Why are you what you are, politically?

[LemonMelon]

The internet, a bar, a sidewalk, anywhere you'd like.

The reason there are restrictions in here and at school is to promote some form of order, to keep some kind of peace, BUT THEY ARE NOT GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED. They are rules created by private owners.

Yes, I realize that. As I said before, absolute free speech does not exist, and there are consequences for everything you say. You just may not get fined or thrown in prison for it is all. I agree that rules need to be in place (believe me, I'm not one of those types who would cry "free speech!" if I had just cussed out a cop and was being beaten over the head with a nightstick as a result).

I guess the system is the best we have. I just wish it would be better defined is all.

 

[BVS]

(believe me, I'm not one of those types who would cry "free speech!" if I had just cussed out a cop and was being beaten over the head with a nightstick as a result).

Well how would they be justified? They have no right to beat you just because you said some strong words to them.

I guess the system is the best we have. I just wish it would be better defined is all.

And here is where I'm having a hard time understanding your argument, for you haven't shown one piece of government sanctioned free speech, just those on a private level. Free speech on a private level was never promised to you, why do feel you need a better definition?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I suspect that Wanderer was only referring to government sanctions against speech, not other consequences. However, I agree that there are enough other intimidating consequences that effectively weaken actual free speech.

I think that the government restrictions on speech are the only ones where as citizens we should be able to demand freedom, implicit restrictions are social - in some cases I think that resisting the social pressures is commendable (e.g. Mohammed cartoons) since at it's core free speech is dangerous to the status quo.

 

[2861U2]

"You might have to"? Why, just because you a part of majority and you get to make the rules? You're kidding right?

No, I dont make the rules at all. The founders of this country of Judeo-Christian values made the rules. I would never move to a mostly Islamic nation and ask that all references of Allah be removed from public. Sometimes if you are in the minority, sorry, you dont get your way.

And yes, I can and do justify my opinions. If you want to make me think more, you saying you know everything about Jesus isnt a good strategy.

 

[A_Wanderer]

An Islamic nation is the Windows XP of judeo-christian values, why would you have a problem with it?

The government doesn't have the right to bust into your church and force you to believe some slightly different theology that is the principle of secularism - in America it removes the government from religious affairs and puts them in the domain of individual rights whcih is probably a very good protection for you as a believer. God has no place in the US government if only because it is a club that collects it's dues from non-Christians.

 

[BVS]

No, I dont make the rules at all. The founders of this country of Judeo-Christian values made the rules. I would never move to a mostly Islamic nation and ask that all references of Allah be removed from public. Sometimes if you are in the minority, sorry, you dont get your way.

Do these countries claim to have separation of church and state? This analogy doesn't make sense.

Sometimes if you are in the minority, sorry, you dont get your way.

And this isn't what's being asked. What is being asked is that all men are created equal, not that a majority or a minority get their way.

Why do you feel you need God in your government or public square, and what scripture basis do you have that it should be?

And yes, I can and do justify my opinions. If you want to make me think more, you saying you know everything about Jesus isnt a good strategy.

Sorry, just haven't seen a lot of it in here. I'm still waiting how the GOP is the "Christian party".

 

[LemonMelon]

Well how would they be justified? They have no right to beat you just because you said some strong words to them.

Does it even matter whether or not they have that right? The law is set by precedent and such things are quite common. It would make sense for me to expect that consequence (or to be fined, hundcuffed, etc).

And here is where I'm having a hard time understanding your argument, for you haven't shown one piece of government sanctioned free speech, just those on a private level. Free speech on a private level was never promised to you, why do feel you need a better definition?

When did I once say I doubted the common definition of free speech? I only said that absolute free speech does not exist. That's it. That's what I was arguing over.

Sorry, just haven't seen a lot of it in here. I'm still waiting how the GOP is the "Christian party".

I would like to point out that I agree with you here. Besides that fact that the party system in general is a complete flop, and they're all corrupt in some form or another, there are many times where the GOP agrees with things that are considerably less than Christian. They simply get that distinction in some circles because of their stances on abortion and homosexual rights, but that doesn't mean that many of their other actions aren't morally corrupt.

 

[BVS]

Does it even matter whether or not they have that right? The law is set by precedent and such things are quite common. It would make sense for me to expect that consequence (or to be fined, hundcuffed, etc).

Yeah it matters if they have the right? That's the only thing that matters. It doesn't make sense to expect that consequence, it's a stupid move, but not a legally expected consequence. And that's what we're talking about here, the legal grounds.

When did I once say I doubted the common definition of free speech? I only said that absolute free speech does not exist. That's it. That's what I was arguing over.

I just wish it would be better defined is all

You are still confusing two things here, government vs private.

and homosexual rights, but that doesn't mean that many of their other actions aren't morally corrupt.

Actually their view on homosexual rights is one of their most morally corrupt stances.

 

[2861U2]

Why do you feel you need God in your government or public square, and what scripture basis do you have that it should be?

I dont want a lot. I dont want to walk down the sidewalk and see references to God on every store sign in town. That would take the mystery and the spontanaity out of faith. What I do want is God in the Pledge, and the Pledge spoken again in schools.

Romans 13 contains this: Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

Deuteronomy 17 contains this: When you come to the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me"; you may indeed set a king over you, him whom the Lord your God will choose.... When he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in charge of the Levitical priests, and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them; that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left; so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

Government was created out of respect for God and His divine law. Moses received the 10 Commandments before the Hebrews formed their own state. Therefore, the Commandments had precedent and stood above the state. Keep in mind the ideals found in our Constitution come from a higher law.

I'm still waiting how the GOP is the "Christian party".

I never said the GOP was God's party. As much as I may love the Republicans and despise the Democrats, I dont believe God would endorse a political party and I dont believe one party loves God more than the other. Shame on whoever said that.

 

[Ormus]

Government was created out of respect for God and His divine law. Moses received the 10 Commandments before the Hebrews formed their own state. Therefore, the Commandments has precedent and stood above the state. Keep in mind the ideals found in our Constitution come from a higher law.

The problem with this is that it takes away all of our "moral authority" to encourage repressive Islamic nations to liberalize and accept minority religions and belief systems.

Many reformist movements in these nations no longer believe that the U.S. truly believe in secularism, but, instead, just want to "Christianize" these nations, and, as such, we are perceived as self-serving hypocrites. This certainly does not help the larger "War on Terror."

The U.S. is not a Christian nation, and religion should have no central place in our government. The ideals of our Constitution certainly did come from a larger authority, but that "authority" came from the Enlightenment, not any religious movement.

 

[BVS]

What I do want is God in the Pledge, and the Pledge spoken again in schools.

But why? Just because you want it, that's not good enough for me.

Romans 13 contains this: Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

So Saddam was put their by God, we shouldn't have removed him. See how that logic fails?

Deuteronomy 17 contains this: When you come to the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me"; you may indeed set a king over you, him whom the Lord your God will choose.... When he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in charge of the Levitical priests, and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them; that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left; so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

Fails for the same reason.

Government was created out of respect for God and His divine law. Moses received the 10 Commandments before the Hebrews formed their own state. Therefore, the Commandments has precedent and stood above the state. Keep in mind the ideals found in our Constitution come from a higher law.

Really, the Constitution was given to us by God? Wow now you are stretching. You really think God wants to claim some of the laws we have? God gave us the right to own slaves?

I never said the GOP was God's party. As much as I may love the Republicans and despise the Democrats, I dont believe God would endorse a political party and I dont believe one party loves God more than the other. Shame on whoever said that.

Here we agree, to a certain point.

Although you did say this when asked if the Republican party equals the teachings of Jesus:

Yes, I believe I do. If nothing else, I certainly, certainly do not equate them to the Democratic party of today.

So shame on who?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I beg to bloody well differ, the concept of God is primitivism at it's finest (and in many ways that great security camera in the sky may be analagous to government) but the concept has no place in the machinations of any state that recieves tax money from individuals who do not hold to that particular delusion. As an atheist I find the idea that I must subsidise the Christianists mental masturbation of having every child pay lip service to their God quite obscene. While your faith may hold that government is a product of God (as many other theocrats would agree) that belief has no place in a liberal democracy especially that crafted from enlightenment ideals by naturalistic deistsl.

Do you have a problem with a system of governance where every citizen isn't paying lip service to the jackbook of your invisible friend?

Keep in mind the ideals found in our Constitution come from a higher law.

Freedom and individualism are not bound to God, they have very practical and rational advantages for a society and emerged in the west in response to the shackles of theocracy. Freedom enables you to choose to live under biblical law as much as it enables me to live a wicked life of sin and blasphemy (that doesn't effect you).

 

[BVS]

of your invisible friend?

All my friends are invisible, anything wrong with that?

 

[A_Wanderer]

As long as I don't have to pay their way.

 

[maycocksean]

I dont want a lot. I dont want to walk down the sidewalk and see references to God on every store sign in town. That would take the mystery and the spontanaity out of faith. What I do want is God in the Pledge, and the Pledge spoken again in schools.

Romans 13 contains this: Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

Deuteronomy 17 contains this: When you come to the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me"; you may indeed set a king over you, him whom the Lord your God will choose.... When he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in charge of the Levitical priests, and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them; that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left; so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

You do know "under God" was added to the pledge just over 50 years ago right?

You also know that when Paul spoke in Romans of the leaders being put in place by God he was referring to the rulers of pagan Rome right? Hardly Judeo-Christian values there. . .

And you also know that the OT texts refer to the establishment of a theocracy, a nation ruled directly by God (God was not a big fan of the Israel having a ruler at all. . .He gave the people of Israel a king because they insisted on it).

Also, the Bill of Rights was written, in large part to protect the minority in this country. Free speech was written in to protect those expressing unpopular views. . .the rights of the acccused included to protect those who are suspected of committing a crime (usually not a large or popular group), and so on. Acknowledging and protecting the rights of the minority is what makes our nation a legitimate democracy.

Furthermore, Jesus made a habit of ministering to, standing up for, and defending those who were downtrodden. He seemed to be partial to the poor, to those that the rest of society didn't care for? Granted he wasn't advocating government as the "nanny" to care for these people, but neither did he take careless and flippant attitude towards the so-called minority.

 

[CherokeeRose]

Furthermore, Jesus made a habit of ministering to, standing up for, and defending those who were downtrodden. He seemed to be partial to the poor, to those that the rest of society didn't care for? Granted he wasn't advocating government as the "nanny" to care for these people, but neither did he take careless and flippant attitude towards the so-called minority.

Very well said

 

[verte76]

Furthermore, Jesus made a habit of ministering to, standing up for, and defending those who were downtrodden. He seemed to be partial to the poor, to those that the rest of society didn't care for? Granted he wasn't advocating government as the "nanny" to care for these people, but neither did he take careless and flippant attitude towards the so-called minority.

Well said.

 

[Diemen]

Excellent post, Sean. (is there an echo in here? )

 

[U2DMfan]

That Jesus guy, divine or not, he was pretty bad-ass.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I never said they don't count. But if you choose to be a member of a different religion and you choose to live in the US (a mostly Christian nation), I'm sorry, but you might have to put up with "God" being in the Pledge. If people want to have "God" refer to Allah or Buddha or whoever, fine by me.

Might doesn't make right in a liberal democracy; citizens rights are protected from such things by the constitution and having to pay lip service to God seems to goes both free speech, freedom of association and the secular state.

 

[BonosSaint]

I think that the government restrictions on speech are the only ones where as citizens we should be able to demand freedom, implicit restrictions are social - in some cases I think that resisting the social pressures is commendable (e.g. Mohammed cartoons) since at it's core free speech is dangerous to the status quo.

I agree with you that we can only demand freedom of speech regarding governmental restrictions. And the sanctions on free speech are generally societal (and on occasion, officially coerced)
But the Mohammed cartoons (and I agree we should have the freedom to show them and I understand the reason for showing them) will have a minimal impact on most of us, as they don't look much different from the mildest political cartoons we see every day. We take it for granted. So I don't think the courage it took for the Danes to print them would resonate with most of us.

I've been grateful for the freedoms our newspapers have had and our best newspapers have utilized to provide us with information. However, our media self censors itself daily--for a variety of reasons. And we don't benefit from the freedoms as much as we should be able to. This isn't the fault of the protections. Oftentimes it is the fault of the protected. But the government does involve itself in restrictions. At which point, you fight or you don't. And if you do fight, you can expect to be tied up in court for years at huge expense. And you will likely win. But it takes phenomenal resources not often available to the average citizen. So you pick and choose your free speech fights.

 

[yolland]

You do know "under God" was added to the pledge just over 50 years ago right?

You also know that when Paul spoke in Romans of the leaders being put in place by God he was referring to the rulers of pagan Rome right? Hardly Judeo-Christian values there. . .

And you also know that the OT texts refer to the establishment of a theocracy, a nation ruled directly by God (God was not a big fan of the Israel having a ruler at all. . .He gave the people of Israel a king because they insisted on it).
......................................................
Furthermore, Jesus made a habit of ministering to, standing up for, and defending those who were downtrodden. He seemed to be partial to the poor, to those that the rest of society didn't care for? Granted he wasn't advocating government as the "nanny" to care for these people, but neither did he take careless and flippant attitude towards the so-called minority.

To be fair though, this ambiguity as to what can plausibly be derived about politics from the Bible cuts both ways, doesn't it? If one can't decisively prove that 'obviously' Jesus would've supported mandatory daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (complete with "under God") or what have you, then I'd imagine the same applies to claiming that he 'obviously' would've supported an extensive, tax-supported welfare state. As you pointed out, he simply wasn't addressing himself to a world in which sovereign, democratic republics based on equality of all citizens before the established laws of a particular nation existed (although, realistically, on the whole the Romans came as close to that as pretty much anyone else in their time; and many of our own concepts of polity and law remain deeply indebted to theirs). And "Render unto Caesar..." hardly seems to clarify much; you could read that as a broad general guideline meant to always and everywhere apply to the distinction between divine and temporal authority, or a one-shot defensive rhetorical maneuver meant to pointedly avoid answering an equally pointed 'Gotcha!'-type question, or a sly insinuation that if you've gotten yourself too beholden to 'Caesar' than perhaps you'd best do something about that now hadn't you, or any one of various things in between.

At any rate, from a Jewish POV it seems very strange to attempt to derive universal principles about 'The' proper relationship between "church and state" from the Torah, then turn around and apply them to a wholly different nation and culture thousands of years and miles removed from it; it's never been our understanding that that particular vision of "the state" was divinely mandated to spread across the globe, as if God deems only one kind of polity 'acceptable'. Augustine and Aquinas would have found it strange as well. But I take it that was part of your point--that if you're religious than inevitably your religious sensibilities will affect your political views, but that those in turn are just as inevitably informed by all kinds of contingencies about which believers can and will disagree in good faith as to whether they're unambiguously addressed in scripture. A_W and Ormus also make a good point that many of the most widely cherished political ideas of modern Western culture actually developed through rejection of the power of the self-appointed arbiters of 'God in the public square'--though of course there was much more to Renaissance and Enlightenment political thought than just that.

Probably we're all guilty to some extent of basing our political views, and voting behavior, on things we'd like to see ourselves as 'standing for' because it flatters our egos for what are at best only half-conscious reasons, rather than on concrete achievements which we've witnessed, observed inarguable benefits from, and trust will be built upon wisely by the politicians we support. There's a strange paradox to democracy where the more 'traditional' notions of what constitutes political legitimacy erode and diversify (essential to the establishment of democracy in the first place), the more time politicians must spend (waste?) establishing, and challenging each other on, what makes their powers and actions legitimate.

 

[maycocksean]

To be fair though, this ambiguity as to what can plausibly be derived about politics from the Bible cuts both ways, doesn't it? If one can't decisively prove that 'obviously' Jesus would've supported mandatory daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (complete with "under God") or what have you, then I'd imagine the same applies to claiming that he 'obviously' would've supported an extensive, tax-supported welfare state.

I agree. I think it would be a bit overreaching to insist Jesus held views that mirror any one particular political platform. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch though to conclude that Jesus was uninterested in using government as a means of achieving His goals. I can think of many texts where he seemed to make it clear he wasn't seeking political power. I can't think of any texts that would imply the opposite.

I think that principle of not using government to achieve religious goals is a valuable one.

At any rate, from a Jewish POV it seems very strange to attempt to derive universal principles about 'The' proper relationship between "church and state" from the Torah, then turn around and apply them to a wholly different nation and culture thousands of years and miles removed from it; it's never been our understanding that that particular vision of "the state" was divinely mandated to spread across the globe, as if God deems only one kind of polity 'acceptable'. Augustine and Aquinas would have found it strange as well.

Agree here as well. As a missionary, I've always found it rather distressing to walk into your average American bookstore and find American flags everywhere and a lifesize cutout of George W. Bush. I find myself wonderign what would the Chinese Christian make of this display? What significance would it have for his or her spiritual journey? I'd imagine, not much.

But I take it that was part of your point--that if you're religious than inevitably your religious sensibilities will affect your political views, but that those in turn are just as inevitably informed by all kinds of contingencies about which believers can and will disagree in good faith as to whether they're unambiguously addressed in scripture. A_W and Ormus also make a good point that many of the most widely cherished political ideas of modern Western culture actually developed through rejection of the power of the self-appointed arbiters of 'God in the public square'--though of course there was much more to Renaissance and Enlightenment political thought than just that.

I really wish a Conservative Christian with this view to get God back into America "again" could outline a justification for pursuing such a goal. It just seems so at odds with everything I read in the Bible. I realize for many here in FYM a Biblical justification wouldn't mean anything one way or the other, but obviously for me, being a conservative Christian myself, it would. I tend to agree with A_W and Ormus about the roots of modern Western culture and with Irvine about the importance of keeping government secular, for the sake of religion.

 

[BVS]

I really wish a Conservative Christian with this view to get God back into America "again" could outline a justification for pursuing such a goal. It just seems so at odds with everything I read in the Bible.

I do as well, haven't found one yet. I think it basically comes down to status quo with many of them... and status quo should NEVER be an answer.

 

[INDY500]

I really wish a Conservative Christian with this view to get God back into America "again" could outline a justification for pursuing such a goal. It just seems so at odds with everything I read in the Bible. I realize for many here in FYM a Biblical justification wouldn't mean anything one way or the other, but obviously for me, being a conservative Christian myself, it would. I tend to agree with A_W and Ormus about the roots of modern Western culture and with Irvine about the importance of keeping government secular, for the sake of religion.

For justification I read the words of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Rush, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan...for starters.

Now where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Cor 3:17).

 

[BVS]

Well that may count as a personal justification, but it doesn't work as a governmental one...

 

[Irvine511]

For justification I read the words of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Rush, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan...for starters.

Now where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Cor 3:17).

and i think you're misreading and looking to validate a personal belief, rather than understanding what these men were talking about.

you'll notice they don't talk much about Jesus, just talk of a common Creator, and since we all come from the same source, worldly distinctions -- class, wealth, status, etc. -- are meaningless in the eyes of the Creator. hence, we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights. it's emminently logical and dripping with reason, not religiosity. it couldn't be further from today's politically conservative christian carping about how God loves some of us -- Americans, heterosexuals, Republcians -- quite a bit more than others -- non-Americans, homosexuals, Democrats.

 

[INDY500]

you'll notice they don't talk much about Jesus, just talk of a common Creator, and since we all come from the same source, worldly distinctions -- class, wealth, status, etc. -- are meaningless in the eyes of the Creator. hence, we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights. it's emminently logical and dripping with reason, not religiosity.

The founders and subsequent presidents who were Christian would have been referring to the God of the Bible, the Deists to Nature's God. But all devoted to moral virtue , inclusion and the believe that God's grace is universal. Our rights and liberty God-given. So you are wrong, our country's ideals -- and in fact very premise -- are spiritual, not the secular.
The 1st amendment wall separates church and state. Not religion and prayer from politics or public discourse. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams may not have wished to promote a sectarian government but they surely believed in a power above the state.

Which is why George Washington at his first inaugural (after taking the presidential oath) added "So help me God."

it couldn't be further from today's politically conservative christian carping about how God loves some of us -- Americans, heterosexuals, Republcians -- quite a bit more than others -- non-Americans, homosexuals, Democrats.

As reported in the New York Times.

 

[BVS]

"So help me God."

It's a very common phrase, often even used by athiests. My boss just said the other day, "so help me god if you don't find those forms your ass is mine" to a co worker of mine, and he is not a believer of any sort.

You still haven't shown a biblical justification.

 

[Irvine511]

The founders and subsequent presidents who were Christian would have been referring to the God of the Bible, the Deists to Nature's God. But all devoted to moral virtue , inclusion and the believe that God's grace is universal. Our rights and liberty God-given. So you are wrong, our country's ideals -- and in fact very premise -- are spiritual, not the secular.
The 1st amendment wall separates church and state. Not religion and prayer from politics or public discourse. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams may not have wished to promote a sectarian government but they surely believed in a power above the state.

Which is why George Washington at his first inaugural (after taking the presidential oath) added "So help me God."

sorry, still no Jesus to be found. nor Bible citing/thumping. and no mention of Grace, Heaven, the afterlife, etc. you're taking what is strictly a God of reason -- and he's not even really called God; he's called the Creator, a word that i as a secular humanist in the 21th century find entirely appropriate to use when talking about the common origin of human beings, that the shephard is as worthy as the pharoh in the eyes of their Creator -- and applying your own Christian biases and prejudices. were the Founding Fathers unaware that there were Jews in the 18th century? that there were Muslims? they most certainly knew that not every person on earth worshipped the Christian God, yet they knew that this new country had a place for them as well. and they knew that it is the secular that allows the spiritual to thrive when it is unemcumbered -- either through discrimination or promotion -- by the government. they knew about the Catholic theocracies in 16th century Spain. and they knew about the religious wars that had torn Europe asunder throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. and they wanted nothing to do with that.

you've, again, proved my point exactly -- the government has plenty of space for religious people, but it has no space for any particular religion.

As reported in the New York Times.

you can do better.