blasting of Jethro on his statement about being proud to be liberal? You're publically pointing out the speck in his eye... have you dealt with the plank in your own?

[23. Jo said the following at 2:02 PM on Nov 22:]

23

It still astounds me that American political debate is so polarised. Coming at it from a totally outside perspective, I can see views on both sides that I agree with and views on both sides that I disagree with. I don't remember ever reading a comment on here (this blog being my main education in American politics!) that acknowledges any fault in the commenter's chosen party. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but my overwhelming impression of people here is that you either support one party or the other, and whichever you support, you defend it to the death.

I think the problem of justifying one's political stance using scripture is a real one. That doesn't mean we can't have opinions, and of course we should use our votes wisely to vote for candidates we believe uphold Christian principles, BUT...

I relate to those who've said that we live (both Americans and us Brits) in secular democracies. There's no reason to expect that righteous candidates will be elected. There's no reason to be surprised that homosexuality (for example) is becoming more and more widely accepted. There's no reason to suppose that ANY of our candidates will agree with God's views on morality. While as Christians we have a right to use our votes along Biblical principles, I don't think we have a right to demand that people in authority rule by those principles. A democracy goes with the majority, and the majority are not following Jesus, so how much faith can we place in democracy anyway? Within this system we can protest, petition, and so on and so forth, and we should. But why do we get so pouty when the non-Christian majority win out? It's going to happen. We're foreigners in this world, whichever worldy government we put in charge. If we want everyone to agree with us, we made a mistake choosing Christ.

[24. Simon said the following at 3:47 PM on Nov 22:]

24

k, please clarify -- do you love the fact that churches *can't* make political endorsements, or that they *do not*? If you simply prefer churches when they don't make endorsements, I have no disagreement with you. But the fact is, they *can't* because of the IRS. Do you also, by extension, love the regulation of churches by the IRS?

Regarding the mentally ill, etc, I was playing devil's advocate to demonstrate my point about whether the IRS should be the decider. I wasn't arguing one way or the other, whether they should actually be making political speech. It's just something that some potentially might argue. You may be right... there perhaps are better examples.

[25. Jethro said the following at 4:00 PM on Nov 22:]

25

John,

I don't recall saying that I approved of abortion for 'convenience' reasons. In fact, I don't recall saying I approved of abortions at all. So I don't really think it's quite fair to characterize me as 'an advocate of killing a human being made in the image of God'.

If you apparently feel that it's the government's role to legislate according to your brand of morality, can you tell me why there should not be laws against worshiping other Gods, creating graven idols, adultery, bearing false witness, coveting, or any others of the 10 commandments? Once you start legislating your morality John, where do you stop? More to the point, if you get to legislate yours, then don't a Muslim and a Zoroastrian have just as legitimate a right to legislate theirs?

To address your last point, whatever it was meant to be, there's nothing more sinful about being a proud liberal than being a proud conservative, or than being proud to be from Kentucky (which I'm not).

[26. Kit said the following at 6:20 PM on Nov 22:]

26

Agreed, Jethro and Canadian Boy. Well said.

The Bible was written for the Israelites and their early pre-Jesus governments. It in no way, shape or form deals with contemporary politics in America.

As for America, we were founded on Christian principles, not belifs. These are two vastly different things. In fact, most of our founding fathers were only diests at best. The Bible is a guide for Christians, but outside of the Christian system of belief, has very little meaning to anyone else. It is not fair to take one religion and use it's morals as the sole standard for an entire nation when Christianity never existed as the national religion. America was and always will be founded, in fact, on religious freedom. Taking Christian beliefs and "shoving them down" others' throats doesn't seem to be the best way to make the nation become more moral. I think it would only create more problems.

As for me, I vote for economic issues first and moral issues second. Finding a successful system of healthcare for all Americans tops my list, as well as making sure we do our best to curb the devastating effects of global warming before we destroy our beautiful earth. Next are issues like education and international relations.

[27. John said the following at 7:04 PM on Nov 22:]

27

The bible is much much more than a voting book, but it is at least that.

It covers all of our life. It is our guide for every decision, especially one as important has who to vote for.

Jethro,
I'm not sure what you are refering to. I never made comments concerning what you're addressing. I'm not saying you're reading into anything I said, I'm planely saying I didn't comment about anything you were refering to.

To address your points, this is what I've been saying over and over again.

Jacob nailed it on the head. There is no neutrality.

That's why the founders created a Republic, with checks and balances and separation of powers.

The idea was that no one person or group could dominate the country.

There desire to limit government was wise. They knew how easily power could be abused. It had to be parciled.

We see it in all of the denominations. Wherever you go people are people. They have opinions and want to force everyone to do things their way.

That's why our government is the best, it requires a person and group to work extremely hard to convince enough people to support a particular point of view. Even after a majority supports something, there is still the very deliberate process of making laws and enforcing them.

The sad part being that many people support many stupid ideas, like government schools and socialist health care. (Hurray for one person, one vote)

Don't worry, though, in the future if the Democrats gain power, we'll have Sharia law after the Muslims take us over. Then we won't have to worry about a thing! It will all be decided for us.

I thank God for being born in this country! I thank God for saving me! I thank God for all the blessings in my life.

Happy Thanksgiving!

[28. farmer Tom said the following at 8:48 PM on Nov 22:]

28

Jo, There is so much in your last comment that I would like to pick apart, but I have neither the time nor any burning desire to waste what little time I have to correct your misconceptions. I'll stick to two comments.

First, You said, I don't remember ever reading a comment on here (this blog being my main education in American politics!) that acknowledges any fault in the commenter's chosen party. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but my overwhelming impression of people here is that you either support one party or the other, and whichever you support, you defend it to the death.

Let me be perfectly clear and say this very slow. I was an active member of the Republican party, I was on the party board for the county I live in, and have been campaign chairman in my county for Republican candidates in the past.

I have not voted for a Republican for President in 12 years, I have not voted for a Republican for Senate for eight years, ops I take that back, there are two Senate seats, one is a fairly conservative Republican I voted for him, but the other seat is held by a pro-baby killing, communist sympathizer, who is anathema to everything I believe and the Republicans ran a pro-baby killing doctor against him. I have not voted for a Republican for governor in eight years, the last two were a shyster lawyer, slicker than Slick Willie and a spineless career politican who stood for absolutely nothing except getting his butt elected.

So yes I'm a republican, but my party has left me. The democrats are socialist, baby-killing, sodomites, and the republicans are trying hard to be the same thing.

So I vote based on a different standard. Some day I will stand before the Righteous Judge and give account for my life. He will ask if I did everything in my power to protect the lives of the innocent, the unborn created in His image? Did I support politicians who ignored His natural Laws, Thou shall not kill, etc. Did I support politicians who stole from one group, (the rich) and gave that money to groups favored by those same politicians? Did I support politicians who consider sodomy to be normal natural behavior, and even gave those people legal standing as "married" people?

See I vote based on Biblical principles. Some here don't like that, they think we ought to pretend that God doesn't care about human behavior and government, I think they're wrong.

Did you notice something I don't like either party. Now how does that fit with your perceptions???

And that leads to the second thing, A democracy goes with the majority, and the majority are not following Jesus, so how much faith can we place in democracy anyway?

That statement is correct in that we should not place trust in a democracy, I agree.

But this country was not supposed to be a democracy. The founders wanted a Constitutional Representative Republic. They did not like democracies for the very reason you mentioned. They wanted a system of government that was bound by the Law, God Natural Law written on the human heart. That government was to be bound by the Law to do nothing unless it was specifically granted in the Constitution. The Representatives of the people were to be bound by that Law as well. See, "Congress shall make no Law." They believed rights came from the Creator, that government would take away those rights if it could.

The United States of America is not supposed to be a democracy.

Sadly we have become a socialist welfare state, pretty much like you Brits'. What a sad state of affairs.

[29. Jo said the following at 10:43 PM on Nov 22:]

29

farmer Tom,
I wonder if sometimes you have the 'misconception' that I hang around here just to criticise the American political system. Just to clarify, I don't. I fully accept that a) I'm English and my understanding of the American political system is very limited, and b) there are many many problems with the British political system, some of which I recognise, some of which I probably don't because I'm too close to it. I just feel that sometimes my thoughts may be helpful because I'm a complete outsider with no loyalties or party affiliations etc, and I think it is useful sometimes to see how things are viewed from outside. I know that it's been interesting for me to hear some people's opinions of the British 'socialist welfare state' as you call it. So please don't think that I'm attacking your country, I don't ever intend that and I'm sorry if I come across that way.

The second two paragraphs of my comment weren't really about America but about politics in general (in both our countries). I wasn't making a judgment about the merits or problems of a democracy, my point really was that all human political systems will have their faults, and none will be the perfect biblical model in a culture where the majority are not following Jesus. I don't totally understand your concept of a 'Constitutional Representative Republic' (I've never heard that term before), feel free to expand if you wish. But in a democracy, I think we have a responsibility to vote according to our Christian convictions (which may not lead to the same choice for every person). But at the same time, the world is against God and I think we shouldn't be surprised by that. Whether we're under a dictatorship, a democracy or a 'socialist welfare state', we're called to a) submit (first to God and then to our government) and to b) live as Christians in this fallen world.

[30. Jethro said the following at 5:59 AM on Nov 23:]

30

John,

Sorry, I was intending to direct my comments to Farmer Tom.

In any case, there is a question I would like to ask: whatever ideological objections you may have to state run health care/education, can't they be shelved for the sake of the millions who benefit from such programs? I know my ideology isn't more important than someone receiving life saving medical treatment (and that's not even addressing the fact health care should be both universal and free). Is yours?

Farmer Tom,
Glad to hear you've jettisoned democracy. Whatever credibility you had left is these arguments is now long gone. I appreciate you showing your true colors though.

Moderators,

How on earth did this comment from Farmer Tom "the democrats are socialist, baby-killing, sodomites" make it through the approvals process when so many comments of mine (and I'd wager others) have not? Is there ANY guideline as to what is/is not printable here? Or is it just all conservative all the time?

[31. John said the following at 1:30 PM on Nov 23:]

31

Can anything be more unfortunate and sad then someone who thinks their christian, and not be.

[32. Jordan Peacock said the following at 1:47 PM on Nov 23:]

32

I just finished reading A.J. Jacobs 'The Year Of Living Biblically' (which I would highly recommend), but one of the interesting notes is how he had to deal with interpretations and what to stress.

There are between 3 and 7 thousand english translations of the bible. There are sects for every variance: Samaritans offering animal sacrifice, snake-handlers, kabbalists and homosexual evangelicals. Each claims to have a corner on the interpretation market; there may be merits to what others say, but what they say is the truth.

At the same time I read the graphic novel Cairo, where a magical box held the word 'East', and the power came not from the word, but the word and the person reading it.

The point is; you can be the most tripped up liberal and still find someone who will tread on your sacred cows. You can be the bastion of fundamentalism and still get berated for neglecting an essential spiritual discipline.

The arguments over conservative/liberal politics, actions, while well intentioned, are largely exercises in futility, for the reasons mentioned above. By all means let us grow each other by conversation, but peacefully.

The concept of man's responsibility to man is a high point of the breed of anarchism I was advocating above; all the laws and the prophets may be fulfilled, even with minimal enforced structure.

The beauty of true freedom is it is not dependent upon circumstances, but upon spirit. One can therefore live as free in the most oppressive fascist regime, and flourish. The opportunities for martyrdom may come much more readily, but that is a side not; the Christian's response to government and society is "That's all well and good but...have you seen the kingdom of heaven?" It's a focus shift that doesn't idolize or demean; it mostly ignores. On the fantastic Jesus Manifesto blog recently one of the people who was assigned jury duty politely declined, citing a number of reasons but the theme was that as a Christian, they were called to justice and mercy, and acting in support of the government and the courts could compromise them on this.

Would love to hear any of your thoughts on this; it doesn't sound like a position many of you are aware of, and I would be interested in your reactions.

[33. Paul said the following at 10:41 PM on Nov 23:]

33

(I'm expecting the typical "stay out of this" shove I usually get when I hop into a debate like this, but I couldn't resist)...

Farmer Tom, I have to agree with you on how the political parties have lost you. However, I see no reason why we can't work with what we have to save unborn lives. News flash, not all Democrats are "baby-killing monsters." The real problem is with planned parenthood and national conviction, not with policy makers. If the American public was convinced that abortion was wrong, it'd be illegal in a snap, but they don't, and that's where our work should be. We need to elect politicians who will allow us to do our work, not to do our work for us.

And John, I agree with you more over here... I thought you'd like to know that. :) (although I never understood the whole "I think I'm Christian but I'm really not idea" my ex-girlfriend used to think that and I never got it then either. It seems like just a cop-out that downgrades the fact that we all sin and that there are sinners among us all, even in the Body of Christ.)

[34. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 11:00 PM on Nov 23:]

34

"Can anything be more unfortunate and sad then someone who thinks their christian, and not be."

Only God knows.

[35. Alex C. said the following at 11:15 PM on Nov 23:]

35

How exactly do you get itallics in these posts? I noticed that Farmer Tom was using them. Anyway, my last comment didn't seem to go through (either that, or it got deleted O_O). It seems most of what I was going to say was already said though.

From John's post, way back near the beginning: "Our government can do whatever the constitution or an amendment to the constitution allows it to do. (legally speaking)"

I know; the point I was making was that the actions some voters wish the goverment to take are actions that it can't take without firt changing the constitution, through a new ammendment or such (in theory of course. Its arguable whether the goverment actually does what the constitution says it can or can't do. The recent Kelo case is an interesting example)

"I don't totally understand your concept of a 'Constitutional Representative Republic' (I've never heard that term before), feel free to expand if you wish."

I think he was mainly referring to how the federal goverment has increased its powers over time. Originally, the federal goverment was supposed to have very very limited power (like, declaring war, taxes, and that's about it, from what I recall), while the state goverments were supposed to have a whole lot of power. But now its reversed.

[36. Kit said the following at 11:20 PM on Nov 23:]

36

Jethro,
Well said again. Exactly my feelings on healthcare, etc.

John,

for the record..The GOP is not synomous with Christianity. I know plenty of Democrats who are Christians (myself included), and plenty of (gasp!) Republicans who are not.

Jordan,
Interesting ideas, much agreed. I think about Anne Frank a lot when thinking about someone who was 'free' within oppression. Also Corrie Ten Boom.

[37. Simon said the following at 5:55 AM on Nov 24:]

37

Jordan, that's an interesting perspective, turning down jury duty for the stated reason.

I did some searching. I assume this is what you're referring to: http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/?p=862

I wonder if the guy has heard of jury nullification -- whereby the jurors decide not only whether the defendant broke the law, but whether the law itself is just. Thus, they can vote not guilty simply because they disagree with the law in question.

Jury nullification is a legal tradition that dates back to colonial times in America, if not further. The legal establishment does not believe in it anymore -- judges will tell you that you are to accept the law as it is given to you.

What else could the conscientious objector have done? He could have signed up for jury duty, then voted not guilty, sparing the defendant of the punishment. (Looking at the aforementioned blog post, I don't see anything about what the crime was, so we can only guess) Or more realistically, he would speak up about his intention to think for himself and nullify any law that he thought was unjust. Then he would have been dismissed, but perhaps would have made an impact on those watching.

Is that how we as believers should approach a corrupt or unjust system -- active engagement as opposed to passive retreat? I'd like to what the rest of you think.

[38. Michelle said the following at 9:11 PM on Nov 24:]

38

Farmer Tom said:
"So I vote based on a different standard. Some day I will stand before the Righteous Judge and give account for my life. He will ask if I did everything in my power to protect the lives of the innocent, the unborn created in His image? Did I support politicians who ignored His natural Laws, Thou shall not kill, etc."

I do not know of any Bible verses that say we will be asked about our voting records on Judgment Day. However, I do recall the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25) where Jesus said he will welcome those who gave him something to eat when he was hungry, cared for him when he was sick, and visited him when he was in prison.

No political philosophy will lead us on the path to salvation. I know that's not what you were saying, but I think we need to keep the big picture of Christ's redeeming power and love at the forefront instead of getting carried away on the issues of the day.

[39. farmer Tom said the following at 9:35 PM on Nov 24:]

39

Jethro said,

Moderators,

How on earth did this comment from Farmer Tom "the democrats are socialist, baby-killing, sodomites" make it through the approvals process when so many comments of mine (and I'd wager others) have not? Is there ANY guideline as to what is/is not printable here? Or is it just all conservative all the time

Liberals like you seem to have cognitive dissonance. You talk choice and someone dies. We show you from scripture passages that show Scripture clearly teaches that life begins prior to live birth, yet you ignore Scripture and emote instead.

Truth be known, your beliefs are incompatible with Biblical Christianity. And it offends you when those of us who do not share your non-biblical worldview. Jethro when life is just an expendable blob of tissue, when sexual deviancy is considered normal, you have passed over into the realm of Romans 1:19-32, and I do genuinely fear for your eternal soul. Read the culmination of Paul's legal argument in Romans 2:1,2, ie that we are without excuse, and that we will be judged by God according to the the truth.

Don't complain to the Moderators. It has nothing to do with liberal and conservative. It has everything to do with the TRUTH. Jesus prayed to the Father, "17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." John 17:17

If you are offended by the Truth of God's Word don't blame me, change your beliefs. I may be harsh, blunt, pointed and divisive, but my opinions come from the Word of Truth. If you disagree, bring the Truth of Scripture to bear, prove me wrong.

[40. John said the following at 10:12 PM on Nov 24:]

40

Jethro,

That's my point, socialist medicine/education actually harms millions of people, not help them.

Socialism will destroy this great nation.

It simply does not work. Socialism is flawed no matter what the justification (education, health care, environment)

Look, understand, prices and profits are not evil, they are necessary. They are as necessary as water and air. They are as honest as the law of gravity. Capitalism is the best economic policy to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and provide shelter for them.

Liberals often want to quote Jesus and his words about carrying for the poor in support of socialist/communist policies. They've got it totally wrong. They're actually harming the very people they proport to help AND the people most in position to give help (middle class).

I've learned much from Thomas Sowell. I would recommend him to anyone who wants a straightforward and clear presentation of the simple facts about economics. His books are Basic Economics and Applied Economics among others.

Lastly, our form and structure of government is not a democracy. More and more it is being pushed towards a democracy but it still is not one.

[41. farmer Tom said the following at 6:50 AM on Nov 25:]

41

What is a republic?

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=11

[42. Chris said the following at 10:43 AM on Nov 25:]

42

Some thoughts after reading the many comments on this topic:

1) The Bible often talks of rulers and kings. We have no such things here in the US. We have representatives that we elect to make decisions for us. We have executives we elect to enforce the laws made by the representatives we elected to make decisions for us. There are no rulers. All these references to obeying rulers were written at a time when the concept of democratic forms of government were limited at best. They reek of divine right, an evil we abolished long ago.

2) The purpose of government should be to protect individuals, not institutions such as marriage or church. The second you make the argument that government should not interfere with family, church, marriage, etc., you set it upon the path to tyranny. Replace family with the proletariat, the socialist revolution, or whatever, it doesn't matter. It's all the same thing: government advancing the interests of a group over the rights of the individual. Religious freedom comes from the rights of the individual, not the church. This is an important point that many seem to be ignoring.

Government should have no power to interfere with family, church, business, sexual activity among adults, free speech, etc. because those rights belongs to individuals, not families, churches, business, the press, etc.

[43. obewan said the following at 9:16 AM on Nov 26:]

43

Farmer Tom: If you don't believe in democracy, feel free to stop voting any time.

[44. Jacob Douvier said the following at 1:36 PM on Nov 26:]

44

Chris,

Institutions are the foundations of culture. If you fail to protect these things you will have nothing worth governing. I think you fail to understand just what exactly a right it. What you describe has more to do with license than liberty.

Yes individuals are important, as they are each in the image of God, but when you sacrifice education, Church and family, things that make us more fully human, you only serve to attenuate the individual.

[45. Jethro said the following at 5:46 PM on Nov 26:]

45

Oh Farmer Tom,

I do not consider my beliefs to be incompatible with the Bible and I certainly don't consider you an sort of authority on the interpretation of the book.

I'm glad you fear for my eternal soul though, it means I must be doing something right.

John,

I think you're confusing Socialism as a system of government (not my favorite) with the provision of basic and essential government services like health and education - something all forms of government should do.

Note though, that the Bible doesn't endorse capitalism any more than it endorses communism, democracy or anything else, so please don't claim some scriptural mandate for your position. In any event, our fundamental disagreement seems to be over the effectiveness of trickle down economics. I don't believe it feeds the poor at all, you do. I'm right.

[46. Kate said the following at 6:05 PM on Nov 26:]

46

I might be a little late in the game on joining this conversation... but one major thing I have trouble understanding is why so many "Christian" "conservatives" who vehemently oppose the welfare state (for any reasons) aren't banding together and stepping up to provide sustaining aid to the poor through self-initiated, self-funded private charity.

The Bible doesn't say "the least of these" brothers of Christ should be left to starve, live in illness, be generally ignored, etc. for any reason. In fact, it's precisely the opposite perspective. (Such as the difference between sheep and goats in Matthew 25!). Jesus doesn't mention excluding people who are in a bad position in life because of their own actions. He doesn't mention being able to get out of your responsibility to give freely of the gifts he's given you in order to protect your right to private property that you honestly earned. All it it says, if you fed me, you're a sheep. If you refused to feed me, you're a goat. No ifs, ands, ors, buts or exceptions.

I am by no means proposing that the welfare state cares for people as sufficiently or efficiently as possible.

I guess my point is... if private citizens actually did take care of one another, the government wouldn't have a reason to bother. (I suspect politicians would be pleased to be relieved of the burden, unless of course it were to personally put them out of a job!)

It is great to follow your personal convictions and help out those around you when they are standing in front of you asking for help. We should all follow those sort of gut instincts more! Still, individual private citizens may be unwilling or unable to sufficiently provide for everyone in need, especially when they may not encounter many people who are in need. If this is the case, is it really Christian to say "whoops" or "well, we tried," and leave anyone left unserved in this private individual system of aid? Especially when considering that Matthew 25 passage?

Or in that sense, can there be some positives to the welfare system (despite many possible or definite flaws!)?

[47. Alan Grey said the following at 8:24 PM on Nov 26:]

47

The Hebrew government was also involved in helping the poor, with creation of the year of jubilee, and rules for harvesting to allow the poor to glean.

[48. Will H. said the following at 9:21 PM on Nov 26:]

48

Jacob Douvier summed up what I was about to type....several of the comments in here seem to be of a nature of seperation of church and state and that the Bible should not have anything to do with how our government acts, or how we should vote. Honestly this is something that has surprised me.

You guys know America was FOUNDED on biblical principles? At one time our society did have a moral backbone. It was not until we as a nation decided there was no need for the Bible or it's law in our government that we started on the decline as a society that we find ourselves on today. Without moral, biblically based laws, chaos ensues. That is why it is critical to have Godly men in leadership and in the government.

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan." (Proverbs 29:2)

I definitely do not believe we should be a Theocracy. But I do firmly believe that the government should uphold to Biblical truths. This failure to take a stand on key Biblical issues is what really gets me. No one wants to offend someone who is disobeying a Biblical mandate especially in this time of "political correctness"

Everyone should be free to do what they want, when they want. The government is there to protect individual's rights... BULL! I don't believe it should be pressed on citizens in legalistic manner but I do believe that governments, especially one such as ours founded as a God fearing nation should stand upon a rock and hold steady to Biblical mandates! I am tired of this wishy washy government ours has become.

The reason it has become wishy washy? Our society has lost the truth, and without truth you have nothing to hold you to solid footing and eventually you give way in your beliefs and morals. Sadly this is exactly what has happened in the United States.

"Therefore justice is far from us, Nor does righteousness overtake us; We look for light, but there is darkness!
For brightness, but we walk in blackness!" (Isaiah 59:9)

[49. Simon said the following at 9:56 PM on Nov 26:]

49

Jacob, I don't think Chris is denying that those things should not be protected. His point is that it is not the government's job to do it. It is up to each and every one of us to do that. Please don't equate asking government to stay out of them with sacrificing them.

Government has also done its part to interfere with and undermine the family and the church (see above posts). Expecting it to protect them is asking it to solve a problem that it helped to produce.

[50. John said the following at 8:28 AM on Nov 27:]

50

Jethro,

The bible supports capitalism. You can believe whatever you want, that's not going to change. I don't believe trickle down anything.

Study the bible, then you will understand.

[51. John said the following at 8:30 AM on Nov 27:]

51

Kate,

Christians do do that! We could do more, however, if the government didn't steal so much money from us.

[52. John said the following at 8:35 AM on Nov 27:]

52

Kate,

The church does what you say and has always done it.

The government, however, over the last century has constantly marginalized the church by extorting money from the citizenry for its Nanny state programs.

No, Kate, there are no positives to the welfare state. None. It only perverts incentives and hurts the very people its proponents say it is made to help.

THE WELFARE STATE IS UNBIBLICAL!

Charity is biblical.

[53. Robert J Espe said the following at 10:36 AM on Nov 27:]

53

Boundless author Roberto Rivera y Carlo is a "single-issue voter liberal". He leans to the left politically but always votes pro-life, because Christians are commanded to (Prov 24:11-13).

http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000931.html

I'm a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist. I voted for James Oberstar (DFL) even though I don't agree with a lot of stuff he does because he was the only pro-life candidate (for MN representative) last election who wouldn't also vote to send my guard buddies to Iran. I vote Constitution party if possible, after that I just pick the best candidate I can find. First criteria is pro-life, then I filter the other issues based on how they affect me locally (I guess I'm a tree-hugging, green peace, hippy who believes in buying his own health care, a strong navy and well defended borders).

[54. Jo said the following at 10:59 AM on Nov 27:]

54

John:
"We could do more, however, if the government didn't steal so much money from us."

Oh please stop with the 'woe is me, the government steals all my money' stuff. We could ALL do more. Fact. Taxes are no excuse for decreased generosity. That's 'every man for himself' mentality and it's not Biblical. I couldn't care less how much the state is taking from you, you're still in the top 1% of the world moneywise, so stop whining about the evils of socialism and show the world that Christians can take care of the poor without the government's help. The more we use taxes as an excuse to shirk that responsibility, the more they will tax us because somehow or other, the poor need to be fed.

[55. JB said the following at 11:19 AM on Nov 27:]

55

Will H,

When was this time when our country kept to biblical principles and had a moral backbone? As I see it, our society has vastly improved since the founding. We no longer hold 1/3 of the population to be property, women and the poor are legally equal, and we've stopped killing and removing Native Americans from valuable land. These are all major steps forward that, I think, vastly outweigh any negative aspects of contemporary society.

[56. obewan said the following at 11:29 AM on Nov 27:]

56

John: Your suggestion of the existence of a “welfare state” is an insult to the working poor and tens of thousands of homeless people that struggle daily just to survive.

The last time I checked, Bill Clinton had cancelled “welfare” and forced tens of thousands of people to either work at McDonalds, or find the homeless shelter.

Lets focus on the working poor, since no one really wants to become homeless. My home state of Michigan LOST over 50,000 jobs in 2004. I was included in that statistic, and at the same time became sick. I lost over $200,000 and was unemployed (through no fault of my own) for over 5 years. With 2 BS degrees, and 20 years of engineering experience, no one would hire me - even to scrub toilets at $6 and hour. Finally, I found a job and moved 1800 miles to take it.

Upon arriving in FL, I became involved in ministry to the homeless through my church. Were they druggies and alcoholics or lazy? NOT! On one Saturday, we fed over 400 families who had all their earthly belongings in a backpack. Many were only days away from their NEW job at Wal-Mart at $6 an hour to support a family of 4. It goes without saying, they could not afford housing, and we wondered how they would ever survive. The homeless shelter was supported with PRIVATE funding (corporations and churches), and our church could never take up the slack on it’s own.

It goes without saying, that one job of government is the enforcement of living wage laws. There is only one party in America that has consistently lobbied for fair and needed raises to the minimum wage. Such fairness is NOT welfare, or a “nanny state”. It has been shown that communities that adopt “living wage” laws fair better overall in terms of quality of life, crime, lack of homeless, etc…

I have experienced every thing from $1.50/hour to 6 figures as far as wages, and have to say that my struggles have forced me to be more compassionate toward the working poor and the homeless. I do not believe in trickle down economics, because capitalism left unbridled by fairness laws will exploit the poor. Think of all the slave children in third world countries working for a few dollars a day. In some cases, they toil away 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no time off or health care – so we can have $8 shirts at Wal-Mart.

[57. Alex C. said the following at 1:57 PM on Nov 27:]

57

"I definitely do not believe we should be a Theocracy. But I do firmly believe that the government should uphold to Biblical truths. "

But the thing is, I can't see how the goverment can do that WITHOUT becoming a theocracy. How can our goverment openly "uphold biblical truth" without violating the right to religious freedom that our constitution gurantees? It can't, at least as far as I can see.

[58. Jethro said the following at 3:33 PM on Nov 27:]

58

John,

You've opened my eyes. You are totally correct. I'd drive to your house and thank you, except that there is no Biblical mandate for the creation of a national road network. It was built by the welfare state with money stolen from people, so I'm no longer using it. Come to think of it, you shouldn't either.

[59. brx said the following at 4:21 PM on Nov 27:]

59

I find it funny - no, prideful and possibly hypocritical when Christians boast that America as a nation was founded on Biblical principles. There are some in the declarations, but Americans in general are quick to become puffed up with pride, forgetting that their nation was born out of violent and bloody rebellion (against another 'Christian' nation) sparked by a _fraction_ of a percent increase in tax. In Jesus' time, the governmental oppression was in many ways the same and Peter was quite ready - sword at his side - to join the fighting rebellion, yet Jesus told him 'no'.

I think Peter finally realized what Jesus was trying to teach him, that no laws nor government system, nor idealism can accomplish what the Father and his plans can - and will.

Grace, peace, and adventure - even in politics!

PS: I think one can build a slightly stronger Biblical case in support of communism - not in the sense of rights and worth granted by the state but in the sense of everyone is equal, everyone contributes as they can, and all property is for the benefit of all. [the reason it's not practical here is because of our sinful, corrupted nature]

[60. Kit said the following at 4:43 PM on Nov 27:]

60

Thank you, obewan. Excellent points and very well articulated.

[61. Kate said the following at 5:09 PM on Nov 27:]

61

John,
I was of course not trying to discredit the good work being done by Christians (and others) in aid to those in need. I certainly agree that charity is Biblical! Still, as I said before... if private charity was operating in a comprehensive and sufficient way, people would be able to get the aid they need from private citizens, and the government would be pleased to wash their hands of the responsibility of dealing with the poor.

I am left wondering if you have ever experienced a time in life when all you had to your name was $100 and a backpack of old clothes? (or something like that) Also wondering if you have interacted with anyone from the homeless, welfare or working poor population, and if so, in what capacity? I think this is important to know in trying to understand your perspective.

Also, what Biblical references can you give to support your position that capitalism is Biblical and welfare has no place in that system, as you define it? Based on my present reading of the Bible, I can't quite figure out the basis for your position.

[62. John said the following at 8:22 PM on Nov 27:]

62

You can take the minimum wage and put it some where.

If politicians really cared about a "fair" wage (whatever that is) they would simply index it to inflation.

The "only" party you're talking about, Democrats, yes, they are very good at using the poor to prop up their careers!

[63. John said the following at 8:27 PM on Nov 27:]

63

Capitalism is biblical. Humans are fallen.

Humans harm people, not capitalism.

"Few dollars a day". Wow, that's pretty good for a third world "slave" child. More than they would make otherwise.

Yep, you got it. Wal-Mart is the evil poster child of capitalism. Actually, they have slave labor all over the world. That's why they're so rich and nobody can do anything against them. Lets destroy those capitalist pigs before they take our children to use in their gulags!

[64. John said the following at 8:34 PM on Nov 27:]

64

Allan,

To which "hebrew government" are you refering?

Moses, the tribes, the judges, the kings?

I believe the year of jubilee to be something we should do today.

[65. John said the following at 8:40 PM on Nov 27:]

65

Ah, it looks like JB has been drinking the victims u.s. history kool-aid.

Nobody even bother trying to undo that brainwashing. Our government indoctrination centers have been allowed far too much free rein to stamp "America bad, bad, bad" onto simple minds.

[66. Mike Corum said the following at 7:56 AM on Nov 28:]

66

Just came across this today, Nov. 28, 2007.

I am dismayed at the vitriol in responses from avowed Christians. Whatever happened to "Speaking the truth in love", Ephesians 4:15?

I doubt that any one of us can truly say that we have the complete truth on any given subject. As noted by others, there are Christians in both political parties, and I'm sure atheists and agnostics as well. It is easy to take a verse or passage of Scripture to support a particular point of view. When using the Bible as a guide, we must take the entire Book into consideration.

That said, let us also remember that we are created in the image of God. God revealed Himself through His Word, and through His Son Jesus. I don't recall Jesus fighting against government, but He did have some disputes with self-righteous religious folks. Maybe we need to take our cue from Him.

I would hope that each of us would examine the candidates for any political office, consider their past actions as well as their "stand" on the issues. Make this a prayerful consideration, and then vote as we feel led of God. Even then, no doubt there will be differences of opinion as to whom God would have us support. He didn't leave us a list of acceptable candidates. It may be that He wanted us to spend time with Him, and felt that if we prayed we would at least accomplish that much.

I believe that if the church, and by that I mean the people, not the buildings and organizations, if the church had fed the poor, cared for the sick, visited those in prison, there would have been no need for the government to take over these duties. The more Christians abdicate their responsibilities, the more the world may have to step in and take over in those areas.

Regarding whether or not government welfare has helped or hindered the recipients, I would urge folks to do some research, and not rely on the pat answers provided by political party platforms and those who make them. The same would be true of global warming. Shouting each other down doesn't really solve anything, although those who shout the loudest frequently win out as they drive any opposition out of the public arena.

II Chronicles 7:14, though addressed to the nation of Israel, may certainly be applied to Christians in America today. It doesn't call on unbelievers, but rather enjoins those called by the name of God to humble ourselves, confess our sins, and turn from our wicked ways. May we do this is my heart's desire and prayer to God.

To Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy), italic is started with the letter "i" between the < and the >. If I type the command here, you won't see it. You end it with a slash followed by the letter "i" between the same two characters. You can also use a "b" to begin and end bold. There are probably others, but that should get you started.

[67. Motte said the following at 9:16 AM on Nov 28:]

67

Thanks for your comment Mike Corum. Well said.

[68. John said the following at 10:17 AM on Nov 28:]

68

"I believe that if the church, and by that I mean the people, not the buildings and organizations, if the church had fed the poor, cared for the sick, visited those in prison, there would have been no need for the government to take over these duties. The more Christians abdicate their responsibilities, the more the world may have to step in and take over in those areas."

Motte,

Well said? I think not. You should no better then to believe this lie. Politicians started government handouts to gain more power, NOT because Christians weren't doing a good enough job.

[69. JB said the following at 11:02 AM on Nov 28:]

69

I wonder what an entirely private system of charity would need to look like if it was to replace current government programs. It seems to me that in some areas (providing food and clothing, for example) local churches and organizations would generally be able to meet the needs of their communities. Particularly well-funded churches might be able to help out with housing needs as well.

I think that kind of system would break down, though, when you talk about medical care. Medicare and Medicaid cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and other health care programs like the Ryan White Care Act cost billions of dollars more. And beyond the sheer cost of medical care, costs are unevenly distributed in time and space. A single poor parishioner who had, say, lung cancer, could easily incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills in a short period of time. There aren't many local churches with that kind of money on hand.

Only huge national organizations could support the kind of health care charity expenditures that would be needed absent government programs. Is that really a practical solution?

[70. JB said the following at 11:22 AM on Nov 28:]

70

John,

I never said that America is solely "bad, bad, bad" but I would argue that it never had a time of pure biblical morality. It's always been a mixed bag. Slavery happened, unequal political representation happened (and still does, to an extent), and genocide committed against Native Americans happened (or, at least, war and forcible removal happened if you don't care for the g-word.) If I'm wrong about any of these facts, please tell me, but I don't think I'm on shaky ground here.

I think that some conservatives idolize (and I mean to use that word) the founders and some mythical golden age of American history which never occurred. We should remember that the Fall happened before the founding of the United States, not some time in the 60s.

[71. John said the following at 12:54 PM on Nov 28:]

71

JB,

Thank you. Just like everyone else on here you keep proving the point that government involvement INCREASES costs and LOWERS effectiveness and efficiency.

There are a number of variables that people are not considering when they talk about "costs" of medical care.

Much of the "costs" would not be there if people had to pay more out of pocket expenses for minor medical care. They would also be able to afford better emergency plans because the premiums would be lower.

You and everyone else are basing costs on TODAY'S system, where government beauracracy has already messed up the prices of care.

You are all seriously underestimating the free market and the body of Christ.

[72. John said the following at 1:02 PM on Nov 28:]

72

"We should remember that the Fall happened before the founding of the United States, not some time in the 60s."

I like that and while I would agree with you that there are people guilty of idolizing the past, there are those who are equally guilty of demonizing it.

This is the greatest country that has ever existed, bar none. Not the perfectest (I meant to spell it that way) country that's ever existed, but the best.

One thing I try very hard to inform people of is federalism and states' powers. These are social studies concepts that are rarely taught, along with regions and locations. People don't apply these concepts when looking at America's past.

Much of the "bad" that was done was in a region and at a local level. Sometimes supported by federal government, but, even then, not something that an entire country supported. History is much more complex then people realize.

It's easy to criticize from afar.

Taking everything into consideration, compared to all of history, not just our own, we're on top, followed closely by England!

[73. Will H. said the following at 1:11 PM on Nov 28:]

73

JB I know my comments might have sounded like it but I am in no way one of the mindset that the time of our founding was the golden age of our government and we need to "get back" there. I also don't think we had a "pure biblical" morality system even then, people are not pure or perfect. But I do think the morality of the country as a whole was much more to a biblical leaning than it is today. I believe the reason for this was people of strong character and a belief in God and the Bible were in leadership in our government.

[74. Kit said the following at 3:53 PM on Nov 28:]

74

John said,
Yep, you got it. Wal-Mart is the evil poster child of capitalism. Actually, they have slave labor all over the world. That's why they're so rich and nobody can do anything against them. Lets destroy those capitalist pigs before they take our children to use in their gulags!

Actually, John, although I think you menat to be sarcastic, this is exactly why many people don't shop at Wal Mart. Because it is a terrible buisness, treats it's employees like junk, and many don't want to support it.

I want to ask, like someone else did, have you ever had a time when you were poor and could not afford life? Or known anyone?

[75. Jethro said the following at 4:04 PM on Nov 28:]

75

John,

I'm glad you consider child slaves earning $2 a day lucky to have a job. It clarifies for me just how far out on the right you are and it consoles me to know that, thank God, you are not representative of Christendom.

I'm bowing out of this conversation now, as the saying goes, 'argue with a fool and people may not be able to tell the difference'. I'm sure you feel the same about me.

[76. Jo said the following at 4:51 PM on Nov 28:]

76

John said:
"Taking everything into consideration, compared to all of history, not just our own, we're on top, followed closely by England!"

What, followed closely by a socialist welfare state like us? Surely not!

[77. farmer Tom said the following at 6:31 PM on Nov 28:]

77

Jo,

Shut off the sarcasm switch for a second, and put on your historical knowledge cap.

Now name a system of government anywhere in the world, in all of recorded history, which produced a freer,more hardworking, ambitious and prosperous people than the United States of America.

Now when your done. We will all feel free to ridicule your last post.

Old England, not the step-child that is modern England, is similar in structure to the Old United States of America.

The problem is that the current US government is an illegitimate offspring of an adulteress relationship between a socialist harlot and the original founders.
Most of you want to embrace this child of an illicit union by claiming that this Ishmael is heir to the family legacy.

What I what, and those who are originalists's what is to send the Ishmael away and embrace Isaac with open arms. Return to the original plan, the plan that worked for our first 100 years.

Jo, I understand that you did not grow up with the system of government we are supposed to have in the USA, please read the link I gave above, look up Constitutional Republic on Google. Read everything you can find there, you need to understand they system the founders intended, that way you can evaluate it in light of Truth, the Word of God.

I really don't care what system of government we have if it is Biblical. The question is what form of government is closest to the Biblical patterns God has established in His Word. I would hope that is your goal as well.

[78. John said the following at 9:03 PM on Nov 28:]

78

Jethro,

Very infrequently you articulate a honest question or statement. But usually you're just out to try to tweak peoples noses.

I don't think you are a fool. I feel sorry for you. I pray for the salvation of your soul and the renewing of your mind so that you can understand the error of your ways.

Once you are saved you will understand better the biblical principles that I and others are talking about.

God bless you.

[79. John said the following at 9:13 PM on Nov 28:]

79

If you think Wal-Mart is those things, then you're believing a lie from the mafia (unions) that propagates that nonsense.

Check your sources and research your facts.

Also, make sure you're not being liberal (no pun intended) with words such as: "terrible" and "junk".

How specificaly does Wal-Mart guilty of what you say?

[80. JB said the following at 12:14 AM on Nov 29:]

80

Farmer Tom,

You said, "What I what, and those who are originalists's what is to send the Ishmael away and embrace Isaac with open arms. Return to the original plan, the plan that worked for our first 100 years."

The point I was making is that the government of the United States in its first 100 years embraced slavery, the disenfranchisement of women (and racial minorities and many poor white men), and the systematic killing or removal of Native Americans. Clearly, this kind of government "worked" only for a privileged minority of Americans. That's not to say it was all bad, all the time, but the very fact of slavery if nothing else is a strong prima facie case against taking the founding government of the US as any kind of positive model. It seems clear to me that the US government circa 2007 is far closer to biblical morality than the US government circa 1807.

[81. Jo said the following at 1:11 AM on Nov 29:]

81

"Now name a system of government anywhere in the world, in all of recorded history, which produced a freer,more hardworking, ambitious and prosperous people than the United States of America."

Before I did that I'd have to agree that being free, ambitious and prosperous are the primary aims of the Christian way of life and I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's the case.

"please read the link I gave above, look up Constitutional Republic on Google. Read everything you can find there, you need to understand they system the founders intended, that way you can evaluate it in light of Truth, the Word of God."

I will, but I haven't had a chance yet. What I was looking for really was a short summary.

"The question is what form of government is closest to the Biblical patterns God has established in His Word. I would hope that is your goal as well."

Well... I'm not sure what you mean by it being my goal? I live in the country I live in, and beyond voting for the candidates I believe are most moral etc (which we should all do), I'm not sure what you're suggesting. It's certainly not my goal to overthrow the British system of government and institute a constitutional republic, and it wouldn't be even if I agreed that that would be the best and most Biblical system. My goal is to live as a Christian in the society I find myself in. It's only democracy that gives us the illusion of any kind of control over the government anyway, the early Christians just had to put up with the dictators that sought to destroy them. Yes we should use the power we have, but our focus I think should be more on our own lives, than on pushing an alternative system of government which would be corrupted anyway, just like every other system has been.

[82. obewan said the following at 9:36 AM on Nov 29:]

82

John, you said:
“How specifically does Wal-Mart guilty of what you say?" (sic)

“Wal-Mart has repeatedly violated U.S. child labor laws and profited from overseas child labor abuses.

A recent investigation revealed children, some only 11 years old, were making Wal-Mart clothes in a Bangladesh factory. The children report being routinely slapped and beaten, forced to work 12 to 14 hours a day, often seven days a week, for wages as low as 6 and a half cents an hour.”

I was wrong and am guilty of publishing “faulty data”. The children in Bangladesh who make our shirts do not make a few dollars a day, in some cases it is only 84 cents.

Shame on all who have a flippant and callous attitude about this injustice!

[83. obewan said the following at 9:49 AM on Nov 29:]

83

Here is a more detailed expose on child labor in Bangledesh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart:_Use_of_Child_Labor_in_Bangladesh

[84. Daniel, student said the following at 11:42 PM on Nov 29:]

84

(newbie to the blogosphere folks)

Great debate. I would like to suggest an idea of a professor I know, to subject it to review from the online community. He said...

"In America, our goal should be to encourage true intellectual freedom, where every view is given an equal place at the negotiating table. Given the chance, the best ideas should find there way to the surface."

That said, I worry that (objective)religious worldviews are being left out of the debate, without fair representation in academia.

I have the biggest issue with the current interpretation of "separation of church and state" and the fallacious claim that one should not "legislate their morality."

any thoughts/insights are welcome.

[85. Simon said the following at 1:59 AM on Nov 30:]

85

JB, last I checked, biblical morality did not say anything about voting rights. And if you think "embracing slavery" back then was bad, how about "embracing abortion" today?

Jo, I don't know if being free, ambitious, and prosperous is the primary goal of the Christian life, but I certainly don't think the two are *at odds with each other*. Or in other words, does our value system recognize those things as good things?

Obewan, please bear in mind that the cost of living in third world countries is a lot lower than in the US -- I had a decent breakfast once for pennies.

What are the alternatives in Bangladesh? The children are better off making goods for Wal-Mart than being "routinely slapped and beaten, forced to work 12 to 14 hours a day, often seven days a week" as prostitutes or soldiers. In the past, boycotting companies that used overseas labor resulted in those children becoming beggars and prostitutes.

Think about Oskar Schindler and the Jews he employed. What if people boycotted his products because he was using forced Jewish labor (under threat of the Holocaust)? Then the Jews would have been sent to death camps.

By giving these children a humane alternative, Wal-Mart is doing more good than harm, even if they're not actively calling for better working conditions.

[86. John said the following at 5:22 AM on Nov 30:]

86

JB,

The United States did not embrace slavery.

Certain states and regions did, but the entire country did not.

That's why hundreds of thousands of Americans died in a war, oh, around 1860-1865!

And the highest concentration of slavery was in South Carolina.

Study federalism. Then you will have a better understanding of our past and not make the mistake of characterizing our entire country of a sin perpetuated by some.

[87. Jo said the following at 9:47 AM on Nov 30:]

87

Simon said: "Jo, I don't know if being free, ambitious, and prosperous is the primary goal of the Christian life, but I certainly don't think the two are *at odds with each other*."

No of course not, that's not what I was suggesting. My point was that farmer Tom seemed to be using these as markers by which to measure the goodness and 'godliness' of a society.

"Or in other words, does our value system recognize those things as good things?"
I think to be honest I disagree with this premise. There is nothing wrong with being free, being ambitious or being prosperous. But I also wouldn't say they are inherently good (with the possible exception of freedom, but even this can be used badly). The goodness of ambition is entirely based on what one is ambitious for. Prosperity, I would say, is completely neutral, it might be nice for us to be prosperous, but nothing about it is godly (or ungodly). The 'greatness' of the American Dream, as I understand it, is/was the idea that a person can start with nothing and through hard work and dedication, achieve prosperity for himself and his family. Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that in itself, but it has very little to do with Christianity.

Not bashing America here, or saying that there aren't godly concepts in the constitution etc. I'm simply referring to farmer Tom's list of 'freedom, ambition and prosperity'. I don't think a country should be measured primarily on its application of those principles, because I don't think they are Biblical principles.

[88. JB said the following at 1:25 PM on Nov 30:]

88

John,

Farmer Tom was referring to the "original plan" of the United States. The Constitution, which I take to be the original plan, includes provisions, such as the "three-fifths compromise" and a restriction on the ability of Congress to ban the slave trade, which clearly accommodated slavery. Further, many of the founders (Washington, Jefferson, and George Mason among them) personally owned slaves. And Congress early in its existence passed laws requiring the capture and return of slaves who escaped to free territory. The federal government clearly accommodated, and in some cases abetted, the institution of slavery. That the "original plan" of the United States could encompass such a morally bankrupt practice is, I think, good evidence that it was not morally superior to the US government as it has evolved today. In any case, if federalism as interpreted in the early 19th century permitted the existence of slavery, is this not a moral indictment of federalism?

Simon,

You're right, the Bible says nothing about voting, but I find it difficult to reconcile the love of one's neighbor with preventing that neighbor having a voice in government. And as for abortion, even if we were to agree that abortion is a moral evil (and I take it we don't), it still wouldn't be productive to argue which is worse. So in that case, I'll just stick to my contention that there was nothing morally special about the Founders or the "original" US government. If they were at all morally superior to what we have today, it was only by the thinnest of margins.

[89. John said the following at 6:36 PM on Nov 30:]

89

JB,

If those compromises weren't made, there would have never been a US.

The "three-fifth" compromise to which you refer was to prevent southerners from counting as whole persons, individuals whom they didn't treat as whole persons. The southerners wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

The Dec of Ind was an indictment of slavery. (all men are created equal)

You act as if by the simple fact that an evil existed and that by not stopping it immediately, the people around at the time were morally bankrupt. (As if Christians today will be considered morally bankrupt for not ending immediately Federally "abetted" baby murdering factories like Planned Parenthood)

The fact is, that many of the founders who had slaves, inherited them. The institution was a very entrenched part of society long before the founders had any power or influence. Point of fact is, that to simply free their slaves was far more complicated than just opening the front door and saying see ya later. Not to mention that that, freeing them, would have been worse for the slaves then simply staying, living basically as free men, even if legally classified as slaves.

Many of the founders believed slavery would die out on its own, which is exactly what was happening, until the invention of the cotton gin.

Several founders started abolitionist societies (Franklin among them).

You're totally missing my point about federalism.

For example, does the US accommodate prostitution?

According to you, the answer is yes, although the correct answer is no.

Only one state "accommodates" prostitution and only in certain counties.

Never mind the fact that you are over looking the incredibly obvious fact that over a hundred thousand men died fighting to end slavery.

Oh, and don't forget the truly amazing fact that it was ended at all. Slavery has existed since time innumerable, in all societies and in countless forms. (It still exists today) The very fact that it was ended here, with much thanks to our founders, is a fantastic testament to their genius and courage.

[90. John said the following at 6:46 PM on Nov 30:]

90

obewan,

wikipedia? Really? That's your source?

How about look-up "sarcasm" or "hyperbole" on your fabulous wikipedia.

The mafia (unions) have been trying to portray wal-mart as evil for years.

Beleive the mafia if you want.

Of course nobody should be treated that way, BUT making any amount of money is better then none, which is exactly what probably 90% of bangladeshis "make" or like Simon said, being a prostitute or child soldier.

[91. obewan said the following at 6:57 AM on Dec 3:]

91

John:

You said: "wikipedia? Really? That's your source?"

Wikipedia was only one source, but seemed to have the best summary. Google it yourself if you have doubts. An advanced search on Wal-Mart "child labor" gets only 167,000 hits.

The factory in Bangladesh was visited in person by the international press. The children were interviewed in person. Numerous accounts as a result of independent investigations all seem to agree.

Where do you get the connection between the Mafia and unions? You sound like you have been reading the "redneck press". Maybe only a couple of unions should get a bad rap. (Teamsters and the UAW) I was not intending to take a pro-union stance anyway - just an anti-slavery stance.

The point of the whole post is that other countries do not have the same legal restrictions that would prevent labor abuse. I suppose now you are going to say that our government is run by the Mafia because it enforces laws that forbid child labor abuse.

If you were living in the civil war era I suppose you would say that black slaves were "rescued" from a harsh life in the jungle.

I am surprised you call yourself a conservative when you are so liberal about evil.
(The republican party was anti-slavery in the civil war, not the democratic party)
Situational ethics can be used to justify all manner of evil when it comes to the blackness of the human heart. The point is not that their life may have been microscopically improved, but that they were EXPLOITED UNFAIRLY for huge capital gain.

[92. John said the following at 8:31 PM on Dec 3:]

92

obewon,

If you are unaware of the connection between the mafia and unions, then I'm wasting my time.

Hopefully, you will one day understand.

[93. obewan said the following at 9:15 AM on Dec 4:]

93

John:

You have been listening to too many Jimmy Hoffa stories, and are behind on your history. Since the 1980’s the government has been weeding the Mafia out of labor unions using the RICO act laws. There is even a book on the subject by a professor at NYU. It is a real stretch to say that Unions are attempting to slander Wal-Mart when the international press has visited the factories in Bangladesh, and those factories are not even union organized. It would be a stretch to say they ever could become union organized.

"Jacobs offers a history of the federal government's efforts to curb labor racketeering. The heart of his text focuses on the results achieved by employing Civil RICO suits to weed out organized crime from unions long mired in corruption. The Justice Department has mounted twenty such efforts since 1982, and Jacobs's book is the first to provide a comprehensive assessment of this controversial tactic.”

http://www.uniondemocracy.org/Education/audconffightingcorruption.htm

[1. Jacob Douvier said the following at 2:26 PM on Nov 21:]

1

Government as having restricted or no power in the case of institutions such as family, church and education is a hallmark of true, traditional conservatism going at least as far back as Edmund Burke, the 18th Century English statesman. Abraham Kuyper, the 19th Century Dutch Prime Minister, pastor, newspaperman and university founder also understood that each of these institutions has authority in its own sphere of responsibility, but that it must not overstep those bounds. More recently, Russell Kirk wrote a number of excellent books, such as The Conservative Mind that convey the idea that, for the good of the people, the government must be restrained.

It is very easy to become lazy and assume that by virtue of it being a large institution able to collect large amounts of money that the government is responsible for the welfare of the poor and needy. This is nothing short of "ends-justifies-the-means" reasoning, which has not place in Christian thinking save as an example of a bad idea that has had bad consequences.

There are many problematic issues in society that cannot be addressed merely by voting in your party of choice. Electing a Republican congress and President will not fix the economy nor solve the illegal immigration problem. Electing a Democrat congress and president will not end the threat of terrorism nor will it result in better education for our children. Some problems can be fixed by hard work and discipline, such as the education crisis, whereas others, such as the War on Terror, require courage and fortitude. Assuming that our party of choice can sweep in and fix everything is delusional and juvenile at best.

[2. John said the following at 3:01 PM on Nov 21:]

2

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The whole purpose of the bill of rights was to limit government.

The founders understood how intoxicating and dangerous unchecked power can be, that's why they created a Republic.

Federalism was crucial to the development of this country.

Many of the representatives at the constitutional convention argued that it begin "we the states".

The states have been basically neutered by an ever expanding federal government.

The "ends justify the means" philosphy has pretty much been the cancer that has killed the check the states were supposed to have had over the federal government. You can, ironically, thank Republicans and well meaning Christians for that.

Wanting so badly to end slavery they trashed so much of the constitutional principals that they ended up opening a flood of wonderful Supreme Court decisions that have hemmed in today's church in America.

Limited government is key to the survival of the church in America and the salvation of millions of souls. That is why I constantly hammer at our socialist/communist education system and Christians inexcusable support of it.

Though it can be argued that the church actually prospers more under persecution than in times or places of prosperity, I gotta believe that keeping the greatest experiment going is worth it.

[3. DT said the following at 3:30 PM on Nov 21:]

3

What I look at first is a candidate's personal beliefs and public voting record on abortion. Everything else comes after that in a lesser-important category for me. If there's a whiff of being pro-abortion, or one vote that seems off, I won't vote for that person. And that's at national, state and local elections. Period.

[4. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 4:10 PM on Nov 21:]

4

The Bible is not a voting guide, and it was not written to be a voting guide. I think when we use it to argue who Christians should vote for, we are sadly reducing it to just another political book. The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government.

"Limited government is key to the survival of the church in America and the salvation of millions of souls. That is why I constantly hammer at our socialist/communist education system and Christians inexcusable support of it."

Gotta disagree there. Here in Canada, which has anything but "limited government," churches are protected. Freedom to express your religion is a a key right. When we included "sexual orientation" in our Hate Crimes Act, it came with an amendment stating that anything said with religious justification could NOT constitute a hate crime.

Seems churches are more protected here than in America.

[5. JJ said the following at 4:58 PM on Nov 21:]

5

Agree with Andrew. I have to say out of the recent political posts this is one of the most offensive. How is it not misusing God's name to suggest we should vote for a certain political party? Vote however you want, but please don't hold up scripture and say it must be this way.

It just pains me to see this kind of manipulation at work here, and as a brother in Christ I encourage you to rethink some of these blogs and articles.

[6. Alex C. said the following at 5:37 PM on Nov 21:]

6

"...flood of wonderful Supreme Court decisions that have hemmed in today's church in America.
"

"That is why I constantly hammer at our socialist/communist education system "

Those are pretty strong statements. Do you have any examples? From my own experiences, I havn't seen/read about too much stuff that would lead me to think the American Church is in great danger of having its rights trampled, or that our educational system is anti-capatilist (Maybe it's just cause I'm an econ major; all of my classes paint communism/socialism in a relatively negative light ^^)

"Kaufman argues that a Christian's primary civic responsibility should be to elect officials who make laws consistent with "God's design for the church, the family and the government."
"
I don't know, no matter how I look at this post and the article its based on, I can't see anything other than an argument for Theocracy, which would not be compatible with the American goverment as it stands now. In theory, our goverment should not be able to pass laws that favor the beliefs and practices of a particular religion over other religions, or that favor religious belief in general to non-belief, but it seems like thats just what Kaufmann is advocating in some situations. The family thing seems to be a good example: The article argues that Family is an important aspect of society according to scripture, and that our goverment should support it, and not "harm" it by allowing things such as Homosexual "marriage". But as this belief is motivated by scripture, if our goverment supports the belief, it would then be violating freedom of religion if it did not also extend support to those who believe differently about family, for religious or non-religious reasons.

Now, there is the argument that things like homosexual "marriage" or alternate definitions of family are damaging to society as a whole, an argument that does not relate to religious beliefs; however, currently the evidence for such an argument is not very strong or convincing to most people, which is I think why we ultimately end up falling back to arguments based on scripture.

I think Christians may have to come to accept the fact that America is, in reality, not constructed to be a "biblical goverment", of the kind that Kaufmann outlines in his article. The things he outlines that a goverment should do may be very good things, things that an ideal goverment should do, but it is likely that they are also things our goverment CAN'T (at least from the theoretical perspective) do without first changing the entire foundation of the goverment.

[7. Jenn said the following at 5:42 PM on Nov 21:]

7

Andrew, are you sure you want to boast about religious freedom in Canada? Have you heard of Scott Brockie? The Christian printer was dragged before a Human Rights Tribunal and fined $100,000 for refusing to print material for a homosexual activist organization due to the fact that it would violate his religious convictions. So much for religious justification.

Our media went nuts over a "God bless Canada " in a speech made by our Prime Minister. Their argument? Religion should have not place in politics. The very mention of Christ is forbidden at official government sponsored ceremonies.

These are merely a sampling of the slow but steady progress of exclusion of the Christian world view in the public square. The Hate Crimes Act of which you speak is feared by many Christians as the very tool that will be used to silence the voice of the Canadian church completely.

So while I agree with you that the Bible is not a voting guide, I must protest that the principles contained in it must guide our decisions, especially when it comes to choosing our leaders.

[8. Motte said the following at 5:48 PM on Nov 21:]

8

JJ:

I find it interesting that you think I used "God's name to suggest we should vote for a certain political party." I did no such thing.

And I would encourage you to rethink posting false accusations.

[9. John said the following at 8:02 PM on Nov 21:]

9

The bible is, in fact, a voting guide and was written as a voting guide.

The bible is much, much more than a book about man's relationship to God.

It is also a book about man's relationship to government.

So the statements to the contrary are untrue and wrong.

Canadian preachers have been put in jail for violating thought legislation.

Where does the post ever say to vote for any particular party?

Examples? Let me count the ways:

1)NCLB
2)Hate crime laws
3)Roe v. wade
4)GOVERNMENT RUN SCHOOLS!
5)Inclusion of almost any ideology in schools
6)Exclusion of Christianity from schools
7)Homosexual "rights" (perhaps the most dangerous)
8)Political speech prohibition of churches

Remember, communism is not only an economic system, but a government system, too.

You need to read more. Try CitizenLink, a production of FOF.

Our government can do whatever the constitution or an amendment to the constitution allows it to do. (legally speaking)

It can, theoretically, erase the 1st amendment and make Christianity the national religion. It would never happen, but theoretically, the way our government is structured, this is possible. (Based on the foundations of our government, the amendment process)

[10. Jacob Douvier said the following at 8:31 PM on Nov 21:]

10

Politics is inherently ethical. Ethics is inherently religious. You cannot escape religion in the realm of politics. Someone's religion will be supported at the exclusion of another. There is no neutral ground.

[11. Jordan Peacock said the following at 8:46 PM on Nov 21:]

11

I agree with many of the skeptics of a biblically 'mandated' leadership or government model.

Jacques Ellul describes how Christ's attitude toward government was more anarchistic than supportive or against. 'an' neutralizes/negates the 'archy'; it's not against government in Christ's context, it's separateness from.

You live in the world, and there's some measure of interaction one must have, but our kingdom is not of this world, and while there is a tolerance of government as it exists and exhortation to not cause more trouble than necessary, there is hardly a straight case of acceptance of earthly authority.

If I could legally vote here in the states at all I wouldn't, as it's behaviour that enables the corrosive systems at play. It's the well-meaning friend who out of a mis-guided sense of care pushes her friend from counselling and true behaviour change and instead recommends quick-fixes-and-failures and a return to the destructive behaviour that has got her friend where she is now.

There is no biblical mandate against supporting government, provided it's not done in an idolatrous fashion as many I've met here in the states (Democrat and Republican) do. As for myself, I endure the state under duress, and strive for a society that addresses it's own needs without the need for artificial structures.

[12. JJ said the following at 9:58 PM on Nov 21:]

12

Motte-

A little more than just a coy remark would be helpful. "Interesting?" What is interesting about it?

I suppose you would be correct that "you" are not saying these things, but simply relaying what someone else has already said. But when you end with the divisive remark "So what criteria will you be using when you cast your vote in 2008?" tell me - what are we to take from that?

If I'm mistaken about your political intentions than please forgive me, but may I suggest more clarity in your intentions. Trust me, I am not actively looking for things to complain about (in fact that was my first comment - sorry it wasn't taken so well) but that is just how I interpreted it.

[13. farmer Tom said the following at 10:02 PM on Nov 21:]

13

The Bible is not a voting guide, and it was not written to be a voting guide. I think when we use it to argue who Christians should vote for, we are sadly reducing it to just another political book. The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government.

Sir, you have a very, very inadequate knowledge of the Bible if you really believe the last part of this statement. The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government

I assume that you have not read the last six of the Ten Commandments let me refresh your feeble memory.

5. Honor your father and mother.

That would be the relationship involved in what constitutes a family. Has nothing to do with you and God, rather you and your parents.

6. Thou shall not murder.

Unless you believe that some fool is attempting to murder God, this verse is referring to the relationship between two human beings, again God in not involved in this equation.

7. Thou shall not commit adultery.

Since it would be heretical to suggest that God is involved in sexual activity, one can safely assume that this commandment is referring to two humans of opposite gender, this also assumes that marriage is a good and normal thing, something to be defended and protected.

8. Thou shall not steal.

This involves the unjust taking of ones property by another, theft, (see Income Tax as example) it necessitates two human beings one being the thief one being the property owner, again all God does in this commandment is endorse the right to personal property.

9. Thou shall not bear false witness.
This one should hit very close to home for you personally, since you have asserted something which is blatantly false about the very Word of God, you have misrepresented the Scriptures by claiming that and I quote you,The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government. Son, God's Commandments are the Law, and they are to be obeyed. The compiling of the Law presupposes a form of Government, for it is the role of government to execute judgment on those who break the Law see Romans chapter 13.

10. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors stuff, again as in the previous five this is referring to an act God disapproves of by one human being upon another human.

Each of these six commandments are proscriptions against activities conducted by a human against his fellow man. I have showed you beyond any reasonable doubt that you are incorrect in saying that The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government because much of the Bible is about man's relationship with man.
Does love your neighbor as yourself ring a bell with you?

If the Bible deals with mans relationship with man then it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the Bible does not talk about mans relationship with government. Maybe you should read the following passage son,

1 Peter 2:11-17:

11Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

12Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Now one more time, whats this garbage about The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government. Try reading the Bible once son, you might learn something.

[14. Simon said the following at 10:20 PM on Nov 21:]

14

That the church in Canada is being "protected" seems to mean protected from prosecution under the government's hate crime legislation. If Canada had true limited government, there would be no hate crime legislation to protect the church from (or more appropriately, *exempt* from) in the first place -- it wouldn't need to be protected from the state.

I stand with John's comment about limited government. Restriction #8, IRS harassment of churches for political speech, is especially egregious. I'm surprised Christians are not more vocally opposed to it, even on grounds of principle if they're apolitical -- the principle that the church's peaceful internal affairs are not the business of the state.

And for those of you who think that churches should not be making political speech, it does not automatically follow that the IRS or any arm of the state should be the one who enforces that "should not" as a rule. Maybe people with low IQs or mental illness should not be making political endorsements either. Should the IRS impose higher taxes on those who do?

[15. Jethro said the following at 2:15 AM on Nov 22:]

15

Discussions like this make me furious. Republicans claim some sort of mandate from God, demonize the 'evil baby killing' Democrats and lament the 'communist public schools'. The Bible does not tell us how to vote. You can extract principles from the Bible to advocate whatever voting pattern suits your brand of politics. Republicans point to the role of the church to malign welfare. Democrats point to the mandate for Biblical charity to promote it.

Everyone in these discussions should at least have the honesty to admit that they are coming at things from a certain political angle. That includes Boundless writers, who would do well to disclose their political affiliations. Motte, I'd bet my first born that you're not a registered Democrat. As for me, in case you hadn't figured out, I'm decidedly liberal in my politics, I'm proud of that fact, and no, I don't kill and eat the unborn for fun.

[16. John said the following at 6:18 AM on Nov 22:]

16

Jacob,

AMEN!

[17. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 8:04 AM on Nov 22:]

17

Golly, farmer tom, it saddens me that you wasted your time writing that, since I agree with what you said. I think you looked at my "The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not man's relationship with the government" comment a BIT too narrowly.

Of course the Bible is about man's relationship with man! If we want to have a good relationship with God, we need good ones with His children. That's why God gave us those commandments! Because when our relationship with man is hurt, our relationship with Him is hurt!

And yes, I agree with you that the Bible has some verses on government. That does not, however, make it ABOUT the government. Nor does it make it a voting guide (as much as John would like to believe it).

Also, I'll politely ask you not to be so condescending. It does nothing to further this conversation, okay?

John:

You make a lot of statements that you don't back up. But, just for the record, I read CitizenLink everyday. And no, it doesn't name a political party... but if you can't tell which party they are pushing you towards, you need to read a few Wikipedia pages on American politics.

"The bible is, in fact, a voting guide and was written as a voting guide."

Seriously? Seriously?! Go ahead and view it that way, and you're bringing it down to the level of other great political books, such as The Communist Manifesto.

[18. k. said the following at 8:50 AM on Nov 22:]

18

I'm rather wary of the language, "God's design for the church, the family and the government." We're a secular democracy, not a theocracy.

As for families having the burden of providing for the poor, then the church -- the society Paul was writing to is very different from ours. I can't see that model working in a society as large and mobile as ours.

[19. k. said the following at 9:03 AM on Nov 22:]

19

Simon -- Whoa! Not quite sure where you're going with the, "Maybe people with low IQs or mental illness should not be making political endorsements either," comment. Where did this comparison come from? It is COMPLETELY different from a church not making a political endorsement. I actually love the fact that churches can't endorse candidates: churches are not PACs, and their primary mission is not to elect people to public office. I'm a huge fan of separation of church and state.

Also, I couldn't tell if you're putting forward the mental illness/low IQ argument because you actually believe it, or if it just occurred to you as an example. If it's the first case, you would appear to have some gaps in your ethical structure. And if it's the second, you could make MUCH better comparisons. Eesh.

[20. farmer Tom said the following at 9:26 AM on Nov 22:]

20

As for me, in case you hadn't figured out, I'm decidedly liberal in my politics, I'm proud of that fact, and no, I don't kill and eat the unborn for fun.

And therein lies the problem. No one accused you of killing and eating the unborn for fun. What we do believe is that you would kill the unborn or encourage others to kill their unborn child out of a desire for personal convenience. I'm to young, I need to finish college first, I don't want stretch marks when I wear my bikini, and of course, we can't leave out, I have no idea who the father is, because I have the morals of a dog in heat.

All of these are excuses for failing to take personal responsibility for ones behavior. So not only are you an advocate of killing a human being made in the image of God Gen 9:5,6 You are also guilty of failing to remind those who do these things that they will someday stand before the Righteous Judge and will give an account for all they have done in this life. Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
How do you think the Creator God, who created man in His image is going to reward someone who kills their unborn child out of convenience?????

A hint, Luke 17:2
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. I hope you will thank God for the gift of life and His gift of Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ.

I can't resist, one more comment.

I'm proud of that fact

Somehow I'm not surprised by that, in fact that's a symptom of a heart condition. Again I quote the Word of God, may it convict you.

Proverbs 6:16-19:

16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Proverbs 21:4
An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.

2 Timothy 3:2
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

James 4:6
But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

[21. Sara said the following at 9:46 AM on Nov 22:]

21

"Defecting to the democratic side means graduating to the Beatitudes. No where are the Christian Republicans "blessed.""

Again, that's from someone's comment on a previous boundless post about 'young white evangelicals'

[22. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 10:27 AM on Nov 22:]

22

Farmer Tom, I think God will deal with someone who gets an abortion for "convenience" (if you really wish to simplify it that far) the same way he will deal with all other sinners.

Also, what's with the blasting of Jethro on his statement about being proud to be liberal? You're publically pointing out the speck in his eye... have you dealt with the plank in your own?

[23. Jo said the following at 2:02 PM on Nov 22:]

23

It still astounds me that American political debate is so polarised. Coming at it from a totally outside perspective, I can see views on both sides that I agree with and views on both sides that I disagree with. I don't remember ever reading a comment on here (this blog being my main education in American politics!) that acknowledges any fault in the commenter's chosen party. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but my overwhelming impression of people here is that you either support one party or the other, and whichever you support, you defend it to the death.

I think the problem of justifying one's political stance using scripture is a real one. That doesn't mean we can't have opinions, and of course we should use our votes wisely to vote for candidates we believe uphold Christian principles, BUT...

I relate to those who've said that we live (both Americans and us Brits) in secular democracies. There's no reason to expect that righteous candidates will be elected. There's no reason to be surprised that homosexuality (for example) is becoming more and more widely accepted. There's no reason to suppose that ANY of our candidates will agree with God's views on morality. While as Christians we have a right to use our votes along Biblical principles, I don't think we have a right to demand that people in authority rule by those principles. A democracy goes with the majority, and the majority are not following Jesus, so how much faith can we place in democracy anyway? Within this system we can protest, petition, and so on and so forth, and we should. But why do we get so pouty when the non-Christian majority win out? It's going to happen. We're foreigners in this world, whichever worldy government we put in charge. If we want everyone to agree with us, we made a mistake choosing Christ.

[24. Simon said the following at 3:47 PM on Nov 22:]

24

k, please clarify -- do you love the fact that churches *can't* make political endorsements, or that they *do not*? If you simply prefer churches when they don't make endorsements, I have no disagreement with you. But the fact is, they *can't* because of the IRS. Do you also, by extension, love the regulation of churches by the IRS?

Regarding the mentally ill, etc, I was playing devil's advocate to demonstrate my point about whether the IRS should be the decider. I wasn't arguing one way or the other, whether they should actually be making political speech. It's just something that some potentially might argue. You may be right... there perhaps are better examples.

[25. Jethro said the following at 4:00 PM on Nov 22:]

25

John,

I don't recall saying that I approved of abortion for 'convenience' reasons. In fact, I don't recall saying I approved of abortions at all. So I don't really think it's quite fair to characterize me as 'an advocate of killing a human being made in the image of God'.

If you apparently feel that it's the government's role to legislate according to your brand of morality, can you tell me why there should not be laws against worshiping other Gods, creating graven idols, adultery, bearing false witness, coveting, or any others of the 10 commandments? Once you start legislating your morality John, where do you stop? More to the point, if you get to legislate yours, then don't a Muslim and a Zoroastrian have just as legitimate a right to legislate theirs?

To address your last point, whatever it was meant to be, there's nothing more sinful about being a proud liberal than being a proud conservative, or than being proud to be from Kentucky (which I'm not).

[26. Kit said the following at 6:20 PM on Nov 22:]

26

Agreed, Jethro and Canadian Boy. Well said.

The Bible was written for the Israelites and their early pre-Jesus governments. It in no way, shape or form deals with contemporary politics in America.

As for America, we were founded on Christian principles, not belifs. These are two vastly different things. In fact, most of our founding fathers were only diests at best. The Bible is a guide for Christians, but outside of the Christian system of belief, has very little meaning to anyone else. It is not fair to take one religion and use it's morals as the sole standard for an entire nation when Christianity never existed as the national religion. America was and always will be founded, in fact, on religious freedom. Taking Christian beliefs and "shoving them down" others' throats doesn't seem to be the best way to make the nation become more moral. I think it would only create more problems.

As for me, I vote for economic issues first and moral issues second. Finding a successful system of healthcare for all Americans tops my list, as well as making sure we do our best to curb the devastating effects of global warming before we destroy our beautiful earth. Next are issues like education and international relations.

[27. John said the following at 7:04 PM on Nov 22:]

27

The bible is much much more than a voting book, but it is at least that.

It covers all of our life. It is our guide for every decision, especially one as important has who to vote for.

Jethro,
I'm not sure what you are refering to. I never made comments concerning what you're addressing. I'm not saying you're reading into anything I said, I'm planely saying I didn't comment about anything you were refering to.

To address your points, this is what I've been saying over and over again.

Jacob nailed it on the head. There is no neutrality.

That's why the founders created a Republic, with checks and balances and separation of powers.

The idea was that no one person or group could dominate the country.

There desire to limit government was wise. They knew how easily power could be abused. It had to be parciled.

We see it in all of the denominations. Wherever you go people are people. They have opinions and want to force everyone to do things their way.

That's why our government is the best, it requires a person and group to work extremely hard to convince enough people to support a particular point of view. Even after a majority supports something, there is still the very deliberate process of making laws and enforcing them.

The sad part being that many people support many stupid ideas, like government schools and socialist health care. (Hurray for one person, one vote)

Don't worry, though, in the future if the Democrats gain power, we'll have Sharia law after the Muslims take us over. Then we won't have to worry about a thing! It will all be decided for us.

I thank God for being born in this country! I thank God for saving me! I thank God for all the blessings in my life.

Happy Thanksgiving!

[28. farmer Tom said the following at 8:48 PM on Nov 22:]

28

Jo, There is so much in your last comment that I would like to pick apart, but I have neither the time nor any burning desire to waste what little time I have to correct your misconceptions. I'll stick to two comments.

First, You said, I don't remember ever reading a comment on here (this blog being my main education in American politics!) that acknowledges any fault in the commenter's chosen party. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but my overwhelming impression of people here is that you either support one party or the other, and whichever you support, you defend it to the death.

Let me be perfectly clear and say this very slow. I was an active member of the Republican party, I was on the party board for the county I live in, and have been campaign chairman in my county for Republican candidates in the past.

I have not voted for a Republican for President in 12 years, I have not voted for a Republican for Senate for eight years, ops I take that back, there are two Senate seats, one is a fairly conservative Republican I voted for him, but the other seat is held by a pro-baby killing, communist sympathizer, who is anathema to everything I believe and the Republicans ran a pro-baby killing doctor against him. I have not voted for a Republican for governor in eight years, the last two were a shyster lawyer, slicker than Slick Willie and a spineless career politican who stood for absolutely nothing except getting his butt elected.

So yes I'm a republican, but my party has left me. The democrats are socialist, baby-killing, sodomites, and the republicans are trying hard to be the same thing.

So I vote based on a different standard. Some day I will stand before the Righteous Judge and give account for my life. He will ask if I did everything in my power to protect the lives of the innocent, the unborn created in His image? Did I support politicians who ignored His natural Laws, Thou shall not kill, etc. Did I support politicians who stole from one group, (the rich) and gave that money to groups favored by those same politicians? Did I support politicians who consider sodomy to be normal natural behavior, and even gave those people legal standing as "married" people?

See I vote based on Biblical principles. Some here don't like that, they think we ought to pretend that God doesn't care about human behavior and government, I think they're wrong.

Did you notice something I don't like either party. Now how does that fit with your perceptions???

And that leads to the second thing, A democracy goes with the majority, and the majority are not following Jesus, so how much faith can we place in democracy anyway?

That statement is correct in that we should not place trust in a democracy, I agree.

But this country was not supposed to be a democracy. The founders wanted a Constitutional Representative Republic. They did not like democracies for the very reason you mentioned. They wanted a system of government that was bound by the Law, God Natural Law written on the human heart. That government was to be bound by the Law to do nothing unless it was specifically granted in the Constitution. The Representatives of the people were to be bound by that Law as well. See, "Congress shall make no Law." They believed rights came from the Creator, that government would take away those rights if it could.

The United States of America is not supposed to be a democracy.

Sadly we have become a socialist welfare state, pretty much like you Brits'. What a sad state of affairs.

[29. Jo said the following at 10:43 PM on Nov 22:]

29

farmer Tom,
I wonder if sometimes you have the 'misconception' that I hang around here just to criticise the American political system. Just to clarify, I don't. I fully accept that a) I'm English and my understanding of the American political system is very limited, and b) there are many many problems with the British political system, some of which I recognise, some of which I probably don't because I'm too close to it. I just feel that sometimes my thoughts may be helpful because I'm a complete outsider with no loyalties or party affiliations etc, and I think it is useful sometimes to see how things are viewed from outside. I know that it's been interesting for me to hear some people's opinions of the British 'socialist welfare state' as you call it. So please don't think that I'm attacking your country, I don't ever intend that and I'm sorry if I come across that way.

The second two paragraphs of my comment weren't really about America but about politics in general (in both our countries). I wasn't making a judgment about the merits or problems of a democracy, my point really was that all human political systems will have their faults, and none will be the perfect biblical model in a culture where the majority are not following Jesus. I don't totally understand your concept of a 'Constitutional Representative Republic' (I've never heard that term before), feel free to expand if you wish. But in a democracy, I think we have a responsibility to vote according to our Christian convictions (which may not lead to the same choice for every person). But at the same time, the world is against God and I think we shouldn't be surprised by that. Whether we're under a dictatorship, a democracy or a 'socialist welfare state', we're called to a) submit (first to God and then to our government) and to b) live as Christians in this fallen world.

[30. Jethro said the following at 5:59 AM on Nov 23:]

30

John,

Sorry, I was intending to direct my comments to Farmer Tom.

In any case, there is a question I would like to ask: whatever ideological objections you may have to state run health care/education, can't they be shelved for the sake of the millions who benefit from such programs? I know my ideology isn't more important than someone receiving life saving medical treatment (and that's not even addressing the fact health care should be both universal and free). Is yours?

Farmer Tom,
Glad to hear you've jettisoned democracy. Whatever credibility you had left is these arguments is now long gone. I appreciate you showing your true colors though.

Moderators,

How on earth did this comment from Farmer Tom "the democrats are socialist, baby-killing, sodomites" make it through the approvals process when so many comments of mine (and I'd wager others) have not? Is there ANY guideline as to what is/is not printable here? Or is it just all conservative all the time?

[31. John said the following at 1:30 PM on Nov 23:]

31

Can anything be more unfortunate and sad then someone who thinks their christian, and not be.

[32. Jordan Peacock said the following at 1:47 PM on Nov 23:]

32

I just finished reading A.J. Jacobs 'The Year Of Living Biblically' (which I would highly recommend), but one of the interesting notes is how he had to deal with interpretations and what to stress.

There are between 3 and 7 thousand english translations of the bible. There are sects for every variance: Samaritans offering animal sacrifice, snake-handlers, kabbalists and homosexual evangelicals. Each claims to have a corner on the interpretation market; there may be merits to what others say, but what they say is the truth.

At the same time I read the graphic novel Cairo, where a magical box held the word 'East', and the power came not from the word, but the word and the person reading it.

The point is; you can be the most tripped up liberal and still find someone who will tread on your sacred cows. You can be the bastion of fundamentalism and still get berated for neglecting an essential spiritual discipline.

The arguments over conservative/liberal politics, actions, while well intentioned, are largely exercises in futility, for the reasons mentioned above. By all means let us grow each other by conversation, but peacefully.

The concept of man's responsibility to man is a high point of the breed of anarchism I was advocating above; all the laws and the prophets may be fulfilled, even with minimal enforced structure.

The beauty of true freedom is it is not dependent upon circumstances, but upon spirit. One can therefore live as free in the most oppressive fascist regime, and flourish. The opportunities for martyrdom may come much more readily, but that is a side not; the Christian's response to government and society is "That's all well and good but...have you seen the kingdom of heaven?" It's a focus shift that doesn't idolize or demean; it mostly ignores. On the fantastic Jesus Manifesto blog recently one of the people who was assigned jury duty politely declined, citing a number of reasons but the theme was that as a Christian, they were called to justice and mercy, and acting in support of the government and the courts could compromise them on this.

Would love to hear any of your thoughts on this; it doesn't sound like a position many of you are aware of, and I would be interested in your reactions.

[33. Paul said the following at 10:41 PM on Nov 23:]

33

(I'm expecting the typical "stay out of this" shove I usually get when I hop into a debate like this, but I couldn't resist)...

Farmer Tom, I have to agree with you on how the political parties have lost you. However, I see no reason why we can't work with what we have to save unborn lives. News flash, not all Democrats are "baby-killing monsters." The real problem is with planned parenthood and national conviction, not with policy makers. If the American public was convinced that abortion was wrong, it'd be illegal in a snap, but they don't, and that's where our work should be. We need to elect politicians who will allow us to do our work, not to do our work for us.

And John, I agree with you more over here... I thought you'd like to know that. :) (although I never understood the whole "I think I'm Christian but I'm really not idea" my ex-girlfriend used to think that and I never got it then either. It seems like just a cop-out that downgrades the fact that we all sin and that there are sinners among us all, even in the Body of Christ.)

[34. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 11:00 PM on Nov 23:]

34

"Can anything be more unfortunate and sad then someone who thinks their christian, and not be."

Only God knows.

[35. Alex C. said the following at 11:15 PM on Nov 23:]

35

How exactly do you get itallics in these posts? I noticed that Farmer Tom was using them. Anyway, my last comment didn't seem to go through (either that, or it got deleted O_O). It seems most of what I was going to say was already said though.

From John's post, way back near the beginning: "Our government can do whatever the constitution or an amendment to the constitution allows it to do. (legally speaking)"

I know; the point I was making was that the actions some voters wish the goverment to take are actions that it can't take without firt changing the constitution, through a new ammendment or such (in theory of course. Its arguable whether the goverment actually does what the constitution says it can or can't do. The recent Kelo case is an interesting example)

"I don't totally understand your concept of a 'Constitutional Representative Republic' (I've never heard that term before), feel free to expand if you wish."

I think he was mainly referring to how the federal goverment has increased its powers over time. Originally, the federal goverment was supposed to have very very limited power (like, declaring war, taxes, and that's about it, from what I recall), while the state goverments were supposed to have a whole lot of power. But now its reversed.

[36. Kit said the following at 11:20 PM on Nov 23:]

36

Jethro,
Well said again. Exactly my feelings on healthcare, etc.

John,

for the record..The GOP is not synomous with Christianity. I know plenty of Democrats who are Christians (myself included), and plenty of (gasp!) Republicans who are not.

Jordan,
Interesting ideas, much agreed. I think about Anne Frank a lot when thinking about someone who was 'free' within oppression. Also Corrie Ten Boom.

[37. Simon said the following at 5:55 AM on Nov 24:]

37

Jordan, that's an interesting perspective, turning down jury duty for the stated reason.

I did some searching. I assume this is what you're referring to: http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/?p=862

I wonder if the guy has heard of jury nullification -- whereby the jurors decide not only whether the defendant broke the law, but whether the law itself is just. Thus, they can vote not guilty simply because they disagree with the law in question.

Jury nullification is a legal tradition that dates back to colonial times in America, if not further. The legal establishment does not believe in it anymore -- judges will tell you that you are to accept the law as it is given to you.

What else could the conscientious objector have done? He could have signed up for jury duty, then voted not guilty, sparing the defendant of the punishment. (Looking at the aforementioned blog post, I don't see anything about what the crime was, so we can only guess) Or more realistically, he would speak up about his intention to think for himself and nullify any law that he thought was unjust. Then he would have been dismissed, but perhaps would have made an impact on those watching.

Is that how we as believers should approach a corrupt or unjust system -- active engagement as opposed to passive retreat? I'd like to what the rest of you think.

[38. Michelle said the following at 9:11 PM on Nov 24:]

38

Farmer Tom said:
"So I vote based on a different standard. Some day I will stand before the Righteous Judge and give account for my life. He will ask if I did everything in my power to protect the lives of the innocent, the unborn created in His image? Did I support politicians who ignored His natural Laws, Thou shall not kill, etc."

I do not know of any Bible verses that say we will be asked about our voting records on Judgment Day. However, I do recall the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25) where Jesus said he will welcome those who gave him something to eat when he was hungry, cared for him when he was sick, and visited him when he was in prison.

No political philosophy will lead us on the path to salvation. I know that's not what you were saying, but I think we need to keep the big picture of Christ's redeeming power and love at the forefront instead of getting carried away on the issues of the day.

[39. farmer Tom said the following at 9:35 PM on Nov 24:]

39

Jethro said,

Moderators,

How on earth did this comment from Farmer Tom "the democrats are socialist, baby-killing, sodomites" make it through the approvals process when so many comments of mine (and I'd wager others) have not? Is there ANY guideline as to what is/is not printable here? Or is it just all conservative all the time

Liberals like you seem to have cognitive dissonance. You talk choice and someone dies. We show you from scripture passages that show Scripture clearly teaches that life begins prior to live birth, yet you ignore Scripture and emote instead.

Truth be known, your beliefs are incompatible with Biblical Christianity. And it offends you when those of us who do not share your non-biblical worldview. Jethro when life is just an expendable blob of tissue, when sexual deviancy is considered normal, you have passed over into the realm of Romans 1:19-32, and I do genuinely fear for your eternal soul. Read the culmination of Paul's legal argument in Romans 2:1,2, ie that we are without excuse, and that we will be judged by God according to the the truth.

Don't complain to the Moderators. It has nothing to do with liberal and conservative. It has everything to do with the TRUTH. Jesus prayed to the Father, "17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." John 17:17

If you are offended by the Truth of God's Word don't blame me, change your beliefs. I may be harsh, blunt, pointed and divisive, but my opinions come from the Word of Truth. If you disagree, bring the Truth of Scripture to bear, prove me wrong.

[40. John said the following at 10:12 PM on Nov 24:]

40

Jethro,

That's my point, socialist medicine/education actually harms millions of people, not help them.

Socialism will destroy this great nation.

It simply does not work. Socialism is flawed no matter what the justification (education, health care, environment)

Look, understand, prices and profits are not evil, they are necessary. They are as necessary as water and air. They are as honest as the law of gravity. Capitalism is the best economic policy to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and provide shelter for them.

Liberals often want to quote Jesus and his words about carrying for the poor in support of socialist/communist policies. They've got it totally wrong. They're actually harming the very people they proport to help AND the people most in position to give help (middle class).

I've learned much from Thomas Sowell. I would recommend him to anyone who wants a straightforward and clear presentation of the simple facts about economics. His books are Basic Economics and Applied Economics among others.

Lastly, our form and structure of government is not a democracy. More and more it is being pushed towards a democracy but it still is not one.

[41. farmer Tom said the following at 6:50 AM on Nov 25:]

41

What is a republic?

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=11

[42. Chris said the following at 10:43 AM on Nov 25:]

42

Some thoughts after reading the many comments on this topic:

1) The Bible often talks of rulers and kings. We have no such things here in the US. We have representatives that we elect to make decisions for us. We have executives we elect to enforce the laws made by the representatives we elected to make decisions for us. There are no rulers. All these references to obeying rulers were written at a time when the concept of democratic forms of government were limited at best. They reek of divine right, an evil we abolished long ago.

2) The purpose of government should be to protect individuals, not institutions such as marriage or church. The second you make the argument that government should not interfere with family, church, marriage, etc., you set it upon the path to tyranny. Replace family with the proletariat, the socialist revolution, or whatever, it doesn't matter. It's all the same thing: government advancing the interests of a group over the rights of the individual. Religious freedom comes from the rights of the individual, not the church. This is an important point that many seem to be ignoring.

Government should have no power to interfere with family, church, business, sexual activity among adults, free speech, etc. because those rights belongs to individuals, not families, churches, business, the press, etc.

[43. obewan said the following at 9:16 AM on Nov 26:]

43

Farmer Tom: If you don't believe in democracy, feel free to stop voting any time.

[44. Jacob Douvier said the following at 1:36 PM on Nov 26:]

44

Chris,

Institutions are the foundations of culture. If you fail to protect these things you will have nothing worth governing. I think you fail to understand just what exactly a right it. What you describe has more to do with license than liberty.

Yes individuals are important, as they are each in the image of God, but when you sacrifice education, Church and family, things that make us more fully human, you only serve to attenuate the individual.

[45. Jethro said the following at 5:46 PM on Nov 26:]

45

Oh Farmer Tom,

I do not consider my beliefs to be incompatible with the Bible and I certainly don't consider you an sort of authority on the interpretation of the book.

I'm glad you fear for my eternal soul though, it means I must be doing something right.

John,

I think you're confusing Socialism as a system of government (not my favorite) with the provision of basic and essential government services like health and education - something all forms of government should do.

Note though, that the Bible doesn't endorse capitalism any more than it endorses communism, democracy or anything else, so please don't claim some scriptural mandate for your position. In any event, our fundamental disagreement seems to be over the effectiveness of trickle down economics. I don't believe it feeds the poor at all, you do. I'm right.

[46. Kate said the following at 6:05 PM on Nov 26:]

46

I might be a little late in the game on joining this conversation... but one major thing I have trouble understanding is why so many "Christian" "conservatives" who vehemently oppose the welfare state (for any reasons) aren't banding together and stepping up to provide sustaining aid to the poor through self-initiated, self-funded private charity.

The Bible doesn't say "the least of these" brothers of Christ should be left to starve, live in illness, be generally ignored, etc. for any reason. In fact, it's precisely the opposite perspective. (Such as the difference between sheep and goats in Matthew 25!). Jesus doesn't mention excluding people who are in a bad position in life because of their own actions. He doesn't mention being able to get out of your responsibility to give freely of the gifts he's given you in order to protect your right to private property that you honestly earned. All it it says, if you fed me, you're a sheep. If you refused to feed me, you're a goat. No ifs, ands, ors, buts or exceptions.

I am by no means proposing that the welfare state cares for people as sufficiently or efficiently as possible.

I guess my point is... if private citizens actually did take care of one another, the government wouldn't have a reason to bother. (I suspect politicians would be pleased to be relieved of the burden, unless of course it were to personally put them out of a job!)

It is great to follow your personal convictions and help out those around you when they are standing in front of you asking for help. We should all follow those sort of gut instincts more! Still, individual private citizens may be unwilling or unable to sufficiently provide for everyone in need, especially when they may not encounter many people who are in need. If this is the case, is it really Christian to say "whoops" or "well, we tried," and leave anyone left unserved in this private individual system of aid? Especially when considering that Matthew 25 passage?

Or in that sense, can there be some positives to the welfare system (despite many possible or definite flaws!)?

[47. Alan Grey said the following at 8:24 PM on Nov 26:]

47

The Hebrew government was also involved in helping the poor, with creation of the year of jubilee, and rules for harvesting to allow the poor to glean.

[48. Will H. said the following at 9:21 PM on Nov 26:]

48

Jacob Douvier summed up what I was about to type....several of the comments in here seem to be of a nature of seperation of church and state and that the Bible should not have anything to do with how our government acts, or how we should vote. Honestly this is something that has surprised me.

You guys know America was FOUNDED on biblical principles? At one time our society did have a moral backbone. It was not until we as a nation decided there was no need for the Bible or it's law in our government that we started on the decline as a society that we find ourselves on today. Without moral, biblically based laws, chaos ensues. That is why it is critical to have Godly men in leadership and in the government.

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan." (Proverbs 29:2)

I definitely do not believe we should be a Theocracy. But I do firmly believe that the government should uphold to Biblical truths. This failure to take a stand on key Biblical issues is what really gets me. No one wants to offend someone who is disobeying a Biblical mandate especially in this time of "political correctness"

Everyone should be free to do what they want, when they want. The government is there to protect individual's rights... BULL! I don't believe it should be pressed on citizens in legalistic manner but I do believe that governments, especially one such as ours founded as a God fearing nation should stand upon a rock and hold steady to Biblical mandates! I am tired of this wishy washy government ours has become.

The reason it has become wishy washy? Our society has lost the truth, and without truth you have nothing to hold you to solid footing and eventually you give way in your beliefs and morals. Sadly this is exactly what has happened in the United States.

"Therefore justice is far from us, Nor does righteousness overtake us; We look for light, but there is darkness!
For brightness, but we walk in blackness!" (Isaiah 59:9)

[49. Simon said the following at 9:56 PM on Nov 26:]

49

Jacob, I don't think Chris is denying that those things should not be protected. His point is that it is not the government's job to do it. It is up to each and every one of us to do that. Please don't equate asking government to stay out of them with sacrificing them.

Government has also done its part to interfere with and undermine the family and the church (see above posts). Expecting it to protect them is asking it to solve a problem that it helped to produce.

[50. John said the following at 8:28 AM on Nov 27:]

50

Jethro,

The bible supports capitalism. You can believe whatever you want, that's not going to change. I don't believe trickle down anything.

Study the bible, then you will understand.

[51. John said the following at 8:30 AM on Nov 27:]

51

Kate,

Christians do do that! We could do more, however, if the government didn't steal so much money from us.

[52. John said the following at 8:35 AM on Nov 27:]

52

Kate,

The church does what you say and has always done it.

The government, however, over the last century has constantly marginalized the church by extorting money from the citizenry for its Nanny state programs.

No, Kate, there are no positives to the welfare state. None. It only perverts incentives and hurts the very people its proponents say it is made to help.

THE WELFARE STATE IS UNBIBLICAL!

Charity is biblical.

[53. Robert J Espe said the following at 10:36 AM on Nov 27:]

53

Boundless author Roberto Rivera y Carlo is a "single-issue voter liberal". He leans to the left politically but always votes pro-life, because Christians are commanded to (Prov 24:11-13).

http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000931.html

I'm a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist. I voted for James Oberstar (DFL) even though I don't agree with a lot of stuff he does because he was the only pro-life candidate (for MN representative) last election who wouldn't also vote to send my guard buddies to Iran. I vote Constitution party if possible, after that I just pick the best candidate I can find. First criteria is pro-life, then I filter the other issues based on how they affect me locally (I guess I'm a tree-hugging, green peace, hippy who believes in buying his own health care, a strong navy and well defended borders).

[54. Jo said the following at 10:59 AM on Nov 27:]

54

John:
"We could do more, however, if the government didn't steal so much money from us."

Oh please stop with the 'woe is me, the government steals all my money' stuff. We could ALL do more. Fact. Taxes are no excuse for decreased generosity. That's 'every man for himself' mentality and it's not Biblical. I couldn't care less how much the state is taking from you, you're still in the top 1% of the world moneywise, so stop whining about the evils of socialism and show the world that Christians can take care of the poor without the government's help. The more we use taxes as an excuse to shirk that responsibility, the more they will tax us because somehow or other, the poor need to be fed.

[55. JB said the following at 11:19 AM on Nov 27:]

55

Will H,

When was this time when our country kept to biblical principles and had a moral backbone? As I see it, our society has vastly improved since the founding. We no longer hold 1/3 of the population to be property, women and the poor are legally equal, and we've stopped killing and removing Native Americans from valuable land. These are all major steps forward that, I think, vastly outweigh any negative aspects of contemporary society.

[56. obewan said the following at 11:29 AM on Nov 27:]

56

John: Your suggestion of the existence of a “welfare state” is an insult to the working poor and tens of thousands of homeless people that struggle daily just to survive.

The last time I checked, Bill Clinton had cancelled “welfare” and forced tens of thousands of people to either work at McDonalds, or find the homeless shelter.

Lets focus on the working poor, since no one really wants to become homeless. My home state of Michigan LOST over 50,000 jobs in 2004. I was included in that statistic, and at the same time became sick. I lost over $200,000 and was unemployed (through no fault of my own) for over 5 years. With 2 BS degrees, and 20 years of engineering experience, no one would hire me - even to scrub toilets at $6 and hour. Finally, I found a job and moved 1800 miles to take it.

Upon arriving in FL, I became involved in ministry to the homeless through my church. Were they druggies and alcoholics or lazy? NOT! On one Saturday, we fed over 400 families who had all their earthly belongings in a backpack. Many were only days away from their NEW job at Wal-Mart at $6 an hour to support a family of 4. It goes without saying, they could not afford housing, and we wondered how they would ever survive. The homeless shelter was supported with PRIVATE funding (corporations and churches), and our church could never take up the slack on it’s own.

It goes without saying, that one job of government is the enforcement of living wage laws. There is only one party in America that has consistently lobbied for fair and needed raises to the minimum wage. Such fairness is NOT welfare, or a “nanny state”. It has been shown that communities that adopt “living wage” laws fair better overall in terms of quality of life, crime, lack of homeless, etc…

I have experienced every thing from $1.50/hour to 6 figures as far as wages, and have to say that my struggles have forced me to be more compassionate toward the working poor and the homeless. I do not believe in trickle down economics, because capitalism left unbridled by fairness laws will exploit the poor. Think of all the slave children in third world countries working for a few dollars a day. In some cases, they toil away 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no time off or health care – so we can have $8 shirts at Wal-Mart.

[57. Alex C. said the following at 1:57 PM on Nov 27:]

57

"I definitely do not believe we should be a Theocracy. But I do firmly believe that the government should uphold to Biblical truths. "

But the thing is, I can't see how the goverment can do that WITHOUT becoming a theocracy. How can our goverment openly "uphold biblical truth" without violating the right to religious freedom that our constitution gurantees? It can't, at least as far as I can see.

[58. Jethro said the following at 3:33 PM on Nov 27:]

58

John,

You've opened my eyes. You are totally correct. I'd drive to your house and thank you, except that there is no Biblical mandate for the creation of a national road network. It was built by the welfare state with money stolen from people, so I'm no longer using it. Come to think of it, you shouldn't either.

[59. brx said the following at 4:21 PM on Nov 27:]

59

I find it funny - no, prideful and possibly hypocritical when Christians boast that America as a nation was founded on Biblical principles. There are some in the declarations, but Americans in general are quick to become puffed up with pride, forgetting that their nation was born out of violent and bloody rebellion (against another 'Christian' nation) sparked by a _fraction_ of a percent increase in tax. In Jesus' time, the governmental oppression was in many ways the same and Peter was quite ready - sword at his side - to join the fighting rebellion, yet Jesus told him 'no'.

I think Peter finally realized what Jesus was trying to teach him, that no laws nor government system, nor idealism can accomplish what the Father and his plans can - and will.

Grace, peace, and adventure - even in politics!

PS: I think one can build a slightly stronger Biblical case in support of communism - not in the sense of rights and worth granted by the state but in the sense of everyone is equal, everyone contributes as they can, and all property is for the benefit of all. [the reason it's not practical here is because of our sinful, corrupted nature]

[60. Kit said the following at 4:43 PM on Nov 27:]

60

Thank you, obewan. Excellent points and very well articulated.

[61. Kate said the following at 5:09 PM on Nov 27:]

61

John,
I was of course not trying to discredit the good work being done by Christians (and others) in aid to those in need. I certainly agree that charity is Biblical! Still, as I said before... if private charity was operating in a comprehensive and sufficient way, people would be able to get the aid they need from private citizens, and the government would be pleased to wash their hands of the responsibility of dealing with the poor.

I am left wondering if you have ever experienced a time in life when all you had to your name was $100 and a backpack of old clothes? (or something like that) Also wondering if you have interacted with anyone from the homeless, welfare or working poor population, and if so, in what capacity? I think this is important to know in trying to understand your perspective.

Also, what Biblical references can you give to support your position that capitalism is Biblical and welfare has no place in that system, as you define it? Based on my present reading of the Bible, I can't quite figure out the basis for your position.

[62. John said the following at 8:22 PM on Nov 27:]

62

You can take the minimum wage and put it some where.

If politicians really cared about a "fair" wage (whatever that is) they would simply index it to inflation.

The "only" party you're talking about, Democrats, yes, they are very good at using the poor to prop up their careers!

[63. John said the following at 8:27 PM on Nov 27:]

63

Capitalism is biblical. Humans are fallen.

Humans harm people, not capitalism.

"Few dollars a day". Wow, that's pretty good for a third world "slave" child. More than they would make otherwise.

Yep, you got it. Wal-Mart is the evil poster child of capitalism. Actually, they have slave labor all over the world. That's why they're so rich and nobody can do anything against them. Lets destroy those capitalist pigs before they take our children to use in their gulags!

[64. John said the following at 8:34 PM on Nov 27:]

64

Allan,

To which "hebrew government" are you refering?

Moses, the tribes, the judges, the kings?

I believe the year of jubilee to be something we should do today.

[65. John said the following at 8:40 PM on Nov 27:]

65

Ah, it looks like JB has been drinking the victims u.s. history kool-aid.

Nobody even bother trying to undo that brainwashing. Our government indoctrination centers have been allowed far too much free rein to stamp "America bad, bad, bad" onto simple minds.

[66. Mike Corum said the following at 7:56 AM on Nov 28:]

66

Just came across this today, Nov. 28, 2007.

I am dismayed at the vitriol in responses from avowed Christians. Whatever happened to "Speaking the truth in love", Ephesians 4:15?

I doubt that any one of us can truly say that we have the complete truth on any given subject. As noted by others, there are Christians in both political parties, and I'm sure atheists and agnostics as well. It is easy to take a verse or passage of Scripture to support a particular point of view. When using the Bible as a guide, we must take the entire Book into consideration.

That said, let us also remember that we are created in the image of God. God revealed Himself through His Word, and through His Son Jesus. I don't recall Jesus fighting against government, but He did have some disputes with self-righteous religious folks. Maybe we need to take our cue from Him.

I would hope that each of us would examine the candidates for any political office, consider their past actions as well as their "stand" on the issues. Make this a prayerful consideration, and then vote as we feel led of God. Even then, no doubt there will be differences of opinion as to whom God would have us support. He didn't leave us a list of acceptable candidates. It may be that He wanted us to spend time with Him, and felt that if we prayed we would at least accomplish that much.

I believe that if the church, and by that I mean the people, not the buildings and organizations, if the church had fed the poor, cared for the sick, visited those in prison, there would have been no need for the government to take over these duties. The more Christians abdicate their responsibilities, the more the world may have to step in and take over in those areas.

Regarding whether or not government welfare has helped or hindered the recipients, I would urge folks to do some research, and not rely on the pat answers provided by political party platforms and those who make them. The same would be true of global warming. Shouting each other down doesn't really solve anything, although those who shout the loudest frequently win out as they drive any opposition out of the public arena.

II Chronicles 7:14, though addressed to the nation of Israel, may certainly be applied to Christians in America today. It doesn't call on unbelievers, but rather enjoins those called by the name of God to humble ourselves, confess our sins, and turn from our wicked ways. May we do this is my heart's desire and prayer to God.

To Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy), italic is started with the letter "i" between the < and the >. If I type the command here, you won't see it. You end it with a slash followed by the letter "i" between the same two characters. You can also use a "b" to begin and end bold. There are probably others, but that should get you started.

[67. Motte said the following at 9:16 AM on Nov 28:]

67

Thanks for your comment Mike Corum. Well said.

[68. John said the following at 10:17 AM on Nov 28:]

68

"I believe that if the church, and by that I mean the people, not the buildings and organizations, if the church had fed the poor, cared for the sick, visited those in prison, there would have been no need for the government to take over these duties. The more Christians abdicate their responsibilities, the more the world may have to step in and take over in those areas."

Motte,

Well said? I think not. You should no better then to believe this lie. Politicians started government handouts to gain more power, NOT because Christians weren't doing a good enough job.

[69. JB said the following at 11:02 AM on Nov 28:]

69

I wonder what an entirely private system of charity would need to look like if it was to replace current government programs. It seems to me that in some areas (providing food and clothing, for example) local churches and organizations would generally be able to meet the needs of their communities. Particularly well-funded churches might be able to help out with housing needs as well.

I think that kind of system would break down, though, when you talk about medical care. Medicare and Medicaid cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and other health care programs like the Ryan White Care Act cost billions of dollars more. And beyond the sheer cost of medical care, costs are unevenly distributed in time and space. A single poor parishioner who had, say, lung cancer, could easily incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills in a short period of time. There aren't many local churches with that kind of money on hand.

Only huge national organizations could support the kind of health care charity expenditures that would be needed absent government programs. Is that really a practical solution?

[70. JB said the following at 11:22 AM on Nov 28:]

70

John,

I never said that America is solely "bad, bad, bad" but I would argue that it never had a time of pure biblical morality. It's always been a mixed bag. Slavery happened, unequal political representation happened (and still does, to an extent), and genocide committed against Native Americans happened (or, at least, war and forcible removal happened if you don't care for the g-word.) If I'm wrong about any of these facts, please tell me, but I don't think I'm on shaky ground here.

I think that some conservatives idolize (and I mean to use that word) the founders and some mythical golden age of American history which never occurred. We should remember that the Fall happened before the founding of the United States, not some time in the 60s.

[71. John said the following at 12:54 PM on Nov 28:]

71

JB,

Thank you. Just like everyone else on here you keep proving the point that government involvement INCREASES costs and LOWERS effectiveness and efficiency.

There are a number of variables that people are not considering when they talk about "costs" of medical care.

Much of the "costs" would not be there if people had to pay more out of pocket expenses for minor medical care. They would also be able to afford better emergency plans because the premiums would be lower.

You and everyone else are basing costs on TODAY'S system, where government beauracracy has already messed up the prices of care.

You are all seriously underestimating the free market and the body of Christ.

[72. John said the following at 1:02 PM on Nov 28:]

72

"We should remember that the Fall happened before the founding of the United States, not some time in the 60s."

I like that and while I would agree with you that there are people guilty of idolizing the past, there are those who are equally guilty of demonizing it.

This is the greatest country that has ever existed, bar none. Not the perfectest (I meant to spell it that way) country that's ever existed, but the best.

One thing I try very hard to inform people of is federalism and states' powers. These are social studies concepts that are rarely taught, along with regions and locations. People don't apply these concepts when looking at America's past.

Much of the "bad" that was done was in a region and at a local level. Sometimes supported by federal government, but, even then, not something that an entire country supported. History is much more complex then people realize.

It's easy to criticize from afar.

Taking everything into consideration, compared to all of history, not just our own, we're on top, followed closely by England!

[73. Will H. said the following at 1:11 PM on Nov 28:]

73

JB I know my comments might have sounded like it but I am in no way one of the mindset that the time of our founding was the golden age of our government and we need to "get back" there. I also don't think we had a "pure biblical" morality system even then, people are not pure or perfect. But I do think the morality of the country as a whole was much more to a biblical leaning than it is today. I believe the reason for this was people of strong character and a belief in God and the Bible were in leadership in our government.

[74. Kit said the following at 3:53 PM on Nov 28:]

74

John said,
Yep, you got it. Wal-Mart is the evil poster child of capitalism. Actually, they have slave labor all over the world. That's why they're so rich and nobody can do anything against them. Lets destroy those capitalist pigs before they take our children to use in their gulags!

Actually, John, although I think you menat to be sarcastic, this is exactly why many people don't shop at Wal Mart. Because it is a terrible buisness, treats it's employees like junk, and many don't want to support it.

I want to ask, like someone else did, have you ever had a time when you were poor and could not afford life? Or known anyone?

[75. Jethro said the following at 4:04 PM on Nov 28:]

75

John,

I'm glad you consider child slaves earning $2 a day lucky to have a job. It clarifies for me just how far out on the right you are and it consoles me to know that, thank God, you are not representative of Christendom.

I'm bowing out of this conversation now, as the saying goes, 'argue with a fool and people may not be able to tell the difference'. I'm sure you feel the same about me.

[76. Jo said the following at 4:51 PM on Nov 28:]

76

John said:
"Taking everything into consideration, compared to all of history, not just our own, we're on top, followed closely by England!"

What, followed closely by a socialist welfare state like us? Surely not!

[77. farmer Tom said the following at 6:31 PM on Nov 28:]

77

Jo,

Shut off the sarcasm switch for a second, and put on your historical knowledge cap.

Now name a system of government anywhere in the world, in all of recorded history, which produced a freer,more hardworking, ambitious and prosperous people than the United States of America.

Now when your done. We will all feel free to ridicule your last post.

Old England, not the step-child that is modern England, is similar in structure to the Old United States of America.

The problem is that the current US government is an illegitimate offspring of an adulteress relationship between a socialist harlot and the original founders.
Most of you want to embrace this child of an illicit union by claiming that this Ishmael is heir to the family legacy.

What I what, and those who are originalists's what is to send the Ishmael away and embrace Isaac with open arms. Return to the original plan, the plan that worked for our first 100 years.

Jo, I understand that you did not grow up with the system of government we are supposed to have in the USA, please read the link I gave above, look up Constitutional Republic on Google. Read everything you can find there, you need to understand they system the founders intended, that way you can evaluate it in light of Truth, the Word of God.

I really don't care what system of government we have if it is Biblical. The question is what form of government is closest to the Biblical patterns God has established in His Word. I would hope that is your goal as well.

[78. John said the following at 9:03 PM on Nov 28:]

78

Jethro,

Very infrequently you articulate a honest question or statement. But usually you're just out to try to tweak peoples noses.

I don't think you are a fool. I feel sorry for you. I pray for the salvation of your soul and the renewing of your mind so that you can understand the error of your ways.

Once you are saved you will understand better the biblical principles that I and others are talking about.

God bless you.

[79. John said the following at 9:13 PM on Nov 28:]

79

If you think Wal-Mart is those things, then you're believing a lie from the mafia (unions) that propagates that nonsense.

Check your sources and research your facts.

Also, make sure you're not being liberal (no pun intended) with words such as: "terrible" and "junk".

How specificaly does Wal-Mart guilty of what you say?

[80. JB said the following at 12:14 AM on Nov 29:]

80

Farmer Tom,

You said, "What I what, and those who are originalists's what is to send the Ishmael away and embrace Isaac with open arms. Return to the original plan, the plan that worked for our first 100 years."

The point I was making is that the government of the United States in its first 100 years embraced slavery, the disenfranchisement of women (and racial minorities and many poor white men), and the systematic killing or removal of Native Americans. Clearly, this kind of government "worked" only for a privileged minority of Americans. That's not to say it was all bad, all the time, but the very fact of slavery if nothing else is a strong prima facie case against taking the founding government of the US as any kind of positive model. It seems clear to me that the US government circa 2007 is far closer to biblical morality than the US government circa 1807.

[81. Jo said the following at 1:11 AM on Nov 29:]

81

"Now name a system of government anywhere in the world, in all of recorded history, which produced a freer,more hardworking, ambitious and prosperous people than the United States of America."

Before I did that I'd have to agree that being free, ambitious and prosperous are the primary aims of the Christian way of life and I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's the case.

"please read the link I gave above, look up Constitutional Republic on Google. Read everything you can find there, you need to understand they system the founders intended, that way you can evaluate it in light of Truth, the Word of God."

I will, but I haven't had a chance yet. What I was looking for really was a short summary.

"The question is what form of government is closest to the Biblical patterns God has established in His Word. I would hope that is your goal as well."

Well... I'm not sure what you mean by it being my goal? I live in the country I live in, and beyond voting for the candidates I believe are most moral etc (which we should all do), I'm not sure what you're suggesting. It's certainly not my goal to overthrow the British system of government and institute a constitutional republic, and it wouldn't be even if I agreed that that would be the best and most Biblical system. My goal is to live as a Christian in the society I find myself in. It's only democracy that gives us the illusion of any kind of control over the government anyway, the early Christians just had to put up with the dictators that sought to destroy them. Yes we should use the power we have, but our focus I think should be more on our own lives, than on pushing an alternative system of government which would be corrupted anyway, just like every other system has been.

[82. obewan said the following at 9:36 AM on Nov 29:]

82

John, you said:
“How specifically does Wal-Mart guilty of what you say?" (sic)

“Wal-Mart has repeatedly violated U.S. child labor laws and profited from overseas child labor abuses.

A recent investigation revealed children, some only 11 years old, were making Wal-Mart clothes in a Bangladesh factory. The children report being routinely slapped and beaten, forced to work 12 to 14 hours a day, often seven days a week, for wages as low as 6 and a half cents an hour.”

I was wrong and am guilty of publishing “faulty data”. The children in Bangladesh who make our shirts do not make a few dollars a day, in some cases it is only 84 cents.

Shame on all who have a flippant and callous attitude about this injustice!

[83. obewan said the following at 9:49 AM on Nov 29:]

83

Here is a more detailed expose on child labor in Bangledesh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart:_Use_of_Child_Labor_in_Bangladesh

[84. Daniel, student said the following at 11:42 PM on Nov 29:]

84

(newbie to the blogosphere folks)

Great debate. I would like to suggest an idea of a professor I know, to subject it to review from the online community. He said...

"In America, our goal should be to encourage true intellectual freedom, where every view is given an equal place at the negotiating table. Given the chance, the best ideas should find there way to the surface."

That said, I worry that (objective)religious worldviews are being left out of the debate, without fair representation in academia.

I have the biggest issue with the current interpretation of "separation of church and state" and the fallacious claim that one should not "legislate their morality."

any thoughts/insights are welcome.

[85. Simon said the following at 1:59 AM on Nov 30:]

85

JB, last I checked, biblical morality did not say anything about voting rights. And if you think "embracing slavery" back then was bad, how about "embracing abortion" today?

Jo, I don't know if being free, ambitious, and prosperous is the primary goal of the Christian life, but I certainly don't think the two are *at odds with each other*. Or in other words, does our value system recognize those things as good things?

Obewan, please bear in mind that the cost of living in third world countries is a lot lower than in the US -- I had a decent breakfast once for pennies.

What are the alternatives in Bangladesh? The children are better off making goods for Wal-Mart than being "routinely slapped and beaten, forced to work 12 to 14 hours a day, often seven days a week" as prostitutes or soldiers. In the past, boycotting companies that used overseas labor resulted in those children becoming beggars and prostitutes.

Think about Oskar Schindler and the Jews he employed. What if people boycotted his products because he was using forced Jewish labor (under threat of the Holocaust)? Then the Jews would have been sent to death camps.

By giving these children a humane alternative, Wal-Mart is doing more good than harm, even if they're not actively calling for better working conditions.

[86. John said the following at 5:22 AM on Nov 30:]

86

JB,

The United States did not embrace slavery.

Certain states and regions did, but the entire country did not.

That's why hundreds of thousands of Americans died in a war, oh, around 1860-1865!

And the highest concentration of slavery was in South Carolina.

Study federalism. Then you will have a better understanding of our past and not make the mistake of characterizing our entire country of a sin perpetuated by some.

[87. Jo said the following at 9:47 AM on Nov 30:]

87

Simon said: "Jo, I don't know if being free, ambitious, and prosperous is the primary goal of the Christian life, but I certainly don't think the two are *at odds with each other*."

No of course not, that's not what I was suggesting. My point was that farmer Tom seemed to be using these as markers by which to measure the goodness and 'godliness' of a society.

"Or in other words, does our value system recognize those things as good things?"
I think to be honest I disagree with this premise. There is nothing wrong with being free, being ambitious or being prosperous. But I also wouldn't say they are inherently good (with the possible exception of freedom, but even this can be used badly). The goodness of ambition is entirely based on what one is ambitious for. Prosperity, I would say, is completely neutral, it might be nice for us to be prosperous, but nothing about it is godly (or ungodly). The 'greatness' of the American Dream, as I understand it, is/was the idea that a person can start with nothing and through hard work and dedication, achieve prosperity for himself and his family. Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that in itself, but it has very little to do with Christianity.

Not bashing America here, or saying that there aren't godly concepts in the constitution etc. I'm simply referring to farmer Tom's list of 'freedom, ambition and prosperity'. I don't think a country should be measured primarily on its application of those principles, because I don't think they are Biblical principles.

[88. JB said the following at 1:25 PM on Nov 30:]

88

John,

Farmer Tom was referring to the "original plan" of the United States. The Constitution, which I take to be the original plan, includes provisions, such as the "three-fifths compromise" and a restriction on the ability of Congress to ban the slave trade, which clearly accommodated slavery. Further, many of the founders (Washington, Jefferson, and George Mason among them) personally owned slaves. And Congress early in its existence passed laws requiring the capture and return of slaves who escaped to free territory. The federal government clearly accommodated, and in some cases abetted, the institution of slavery. That the "original plan" of the United States could encompass such a morally bankrupt practice is, I think, good evidence that it was not morally superior to the US government as it has evolved today. In any case, if federalism as interpreted in the early 19th century permitted the existence of slavery, is this not a moral indictment of federalism?

Simon,

You're right, the Bible says nothing about voting, but I find it difficult to reconcile the love of one's neighbor with preventing that neighbor having a voice in government. And as for abortion, even if we were to agree that abortion is a moral evil (and I take it we don't), it still wouldn't be productive to argue which is worse. So in that case, I'll just stick to my contention that there was nothing morally special about the Founders or the "original" US government. If they were at all morally superior to what we have today, it was only by the thinnest of margins.

[89. John said the following at 6:36 PM on Nov 30:]

89

JB,

If those compromises weren't made, there would have never been a US.

The "three-fifth" compromise to which you refer was to prevent southerners from counting as whole persons, individuals whom they didn't treat as whole persons. The southerners wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

The Dec of Ind was an indictment of slavery. (all men are created equal)

You act as if by the simple fact that an evil existed and that by not stopping it immediately, the people around at the time were morally bankrupt. (As if Christians today will be considered morally bankrupt for not ending immediately Federally "abetted" baby murdering factories like Planned Parenthood)

The fact is, that many of the founders who had slaves, inherited them. The institution was a very entrenched part of society long before the founders had any power or influence. Point of fact is, that to simply free their slaves was far more complicated than just opening the front door and saying see ya later. Not to mention that that, freeing them, would have been worse for the slaves then simply staying, living basically as free men, even if legally classified as slaves.

Many of the founders believed slavery would die out on its own, which is exactly what was happening, until the invention of the cotton gin.

Several founders started abolitionist societies (Franklin among them).

You're totally missing my point about federalism.

For example, does the US accommodate prostitution?

According to you, the answer is yes, although the correct answer is no.

Only one state "accommodates" prostitution and only in certain counties.

Never mind the fact that you are over looking the incredibly obvious fact that over a hundred thousand men died fighting to end slavery.

Oh, and don't forget the truly amazing fact that it was ended at all. Slavery has existed since time innumerable, in all societies and in countless forms. (It still exists today) The very fact that it was ended here, with much thanks to our founders, is a fantastic testament to their genius and courage.

[90. John said the following at 6:46 PM on Nov 30:]

90

obewan,

wikipedia? Really? That's your source?

How about look-up "sarcasm" or "hyperbole" on your fabulous wikipedia.

The mafia (unions) have been trying to portray wal-mart as evil for years.

Beleive the mafia if you want.

Of course nobody should be treated that way, BUT making any amount of money is better then none, which is exactly what probably 90% of bangladeshis "make" or like Simon said, being a prostitute or child soldier.

[91. obewan said the following at 6:57 AM on Dec 3:]

91

John:

You said: "wikipedia? Really? That's your source?"

Wikipedia was only one source, but seemed to have the best summary. Google it yourself if you have doubts. An advanced search on Wal-Mart "child labor" gets only 167,000 hits.

The factory in Bangladesh was visited in person by the international press. The children were interviewed in person. Numerous accounts as a result of independent investigations all seem to agree.

Where do you get the connection between the Mafia and unions? You sound like you have been reading the "redneck press". Maybe only a couple of unions should get a bad rap. (Teamsters and the UAW) I was not intending to take a pro-union stance anyway - just an anti-slavery stance.

The point of the whole post is that other countries do not have the same legal restrictions that would prevent labor abuse. I suppose now you are going to say that our government is run by the Mafia because it enforces laws that forbid child labor abuse.

If you were living in the civil war era I suppose you would say that black slaves were "rescued" from a harsh life in the jungle.

I am surprised you call yourself a conservative when you are so liberal about evil.
(The republican party was anti-slavery in the civil war, not the democratic party)
Situational ethics can be used to justify all manner of evil when it comes to the blackness of the human heart. The point is not that their life may have been microscopically improved, but that they were EXPLOITED UNFAIRLY for huge capital gain.

[92. John said the following at 8:31 PM on Dec 3:]

92

obewon,

If you are unaware of the connection between the mafia and unions, then I'm wasting my time.

Hopefully, you will one day understand.

[93. obewan said the following at 9:15 AM on Dec 4:]

93

John:

You have been listening to too many Jimmy Hoffa stories, and are behind on your history. Since the 1980’s the government has been weeding the Mafia out of labor unions using the RICO act laws. There is even a book on the subject by a professor at NYU. It is a real stretch to say that Unions are attempting to slander Wal-Mart when the international press has visited the factories in Bangladesh, and those factories are not even union organized. It would be a stretch to say they ever could become union organized.

"Jacobs offers a history of the federal government's efforts to curb labor racketeering. The heart of his text focuses on the results achieved by employing Civil RICO suits to weed out organized crime from unions long mired in corruption. The Justice Department has mounted twenty such efforts since 1982, and Jacobs's book is the first to provide a comprehensive assessment of this controversial tactic.”

http://www.uniondemocracy.org/Education/audconffightingcorruption.htm