If you take your religion seriously, then you should.
You get the government you vote for. If you elect an evangelical Christian who ran on a platform of “Christian morals”, you shouldn’t be shocked if he/she introduces or votes for legislation consistent with that platform. Just as if you vote for an openly-gay candidate who runs on a gay rights platform, you shouldn’t be shocked or object if he legislates consistently with that platform.
Look, I’ll weigh in on this. It is my view and that of most educated biblical scholars (I have a very strong college level background in theology and biblical studies), that there are things referenced in the old testament (OT) that are discounted in the NT. I know that seems foggy. But the Bible is a book with deep fundamental truths that has been colored (especially in the OT) by political and societal guidelines at the time and a discerning reader has to use their judgement in differentiating the two. The modern church needs to approach the bible with fairness and insight and not elevating it beyond the level of a text.
But more importantly, Plantir, you are dead wrong on this. The Bible from start to finish promotes freedom of choice. From the opening example of Adam, to the closing examples, judgement is left ot God, and the choice is left to man. JC and friends specifically remained beyond the realm of politics and never preached of imposing their views on others. There is a very clear separation in the Bible of God’s law and man’s law and no perogative to to impose one on the other. Willful obediance (versus imposed) is the idea here, and this is where I believe modern conservatives and politicians have made the biggest misstep. It is not a Christian’s role to impose our rules on society, but rather to focus on living a good example. It’s interesting that JC only preached to those that would travel to hear him, and was willing to sit and speak openly with adulterers (woman at the well), crooked tax collectors, prostitutes, and rich men. If you read these interactions (each in which he is approached), each is sympathetic, without excusing the action.
I’m not holding myself out there as a Christian, but I’ve got a pretty strong background in the stuff and I think there are a lot of misconceptions that get spread around. When I was in my college (a bible college, and my brother was a minister), I would often write editorials railing against the current state of religious institutions. I’ve been known to state often that “The biggest obstacle between Christ and non-believers is the church itself” and I think it’s pretty telling that in the entire breadth of the NT, Christ only speaks with anger and displays wrath one time… when he enters the temple and overturns the tables of the money changers for corrupting the place. I think in modern Christian society there is this mentality of judging the external world (which has not prescribed to these guidelines) and completely excusing everything within the church (which has prescribed to these guidelines) that is completely backwards and contradictory to everything found in the NT. Very frustrating.
I don’t want to write an essay, so I’ll let this one go unanswered…
I mean it’s pretty simple. If your religion promotes freedom of choice openly in the text and showcase separation of church and state, then the assumption that if your religion promotes XYZ, you as a politician must support legislation for XYZ if you are in office and serious about your religion is bullshit. The precident was set with adam that man must be free to fail.
that’s exactly what i mean. it’s your fault if you accept a platform that goes beyond protection of your individual freedom to voluntarily associate with others as you see fit.
For the record, I agree with everything BS said in his long post above. However, I can understand Palantir’s point of view when he says that a politician should govern according to his religious beliefs.
If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, and you have some power to prevent it, then you have the obligation to “save” the country from God’s wrath. However, if you permit it, then you are “asking for it”, and shouldn’t be surprised when God goes all Sodom-and-Gomorrah on our country.
I think the same statement is true with support for Israel. Most conservative Christians believe we should unilaterally support Israel, because they are “God’s Chosen People”, and that failing to support Israel would be inviting God’s anger upon us, since they are destined to inherit the promised land.
Again, I don’t agree with either of the above. But that’s how many conservative Christians believe. And this also goes to TF and Higg’s point–my congressional Representative is a conservative Christian Republican, and he legislates like a conservative Christian Republican. I did not vote for him, and I would never vote for him (even though I go to church with him and like him personally). So whether I like it or not, I’m not surprised that he pushes the conservative Christian Republican agenda, and he is my Congressman nonetheless.
Word.
I think the issue is that the US constitution and the founding fathers seem to view religion as a purely intellectual choice of beliefs, where someone freely chooses between a number of differing viewpoints the one that he believes to be true.
Obviously that is hogwash. Religion is far more closely tied to family culture, ethnic identity, and the moral standards of the time. As a result, there is no separation from political law and the spiritual. Unless there are heavy safeguards in place, it is inevitable that religious beliefs will influence everything from personal law to foreign policy.
Just extending the argument (as conservative Christians are so fond of doing WRT same-sex marriage), why is this even an issue compared to everything else going on. By the above logic, conservative Christian politicians should legistlate to make it illegal to commit adultery. I mean, the Ten Commandments specifically state that “You shall not commit adultery” which is much stronger than any Bible law relating to same-sex marriage. It is certainly as constitutionally viable as banning sam-sex marriage.
Most of the other Ten Commandment would be unconstitutional if they were put into law or are already laws (stealing, murder, etc.).
@Palantir - I don’t think anybody denies that what you’re saying is the way that it is in reality. But is that the way that it SHOULD be (purely in theory)?
I don’t think anyone will take up the arguement that someone SHOULD impose their beliefs on others. That would take a terrific amount of ego and delusion. Last I checked we didn’t have any politicians here.
Because that statement by Greenman is blatantly simplistic and innacurate (although I think he stated these were not his own views). There is no biblical foundation necessitating that we dictate the actions of others. If not using all of your powers to prevent sin is a sin, then by logic Jesus (with the ability to perform miracles) is a sinner for not using those magical godlike powers to prevent sin by dictating actions. Furthermore, the NT, clearly undermines the relationship between sin and damnation by stating none can live sinless, and the “faith alone” will provide salvation. In otherwords, that logic train of salvation by works is completly unfounded in NT scripture and thus an innacurate representation of religion.
While Plantir may have a point regarding other religions, I think he is misunderstanding the Christian foundation or possibly misinterpreting the conservative bile for what is written in the Bible. The NT clearly advocates freedom of choice, independence of church and state, and salvation by faith versus by works.
Yeah, God’s all about free will. Well, right up until you do something that pisses him off anyway.
I’m sitting this one out. 2 debates that never end are politics and religion.
Well, according to the Bible, homosexuality is merely an abomination. It’s not really something sinful, the way eating shellfish is.
And there’s nothing at all said about lesbian relationships. As far as the Bible goes, women can do whatever they want, as long as it’s not while they’re menstruating, or for 7 (or was it 9) days after.
Well, if you’re looking at Leviticus, you’ll find lots of bizarre stuff.
EG - When you marry a girl, and you consummate the marriage that night, she’s supposed to be a virgin. And if she’s a virgin, then she’ll bleed on the sheets. The next morning, you’re supposed to show the sheets to the villiage elders. If there’s blood on the sheets, then she lives. If there’s not, she’s supposed to be stoned to death. (I think this is Leviticus 20)
And Christianity (as opposed to Judaism) bases most of its theology on the New Testament, not the Old Testament. The Old Testament is referred to because of the history and prophecy, but most of the “new rules for liiving” come from NT.
I like when people go back to the OT all the time because the NT is pretty bullet proof. But they don’t want to hear that, instead they’d rather just be self important. And for the record, a lot of those OT “weirdnesses” were the result of social constructs designed to keep the people healthy. That’s how life worked back then. Lumping the NT together is just being silly. In the NT, JC clearly makes statements respecting the OT, but correcting a legalistic interpretation.
Read the NT much? No? Didn’t think so. The NT exists with JC as the messenger primarily to clarify a lot of misunderstandings regarding the violent nature of God laid down in the OT by well meaning but perhaps slightly confused authors.
10 times out of 10 the condescending bullsh*t comes from people digging back to the OT because they’re either ignorant to the state of modern christianity and the NT, or they’re just blatantly trying to misinform.
That’s fine. I guess we should all prescribe to science then, oh, BTW, ever read a scientific text from the BC era? A lot of gold in there too. Guess science is all bogus.