and the lack of doing so is one of my biggest problems with liberal-leaning churches, even moreso than the problem with the government for allowing it.
Uhh, ... liberal leaning churches? ... You mean to tell me you don't see conservative churches doing the same thing? .... you know, Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Focus on the Family? Ted Haggard, who even had a direct line to the White House under Dubya? All the fundamentalist churches who either downplay separation of church and state, if not outright opposing it (all because they decry the 'loss of God' in the public square). ... Where do you get your news from?
My issue with those who take the Establishment Clause and attempt to create a hostile environment to the public exp​ression of religion by individuals. For example, there are those who would want to prohibit my high school daughter from gathering with a couple of other Catholic kids and praying the Rosary during their lunch break at school, citing 'the wall of Separation' as justification.
First off, it isn't the _individual_ expression of religion by individuals in the public square that many of us SOCAS supportes are against. It is using the 'public square' ie., the government facilities to propagate, evangelize, and otherwise propound religion that we are non-apologetically against.
Now (believe it or not) I have noticed those on the SOCAS side who do/have overreacted (particularly school officials who go kneejerk because they're scared of attorneys), and overreached in that manner. I also recall a particular court case that struck down a school's ban on a voluntary bible meeting by individual Christian students, meeting _after_ school hours on school property. Yes sir, it did. ... But it wasn't and isn't SOCAS supporters as a whole that supports that kind of overreacting behavior.
Ie., if said religious behavior is using government offices/property/equipment/influence/etc. to propagate religion, conservative or liberal, then it is contradicting the 1st Amendment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you have more-or-less accepted the "They are trying to banish Christianity from this country", townhall-level-of-hype (that really has no basis in reality). If you have any _evidence_ that this type of banishment is occuring (and at the wide spread level please. Isolated occurances doesn't count.), please show me.
P.S., sort of here, yet maybe not so much. (At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist ;) ) As for the term 'public square' (ie., just another term for 'government' when you stop and think about it), the term is a more vague and round about way of saying the more specific term 'government', but its used that way for a reason, I think. To cloud it. Use the term 'government', and people get a kind of hard edged view (almost like Ron ;) ) about government. Ie., "they make laws, they tax us, they can throw you in jail, etc.". But you say the term 'public square', people have a more friendly image of government; a place where people meet and deal with the issues of the day, voice their opinions in the townhall, stuff like that. Things that also occur in government, but 'public square' seems to be more accomodating to people.
Now if it was stated that "God was being kept from government", not too many people would be up in arms, (except maybe fundamentalist politicians who want to be elected) as more people would think of the part of the 1st Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion", ... but if it was stated that "God was being kept from the public square", a different reaction often occurs. Ie., "OMG, they're trying to ban God from the public square, and eventually drive Him from the country! ... We have to fight this!!", ... you know, garbage like that. <_<
Again, this is basically my observation re: 'public square'. YMMV.
Further . I'm keeping track of all the 'green votes' vis-a-vis' the 'red votes' here, and I agree with MarkO (I think it was MarkO). They are a rather stupid ... no, infantile, way of showing approval/disapproval in various posters. For example, I disagree with MarkO a lot, but I _know_ he's someone who speaks honestly and gives us all something to think about, ... yet he's being bombarded with negative 'red votes' as tho' he's the bad boy here. ... Gimme a break.
Let's try this one more time. We'll make it simpler. Just a yes or no answer. Is it ever justified to overthrow a government?
A yes or no answer doesn't work. . . nor does trying to explain to you about God's sovereignty. . . God is justified in overthrowing anything He wants. . .the rest you figure out.
Even though we have "protections" in place (supposedly), there are so many governmental infringments on the American's Constitutional rights, it is ridiculous.
Those that are opposed to Christians being involved in government use "separation of church and state", however, this is actually not part of our Constitution. It was a line in a private letter (Jefferson?) not a government document. However, I now believe (after experiencing some of this for myself) if those that want the church to remain out of governmental affairs, then the government needs to stay the heck out of church affairs.
You know what?
THEY DON'T LIKE HAVING THE TABLES TURNED ON THEM!
Tolerance. . . an interesting concept. . . not often displayed toward the Christian(it is still PC to Christian bash). . . . but, on the other hand there are some groups claiming Christianity as their faith who really do invite it. . . .
Here in the doctrinal forum one would think we would be somewhat isolated from this on threads designated for the serious discussion of Christian issues. As long as I have been here this has never been the case. lous
As long as the topic's don't invite it. . . I don't think tolerance need mostly be reserved for the non-Christian. . .
This threads topic was "Oops" . . . . hardly controversial. . . .
_________________________________
We have ammendments in place within our Constitutions which protect us from a theocracy. . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The term "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution. Neither does "right to privacy". But, the concept and ideas are there. . . . just like the term trinity is not in the bible. . .or rapture. . . but, we see the concept and ideas. We use theology to express them. . .and we have the judiciary to interpret the concepts within the constitution. . . . to rule on the constitutionality of an issue.
In recent history. . . I think the closest we have come to something akin to a theocracy is GWB, whose foreign policy decisions where based in large part on his personal beliefs about God. That his orders came straight from God and that he was on a mission from God.
Your point Sunesis, ". . . . for a theocracy to work, the people would have to believe, without a doubt, that their "ruler" was called of God, and walked with God.. . . . " Is right on IMO.
Isn't that what happened in part with GWB? The far Christian right did believe he was called of God and was doing God's will? What a mess! So many people. . . women and children have died because this one man thought his mission was from God almighty. It appears his faith was often the guiding force in his decision process. . . without the aid of reason or empirical evidence. . . the ends justifying the means and outright lies part of his arsenal.
Is that really what is happening with Obama? I have to wonder. After 8 years of war and the systematic dismantling of our constitution and economy. . . . someone new comes along. He offers hope to a really weary nation. . . (I am surprised the misery index wasn't trotted out more). . . .He is young, he energizes, he offers change. . . . and he is seen as a saving grace for our country. The first African American President in a country whose recent history includes segregation. . . it is a huge historical event. . . we have changed. . . evolved and it is evident in his election. We can fix this mess.
He is viewed as a savior of sorts. . .as was Reagan, FDR, Lincoln and others. Hopefully, the right man at the right time. . . . desperately needed.
I just don't think it is remotely in the same category as GWB and his mission from God.
As far as reaching out to Muslims. . . . wouldn't that be a good thing. This is a population we have persecuted for the last eight years. . . . we have not really been tolerant of Islam as a whole. . . . despite GWB saying we were not at war with a religion. . . it really seems we have been on a crusade.
As far as Obama not yet having a church(I didn't know this). . . . given what happened at his last church. . . the scrutiny. . . the judgments. . . is he really free to worship where he wants without subjecting an entire congregation to public inspection? Seems almost kind on his part.
And what if he is fond of the Muslim faith? It is part of the tradition he grew up with. . . He has the right in this country to worship as he wishes. But, he is not attending mosque, just reaching out. That is no threat to us as a nation. . . .
Is he really using religion as a platform or basis for making decisions? Romans 13:1 says God is control. . . once Obama thinks his secret mission starts coming directly from God like GWB. . . then we need to start worrying. . . .
I get your points. . . I just look at it differently. :)
Even though we have "protections" in place (supposedly), there are so many governmental infringments on the American's Constitutional rights, it is ridiculous.
Those that are opposed to Christians being involved in government use "separation of church and state", however, this is actually not part of our Constitution. It was a line in a private letter (Jefferson?) not a government document. However, I now believe (after experiencing some of this for myself) if those that want the church to remain out of governmental affairs, then the government needs to stay the heck out of church affairs.
You know what?
THEY DON'T LIKE HAVING THE TABLES TURNED ON THEM!
Maybe some examples would make your point clearer. Like what infringements on the "American's Constitutional rights," or how exactly certain people use separation of church and state to keep Christians from being involved in government, or how the government is involved with the affairs of churches?
You know the Right has had the hand of the Christian right in elections for the past couple of decades. Now someone on the Left uses their faith in a positive and honest way to win an election and suddenly they are "God's partner?"
Can you say double standard? In fact that is all I have heard from the right lately, double standards.
Further . I'm keeping track of all the 'green votes' vis-a-vis' the 'red votes' here, and I agree with MarkO (I think it was MarkO). They are a rather stupid ... no, infantile, way of showing approval/disapproval in various posters. For example, I disagree with MarkO a lot, but I _know_ he's someone who speaks honestly and gives us all something to think about, ... yet he's being bombarded with negative 'red votes' as tho' he's the bad boy here. ... Gimme a break.
ok, done with my rant.
P.S., Here MarkO, want some of my 'green votes'?
Garth,
Thanks, but chill out. If somebody doesn't like what I say, then they've got every right in the world to indicate so. However they want (be it via voting or via responding or both).
C'mon, man, I fought in wars to preserve that right.
You know the Right has had the hand of the Christian right in elections for the past couple of decades. Now someone on the Left uses their faith in a positive and honest way to win an election and suddenly they are "God's partner?"
Can you say double standard? In fact that is all I have heard from the right lately, double standards.
I'm sure it is.
Sure would be a lot easier if we all just shut up and sat in a corner, wouldn't it?
But, hey, look, I learn from the victors. For example, I learned this from Hillary:
A yes or no answer doesn't work. . . nor does trying to explain to you about God's sovereignty. . . God is justified in overthrowing anything He wants. . .the rest you figure out.
You gave me the answer.
And, not surprisingly, it was the correct answer: God is justified in overthrowing anything He wants
Now, I would add one thing to that. God can use whatever tools He deigns fit for the task. A lightning bolt, an asteroid, disease, pestilence, or anything else, including people. A survey of the Old Testament would reveal this, as I am utterly confident that you are aware.
An overly strict application of Romans 13 would indicate that people are to stay in a state of oppression when God is calling them to do otherwise. And there are those who love citing that section as a supposedly "biblical" justification. Using that theory, there should have never been a civil rights movement, both for women and for people of color, during the first half of the 20th century. Because, after all, all government comes from God.
Obviously, recognizing the basic human rights of women and minorities (the franchise, speech, movement, assembly, etc.) is the appropriate thing for a government to recognize. But yet, it would have never happened unless there was a push for it. So were the rebels who supported human rights in the wrong? Of course not. God made use of them for His purposes.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread.
A few posts ago, you made the assertion, You are not seriously telling me that taxes impede charitable giving are you? Because of net and gross? Well, I guess you are. . . not much I can say to that kind of logic. I think you really miss the heart of the matter.
Well, excuse me, but I certainly can't imagine how.
You will note with the example I gave above,
Let us assume, for this example, you make a gross salary of $6,000 per month. $2,000 is paid for taxes (federal, state, local, sales, property, etc.). $600 for a tithe (which is really not charity), $3,000 a month for expenses (mortgage/rent, gas, food, etc.), leaves $400 to put away for savings (rainy day fund, retirement, kid's college, etc.). And nothing left over for charity.
Now, let us assume that the government did not perform social assistance spending and taxes were adjusted accordingly:
$6,000 per month for income, $1,000 for taxes, $600 for tithe, $3,000 for expenses, $400 for savings, and all of a sudden, you have $1,000 that can be given to charitable causes.
You will note that I separated consideration of a tithe from charitable giving. And you will note the order. Taxes (which are deducted involuntarily before I ever see my paycheck), then the tithe, then bills, then savings, then charity (above and beyond the tithe).
As with you, I believe that the tithe should be the firstfruits. But, you will notice that charitable giving, as described in Acts 4:34-35 (posted upthread), involves the giving of surplus vice hoarding it. Likewise, the Leviticus examples refer to a surplus, as well (leaving the excess on the vine so that the poor can glean).
Hopefully pointing out the subtle distinction that I made between tithes and charitble giving helped clear up your misunderstanding.
One other statement you made was Persecuted Christians in dangerous countries submit to laws and governments. . . .even to the point of death, but still perfectly obeying God. . .
I would contend that most martyrs who died in the name of Christ did so precisely because they would not submit to the government. For example, most of the martyrs that occurred during the early era during persecutions by Nero, Diacletian, and so on. They would not follow government orders: orders to give worship and adoration to their pagan gods. A more recent example would be St. Thomas More:
St. Thomas More, Martyr (Patron of Lawyers) St. Thomas More was born at London in 1478. After a thorough grounding in religion and the classics, he entered Oxford to study law. Upon leaving the university he embarked on a legal career which took him to Parliament. In 1505, he married his beloved Jane Colt who bore him four children, andwhen she died at a young age, he married a widow, Alice Middleton, to be a mother for his young children. A wit and a reformer, this learned man numbered Bishops and scholars among his friends, and by 1516 wrote his world-famous book "Utopia". He attracted the attention of Henry VIII who appointed him to a succession of high posts and missions, and finally made him Lord Chancellor in 1529.
However, he resigned in 1532, at the height of his career and reputation, when Henry persisted in holding his own opinions regarding marriage and the supremacy of the Pope. The rest of his life was spent in writing mostly in defense of the Church. In 1534, with his close friend, St. John Fisher, he refused to render allegiance to the King as the Head of the Church of England and was confined to the Tower. Fifteen months later, and nine days after St. John Fisher's execution, he was tried and convicted of treason. He told the court that he could not go against his conscience and wished his judges that "we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to everlasting salvation." And on the scaffold, he told the crowd of spectators that he was dying as "the King's good servant-but God's first." He was beheaded on July 6, 1535.
His feast day is June 22nd.
And I will list one other example of a martyr for Christ: St. Paul. He stood in opposition to both the Romans and the Jews. Consider this: with a government that had declared his religion illegal, He continued to preach and to encourage others to go against the law. He refused to submit, either to the Sanhedrin or to the Romans, either by shutting up or by compromising and worshiping their gods. So He went to His death.
You mention the example of Christ, Did Jesus perfectly submit to God's will? Did He overthrow the Romans? Isn't that what they were crying for Him to do? Was God's providence and sovereignty what happened?
I would hardly think that Jesus submitted. In fact, He stood His ground. He knew the battle He was fighting and He overthrew principalities and powers because of it. And, yes, I would say that He overthrew the Romans, because He overthrew their pagan gods, resulting in the conversion of the Empire to Him. But He knew His battle. As He said to Peter: Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?
Does this mean that I believe that all rebellion is of God? No.
The cause must be clearly just and the regime to be rebelled against must be clearly operating in an gravely unjust fashion that puts members of the society in grave danger, either temporally or spiritually. Of course, all peaceful means of effecting change must have been exhausted. And there has got to be real opportunity to emerge victoriously (after all, to rebel otherwise would be literal suicide).
But short of that, no person is under the moral obligation to act sinfully. If you are a medical doctor and the government orders you to perform abortions, you have the moral obligation to not do so. If you are a soldier and are ordered to go into a village and kill every man, woman, and child, you must not obey that order. If, in some country, a woman is placed in a state-run brothel, no government can order her to spread her legs voluntarily (and, yes, that does happen to this day in some parts of the world). "Respect for authority" does not extend to excusing personal sin.
And so how does that relate to this current situation? Well, while I am morally obliged to pay my taxes. But I am also morally obliged to speak up about what I consider to be a grave evil.
Uhh, ... liberal leaning churches? ... You mean to tell me you don't see conservative churches doing the same thing? .... you know, Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Focus on the Family? Ted Haggard, who even had a direct line to the White House under Dubya? All the fundamentalist churches who either downplay separation of church and state, if not outright opposing it (all because they decry the 'loss of God' in the public square). ... Where do you get your news from?
Most of the conservative church groups try to influence public policy...but they, for the most part (to my knowledge) stay off the public teat. For example, Christendom College (probably the most conservative Catholic college in the country) refuses to accept any government assistance (they do not even accept federal tuition assistance for their students). Hillsdale is the same way. I understand that there are a number of Baptist primary and secondary schools that completely refuse any student assistance (such as textbook programs and school lunch programs) from the government, as well (I'm not a Baptist so I can't cite examples).
I don't have a problem with religious groups from either side of the aisle attempting to influence public policy. They have a legitimate voice and a legitimate perspective. So do environmental groups, business groups, "community organizers," etc. I do have a problem if one group and one group only has the ear of a president, regardless of whether it is a religious group or a non-religious group.
(And if you try to cite Bush, let me tell you, several of my evangelical friends feel, in retrospect that he played them like a fiddle)
First off, it isn't the _individual_ exp​ression of religion by individuals in the public square that many of us SOCAS supportes are against. It is using the 'public square' ie., the government facilities to propagate, evangelize, and otherwise propound religion that we are non-apologetically against.
I agree, to a certain extent. While I agree that a government employee should not be using government time to proselytize, nor should the Bible, Koran, or any other text be quoted as the basis of a government policy, I do think there is some legitimate role...without the government officially endorsing a particular religion.
The biggest example I can consider are organizational chaplains, to include paid positions. They provide important services to organizational personnel. Now, in a government that does not endorse a specific religion, obviously, chaplains from multiple faith groups should be on staff in the relative proportion of the religious affiliation of the personnel within that organization and, if there aren't sufficient members of a given religion available to justify a full-time staff position, the organization should make provision to bring in part time chaplains or volunteer chaplains, trained in the nature of the chaplain job (as opposed to traditional clergy). Obviously, special consideration needs to be provided by these chaplains to avoid the appearance of proselytizing, and, yes, some consideration needs to be made for atheist and agnostic organizational personnel to care for their needs.
Now (believe it or not) I have noticed those on the SOCAS side who do/have overreacted (particularly school officials who go kneejerk because they're scared of attorneys), and overreached in that manner. I also recall a particular court case that struck down a school's ban on a voluntary bible meeting by individual Christian students, meeting _after_ school hours on school property. Yes sir, it did. ... But it wasn't and isn't SOCAS supporters as a whole that supports that kind of overreacting behavior.
Ie., if said religious behavior is using government offices/property/equipment/influence/etc. to propagate religion, conservative or liberal, then it is contradicting the 1st Amendment.
And, believe it or not, I agree with you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you have more-or-less accepted the "They are trying to banish Christianity from this country", townhall-level-of-hype (that really has no basis in reality). If you have any _evidence_ that this type of banishment is occuring (and at the wide spread level please. Isolated occurances doesn't count.), please show me.
P.S., sort of here, yet maybe not so much. (At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist ;) ) As for the term 'public square' (ie., just another term for 'government' when you stop and think about it), the term is a more vague and round about way of saying the more specific term 'government', but its used that way for a reason, I think. To cloud it. Use the term 'government', and people get a kind of hard edged view (almost like Ron ;) ) about government. Ie., "they make laws, they tax us, they can throw you in jail, etc.". But you say the term 'public square', people have a more friendly image of government; a place where people meet and deal with the issues of the day, voice their opinions in the townhall, stuff like that. Things that also occur in government, but 'public square' seems to be more accomodating to people.
We are mixing threads up between this one (that should be discussing the relgious aspects of government / church entanglement with the current administration) and the one down in the 'tacks sewer. So, just to keep it brief, the current issue is that this is obviously a desperate attempt to co-opt liberal religions. Why obvious? Because of the timing of the religious references.
Now if it was stated that "God was being kept from government", not too many people would be up in arms, (except maybe fundamentalist politicians who want to be elected) as more people would think of the part of the 1st Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion", ... but if it was stated that "God was being kept from the public square", a different reaction often occurs. Ie., "OMG, they're trying to ban God from the public square, and eventually drive Him from the country! ... We have to fight this!!", ... you know, garbage like that. <_<
Again, this is basically my observation re: 'public square'. YMMV.
Since your post is so long I didn't want to copy and paste. . . . God's providence does not exempt you from civil obedience. . . nor from paying your taxes or from obeying the laws of the land.
We are to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. . . . what you think you understand about grave evil may in fact be wrong. You may have taken a political agenda and mingled it with a narrow biblical perspective and come up with a uniquely American Christian phenomenon. . . . truth, justice and the fear of social values.
If you break it down. . . what is your complaint? That your taxes are being used for the health and welfare of others? And that this somehow goes against what is right in the sight of God?
Because you believe God didn't say that is how to see to the care of others? Because it is the State using your money to help feed, clothe, and house those less fortunate? Widows, orphaned children, those disabled and not able to care for themselves? Or is it just unwed mothers that bother you? People with addiction issues?
Take another look at what it is you are opposing. The help, care, and concern for those less fortunate. You are justifying this as evil. Why? Because you are taxed? In a society where you live and enjoy the benefits afforded? Because it is the State offering these helpful programs.
Food on the table of a hungry family is God's bounty whether it comes from food stamps or a pay check. As long as it is received with thankfulness does it make it ANY less a blessing???
A hungry kid get's a school lunch on your dime. . . My goodness. . . the grave evil just sucks the air from the room.
Jesus said. . . pay your taxes. . . the society in which you live says. . . part of this money is going to help the poor. . . this reflects our values as a society. . . . not some conspiracy against God. Take another look at what you think is grave evil. Not a chance it is close.
Paul tells us to obey the laws of the land. . . pay your taxes. . . and Mark says. . . I have to, but I will speak out against such grave evil. . . . what evil. . . that part of your taxes are used for the good of others??? Yeah. . . okay?
Since your post is so long I didn't want to copy and paste. . . . God's providence does not exempt you from civil obedience. . . nor from paying your taxes or from obeying the laws of the land.
We are to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. . . . what you think you understand about grave evil may in fact be wrong. You may have taken a political agenda and mingled it with a narrow biblical perspective and come up with a uniquely American Christian phenomenon. . . . truth, justice and the fear of social values.
If you break it down. . . what is your complaint? That your taxes are being used for the health and welfare of others? And that this somehow goes against what is right in the sight of God?
Because you believe God didn't say that is how to see to the care of others? Because it is the State using your money to help feed, clothe, and house those less fortunate? Widows, orphaned children, those disabled and not able to care for themselves? Or is it just unwed mothers that bother you? People with addiction issues?
Take another look at what it is you are opposing. The help, care, and concern for those less fortunate. You are justifying this as evil. Why? Because you are taxed? In a society where you live and enjoy the benefits afforded? Because it is the State offering these helpful programs.
Food on the table of a hungry family is God's bounty whether it comes from food stamps or a pay check. As long as it is received with thankfulness does it make it ANY less a blessing???
A hungry kid get's a school lunch on your dime. . . My goodness. . . the grave evil just sucks the air from the room.
Jesus said. . . pay your taxes. . . the society in which you live says. . . part of this money is going to help the poor. . . this reflects our values as a society. . . . not some conspiracy against God. Take another look at what you think is grave evil. Not a chance it is close.
Paul tells us to obey the laws of the land. . . pay your taxes. . . and Mark says. . . I have to, but I will speak out against such grave evil. . . . what evil. . . that part of your taxes are used for the good of others??? Yeah. . . okay?
Yes, I feel it is a grave evil for government to take a function that should be carried out by each and every individual. What part of that do you not understand?
You say, Take another look at what it is you are opposing. The help, care, and concern for those less fortunate.
That is a dishonest, deceitful, and loaded statement. I never once have said, nor have I implied. I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals. There is a difference.
But let us try to understand here the hard lesson you are trying to teach: are you saying that it is sinful an evil to oppose the government or that it is sinful and wrong to oppose the government on matters where Geisha779 and GarthP2000 agree with the government?
This gentleman is acting sinfully, in your mind. He is opposed to Health Care Reform. If he doesn't repent, he will go to h3ll.
These people are acting sinfully, because they oppose government policy, right?
This woman is sinful, because she refused to accept a sham re-election of Ahmadinejad in Iran.
In this case, the people with the pro-"choice" signs are acting in accordance with the Scriptures, because they are supporting government policy, but those with the pro-"life" signs are evil, because they are not giving respect where respect is due (Rom 13:7).
These Iraq War protesters and these Vietnam War protesters are horribly sinful, because they dare to oppose the "ministers of God" (Rom 13:6)
"Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." (Rom 13:2) -- these folks should have simply gone back to their segregated schools, segregated neighborhoods, and gotten back in the back of the bus and gone home and pay their taxes and shut up.
And, of course, these people are already in H3ll. They committed the ultimate sin: they opposed their government and started a revolution, over, of all things, taxes.
--------------
Geisha, let us separate the arguments. There is a legitimate discussion as to whether or not it is a government function to provide social services to the less fortunate, there is a separate function as to the government's function to take over the healthcare industry, and then there is a discussion whether one may morally dissent from the government in any case.
You, Geisha, are too new around here for me to know your position on the Iraq War based upon your posting history. Garth and I have had many discussions on the subject and so we know each other's position on the matter. So I don't know whether you would say that Iraq War protesters were morally wrong in protesting that effort. Based upon Garth's posting history, I would surmise that he would have a really hard time saying that Iraq War protesters (or Vietnam War protesters, for that matter) were acting in a morally illicit fashion (of course, some did, I am talking about peaceful protesters, not those who used violence).
I would imagine, though, that you would support the aims of the civil rights protesters of the 60s and the women's suffrage movement of the early 20th century. (If I'm wrong in my assumption, please let me know). But these people, whose pictures I've linked, were protesting in opposition to established government policies and the authorities who enacted and enforced those policies. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.(Rom 13:1-2). Were these people, the civil rights protesters and women's suffrage protesters, acting in morally illicit fashion? Will they (or have they) incured the judgment of God?
So before dealing with the moral licitness of the government performing certain functions, let us deal with whether a person can legitimately oppose the government or rebel against the government in any case.
Is it always wrong or is it only wrong when one disagrees with Geisha?
(And, by the way, what kind of veil do you use when you pray? (1 Cor 11:5) And, of course, I don't need to ask if you keep silent in the church (1 Cor 14:34) -- of course you do)
Wow Garth. . . coming from you that means something to me. . . .
Mark,
We live in a secular society not a theocracy.
If you are being prevented from speaking the gospel. . . obey God rather than men as the Apostles did in Acts 5. Here in this country you are afforded the right to choose your own religion or faith. You can preach the gospel without fear of incarceration. These protections are written into our Constitution. . . a big deal.
You live in a society that embraces the ideal of bearing one another's burdens. A secular society which seeks to care for it's poor.
Kiss the ground you walk on Mark. The authority or rule you live under is put in place by God. He determines the bounds of our habitation. . . . everyone. You get 60-70 years here. It is not your eternal dwelling place. . . . we obey so God is not spoken ill of. . . we don't give people an opening.
In TWI we had a real knack for twisting things so that evil became good and good was evil. We had a narrow scriptural view and were convinced we knew what was right. . . when in truth, and I think you might agree we embraced bad things.
Compassion for the poor is a good and Godly thing. . . . how often did Jesus remind us of the poor? Yet, when we as a society use a portion of tax money . . . .collected by law . . . . to help the less fortunate, to reach out a helping and. . . . it becomes an ungodly thing? No it doesn't.
Well, you could tell me that it doesn't really help. . . some hyperbole about human dignity. What good is dignity when one can't feed their family?
Reach down and grab your bootstraps. . . pull as hard as you can. . . you will never lift yourself that way. But, if you are down and someone reaches down with a hand. . . . you may get up. . . . . if you are really heavily burdened it may take two. . . . sometimes we have to carry people until they can stand. . . . some may never stand. . . do we as a society step over them?
There are places where the poor sleep in the streets.
It is not just the Christian who has compassion. . . we are all made in His image. . . . those who confess no faith can be fine moral and kind people. . . . who KNOW the difference between right and wrong. . .
To add: We were posting at the same time. . . . protesting is not illegal is it?
The government isn't usurping anything from the individual. . . get out there and visit the prisoners and serve the poor. . . who is stopping you?
WG,
I assume you mean this. . . Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
or this
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Romans 13:1
No I mean the part about everything having been predestinated by God so there is nothing we can do. Why vote if that's the case?
And by the way, one man who firmly believed and practiced theocracy was John Calvin himself. Though the Council of Elders had the vote, they were so influenced by Calvin (and probably afraid of him) that they pretty much voted his way.
After reading your latest post, the one with all the pictures, I couldn't help but think "Wow! Talk about your loaded statements!"
But this little jewel you said kinda stood out to me:
I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals. There is a difference.
I'm sorry, but since when did _any_ of the 'gravely evil' (?) government social programs 'usurp', ie., take away, prohibit your ability, right, and obligation to help the poor, speak out on their behalf, and do all those other charitable activities? Like it's an either/or situation?
Government participation doesn't 'usurp' your participation in the least! ... At all.
Honestly, while I am very sympathetic to most of what Mark has posted, the reason the government stepped in is because individuals weren't doing their part. The Catholic Church has always been very active in charity works but a lot of other churches aren't.
Ephesians 4 tells us to work with our hands the thing that is good so that we may have to give to him that needeth, but I think most fall short in that area. Praise God for those who do not!
Both my grandchildren were supported at least in part by government programs. We did help where we could.
Probably the big thing is people keeping their heads and hearts straight on whether they worship God or the government. Does God inspire Obama? I have no idea, but I have my doubts.
I assume you mean this. . . Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
or this
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Romans 13:1
Aren't gov'ts and authority usually established by war?
. . . Because it is the State using your money to help feed, clothe, and house those less fortunate? Widows, orphaned children, those disabled and not able to care for themselves? Or is it just unwed mothers that bother you? People with addiction issues?
Take another look at what it is you are opposing. The help, care, and concern for those less fortunate. You are justifying this as evil. Why? Because you are taxed? In a society where you live and enjoy the benefits afforded? Because it is the State offering these helpful programs.
Food on the table of a hungry family is. . . bounty whether it comes from food stamps or a pay check. As long as it is received with thankfulness does it make it ANY less a blessing???
A hungry kid get's a school lunch on your dime. . . My goodness. . . the grave evil just sucks the air from the room.
. . .
I think charitable giving/action and philanthropy are 100 times more efficient, dollar for dollar, than gov't ever could be. Gov't could help by adjusting laws that cause prices to be so high.
No I mean the part about everything having been predestinated by God so there is nothing we can do. Why vote if that's the case?
And by the way, one man who firmly believed and practiced theocracy was John Calvin himself. Though the Council of Elders had the vote, they were so influenced by Calvin (and probably afraid of him) that they pretty much voted his way.
WG
I don't really think God's providence works that way. . . I believe He works within the framework of our freewill. Kinda awesome. He is able. . .
American's actually give billions to charity each year. We are some of the most generous people on the planet.
Didn't many social programs start as a result of FDR's New Deal and Johnson's The Great Society?
I think charitable giving/action and philanthropy are 100 times more efficient, dollar for dollar, than gov't ever could be. Gov't could help by adjusting laws that cause prices to be so high.
You may have a point, but Gov't programs are consistent over the long term. . . . and that still doesn't make them "grave" evil.
After reading your latest post, the one with all the pictures, I couldn't help but think "Wow! Talk about your loaded statements!"
You might think so on the surface, but that would not be looking at it in the context of Rom 13:1-7, which is the verse originally cited back in post #13 of this thread.
The assertion is that all government, no matter how evil, no matter how cruel, no matter what, is of God and that Christians have a duty to not resist the government, again, no matter what the policies they put in place. and that we simply have a duty to pay our taxes, and give the government respect and honor. In other words to shut up and let Øbama do whatever the heck he wants to do. And if we don't do so, we are wrong and God is going to get us in the end.
I challenge that interpretation and instead assert that, while we have an obligation to be good citizens, that obligation does not extend to subordinating our moral consciences to support policies that are morally objectionable. And, in fact, I would assert that we have a moral obligation to oppose policies that are morally objectionable.
While others have tried to limit the application of this Romans 13:1-7 passage to an attempt to cow opponents, like myself, to support government-imposed socialism, I assert that if this passage is applicable in this case, it must also equally be applied to other opposition movements. Thus, the pictures.
And yes, of course, I picked out famous pictures of movements that would likely be approved of by liberals. Why? Because I know of only a very few people who would oppose movements like civil rights, women's suffrage, etc., if Romans 13:1-7 is a moral constraint on my right to protest socialized medicine then those movements were equally in violation of Romans 13:1-7. And since I would doubt that most would say that those movements were sinful for the virtue of them being anti-government policy movements (w/o regard for what they stood for), then it goes to show that Romans 13:1-7 should not be applied here either, because Romans 13:1-7 does not give a context of any policy imposed by a government.
But this little jewel you said kinda stood out to me:
I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals. There is a difference.
I'm sorry, but since when did _any_ of the 'gravely evil' (?) government social programs 'usurp', ie., take away, prohibit your ability, right, and obligation to help the poor, speak out on their behalf, and do all those other charitable activities? Like it's an either/or situation?
Government participation doesn't 'usurp' your participation in the least! ... At all.
Usurp: 1 a: to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right <usurp a throne> b: to take or make use of without right <usurped the rights to her life story>
2: to take the place of by or as if by force :supplant <must not let stock responses based on inherited prejudice usurp careful judgment>
First of all, I am not limiting the statement, I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals., to "social" issues. It was about government powers in general.
Secondly, government usurps powers reserved to the states or to the people all the time in multiple areas. The most egregious examples are through regulatory activities. A couple of examples: I have had to, through my time in the military, learn to do industrial electrical wiring. (One of the jobs I had was to travel around and install communications sites in "exotic" parts of the world) I am amply qualified to install electrical circuits in my home. However, I am constrained from doing so by government regulation. (Since my job currently does not involve this, I felt no obligation to go out and get my "master electician" license). Frankly, in most cases, that would be a regulation that makes sense: most people would be clueless and, thus, dangerous, poking around an electrical panel. But the government regulation covers it all. Another example are some new regulations that will be coming out in the next year that will make construction of low income housing (such as habitat-type homes) far more costly, as they will have to comply with some far more stringent energy efficiency regulations. As costs increase, it will become more challenging and more expensive to build. One other such regulatory concern is the return of FCC regulation on political broadcasting (link is to a broadcast law blog, not a r-w extremist blog)
Third, government programs and government handouts (whether they be to low income people or to Goldmann Sachs) cost money. That money is either raised through taxes, through increased national debt, or through monetization. In the case of taxes, that removes available capital that can be used for private charitable concerns. In the case of increased debt, that furthers extended taxes or inspires monetization. And monetization reduces the buying power of capital that hasn't been taken by taxes, thus reducing the effectiveness of money that is contributed.
Fourth, and most importantly, peoples' attitudes change. They expect government to act. What is the government going to do about this, that, or the other. This is not to say that when there is some disaster that we Americans do not open up our hearts and wallets. But on a day-to-day basis, we expect the government to do something. Interestingly, when one advocates direct action as opposed to government programs, the person is assailed as trying to take food out of the mouths of children.
take away, prohibit your ability, right, and obligation to help the poor, It doeesn't prohibit it, but it removes a significant capability to do so, for the reasons outlined above.
speak out on their behalf Not yet, it doesn't. However, it does impact it on a more macro basis: my message is not received well by most "social justice types", who largely advocate for more government involvement. I know in my church, we deal with constant appeals for money, are called on to lobby politicians to increase government spending, and so on, but the calls to directly participate in social work are very, very muted: limited largely to youth group activities or Knights of Columbus activities. Which is the opposite of what I believe should be.
Like it's an either/or situation? It isn't, Garth, a totally either/or situation. Otherwise, I would be sitting back fat, dumb, and happy while the government takes care of my obligations.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
19
19
8
Popular Days
Aug 26
15
Aug 25
14
Aug 28
11
Aug 30
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Watered Garden 10 posts
markomalley 19 posts
geisha779 19 posts
Bolshevik 8 posts
Popular Days
Aug 26 2009
15 posts
Aug 25 2009
14 posts
Aug 28 2009
11 posts
Aug 30 2009
10 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Garth, knock off the smug self-righteous attitude. We all know you hate God, Christ, the Bible - we get it. You've let us all know, you've made no bones about it. You always come and drop you littl
geisha779
Mark, Since your post is so long I didn't want to copy and paste. . . . God's providence does not exempt you from civil obedience. . . nor from paying your taxes or from obeying the laws of the land.
GarthP2000
Sunesis, ((snickers)) Look who's talking, lady. Look who's talking. And many times you don't even see it. And the same arguments for supernatural occurances could be said re: other characters in t
GarthP2000
Mark,
Uhh, ... liberal leaning churches? ... You mean to tell me you don't see conservative churches doing the same thing? .... you know, Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Focus on the Family? Ted Haggard, who even had a direct line to the White House under Dubya? All the fundamentalist churches who either downplay separation of church and state, if not outright opposing it (all because they decry the 'loss of God' in the public square). ... Where do you get your news from?
First off, it isn't the _individual_ expression of religion by individuals in the public square that many of us SOCAS supportes are against. It is using the 'public square' ie., the government facilities to propagate, evangelize, and otherwise propound religion that we are non-apologetically against.
Now (believe it or not) I have noticed those on the SOCAS side who do/have overreacted (particularly school officials who go kneejerk because they're scared of attorneys), and overreached in that manner. I also recall a particular court case that struck down a school's ban on a voluntary bible meeting by individual Christian students, meeting _after_ school hours on school property. Yes sir, it did. ... But it wasn't and isn't SOCAS supporters as a whole that supports that kind of overreacting behavior.
Ie., if said religious behavior is using government offices/property/equipment/influence/etc. to propagate religion, conservative or liberal, then it is contradicting the 1st Amendment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you have more-or-less accepted the "They are trying to banish Christianity from this country", townhall-level-of-hype (that really has no basis in reality). If you have any _evidence_ that this type of banishment is occuring (and at the wide spread level please. Isolated occurances doesn't count.), please show me.
P.S., sort of
here, yet maybe not so much. (At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist ;) ) As for the term 'public square' (ie., just another term for 'government' when you stop and think about it), the term is a more vague and round about way of saying the more specific term 'government', but its used that way for a reason, I think. To cloud it. Use the term 'government', and people get a kind of hard edged view (almost like Ron ;) ) about government. Ie., "they make laws, they tax us, they can throw you in jail, etc.". But you say the term 'public square', people have a more friendly image of government; a place where people meet and deal with the issues of the day, voice their opinions in the townhall, stuff like that. Things that also occur in government, but 'public square' seems to be more accomodating to people.
Now if it was stated that "God was being kept from government", not too many people would be up in arms, (except maybe fundamentalist politicians who want to be elected) as more people would think of the part of the 1st Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion", ... but if it was stated that "God was being kept from the public square", a different reaction often occurs. Ie., "OMG, they're trying to ban God from the public square, and eventually drive Him from the country! ... We have to fight this!!", ... you know, garbage like that. <_<
Again, this is basically my observation re: 'public square'. YMMV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Further
. I'm keeping track of all the 'green votes' vis-a-vis' the 'red votes' here, and I agree with MarkO (I think it was MarkO). They are a rather stupid ... no, infantile, way of showing approval/disapproval in various posters. For example, I disagree with MarkO a lot, but I _know_ he's someone who speaks honestly and gives us all something to think about, ... yet he's being bombarded with negative 'red votes' as tho' he's the bad boy here. ... Gimme a break. 
ok, done with my rant.
P.S., Here MarkO, want some of my 'green votes'?
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
A yes or no answer doesn't work. . . nor does trying to explain to you about God's sovereignty. . . God is justified in overthrowing anything He wants. . .the rest you figure out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Even though we have "protections" in place (supposedly), there are so many governmental infringments on the American's Constitutional rights, it is ridiculous.
Those that are opposed to Christians being involved in government use "separation of church and state", however, this is actually not part of our Constitution. It was a line in a private letter (Jefferson?) not a government document. However, I now believe (after experiencing some of this for myself) if those that want the church to remain out of governmental affairs, then the government needs to stay the heck out of church affairs.
You know what?
THEY DON'T LIKE HAVING THE TABLES TURNED ON THEM!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Maybe some examples would make your point clearer. Like what infringements on the "American's Constitutional rights," or how exactly certain people use separation of church and state to keep Christians from being involved in government, or how the government is involved with the affairs of churches?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
You know the Right has had the hand of the Christian right in elections for the past couple of decades. Now someone on the Left uses their faith in a positive and honest way to win an election and suddenly they are "God's partner?"
Can you say double standard? In fact that is all I have heard from the right lately, double standards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Garth,
Thanks, but chill out. If somebody doesn't like what I say, then they've got every right in the world to indicate so. However they want (be it via voting or via responding or both).
C'mon, man, I fought in wars to preserve that right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I'm sure it is.
Sure would be a lot easier if we all just shut up and sat in a corner, wouldn't it?
But, hey, look, I learn from the victors. For example, I learned this from Hillary:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You gave me the answer.
And, not surprisingly, it was the correct answer: God is justified in overthrowing anything He wants
Now, I would add one thing to that. God can use whatever tools He deigns fit for the task. A lightning bolt, an asteroid, disease, pestilence, or anything else, including people. A survey of the Old Testament would reveal this, as I am utterly confident that you are aware.
An overly strict application of Romans 13 would indicate that people are to stay in a state of oppression when God is calling them to do otherwise. And there are those who love citing that section as a supposedly "biblical" justification. Using that theory, there should have never been a civil rights movement, both for women and for people of color, during the first half of the 20th century. Because, after all, all government comes from God.
Obviously, recognizing the basic human rights of women and minorities (the franchise, speech, movement, assembly, etc.) is the appropriate thing for a government to recognize. But yet, it would have never happened unless there was a push for it. So were the rebels who supported human rights in the wrong? Of course not. God made use of them for His purposes.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread.
A few posts ago, you made the assertion, You are not seriously telling me that taxes impede charitable giving are you? Because of net and gross? Well, I guess you are. . . not much I can say to that kind of logic. I think you really miss the heart of the matter.
Well, excuse me, but I certainly can't imagine how.
You will note with the example I gave above,
You will note that I separated consideration of a tithe from charitable giving. And you will note the order. Taxes (which are deducted involuntarily before I ever see my paycheck), then the tithe, then bills, then savings, then charity (above and beyond the tithe).
As with you, I believe that the tithe should be the firstfruits. But, you will notice that charitable giving, as described in Acts 4:34-35 (posted upthread), involves the giving of surplus vice hoarding it. Likewise, the Leviticus examples refer to a surplus, as well (leaving the excess on the vine so that the poor can glean).
Hopefully pointing out the subtle distinction that I made between tithes and charitble giving helped clear up your misunderstanding.
One other statement you made was Persecuted Christians in dangerous countries submit to laws and governments. . . .even to the point of death, but still perfectly obeying God. . .
I would contend that most martyrs who died in the name of Christ did so precisely because they would not submit to the government. For example, most of the martyrs that occurred during the early era during persecutions by Nero, Diacletian, and so on. They would not follow government orders: orders to give worship and adoration to their pagan gods. A more recent example would be St. Thomas More:
And I will list one other example of a martyr for Christ: St. Paul. He stood in opposition to both the Romans and the Jews. Consider this: with a government that had declared his religion illegal, He continued to preach and to encourage others to go against the law. He refused to submit, either to the Sanhedrin or to the Romans, either by shutting up or by compromising and worshiping their gods. So He went to His death.
You mention the example of Christ, Did Jesus perfectly submit to God's will? Did He overthrow the Romans? Isn't that what they were crying for Him to do? Was God's providence and sovereignty what happened?
I would hardly think that Jesus submitted. In fact, He stood His ground. He knew the battle He was fighting and He overthrew principalities and powers because of it. And, yes, I would say that He overthrew the Romans, because He overthrew their pagan gods, resulting in the conversion of the Empire to Him. But He knew His battle. As He said to Peter: Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?
Does this mean that I believe that all rebellion is of God? No.
The cause must be clearly just and the regime to be rebelled against must be clearly operating in an gravely unjust fashion that puts members of the society in grave danger, either temporally or spiritually. Of course, all peaceful means of effecting change must have been exhausted. And there has got to be real opportunity to emerge victoriously (after all, to rebel otherwise would be literal suicide).
But short of that, no person is under the moral obligation to act sinfully. If you are a medical doctor and the government orders you to perform abortions, you have the moral obligation to not do so. If you are a soldier and are ordered to go into a village and kill every man, woman, and child, you must not obey that order. If, in some country, a woman is placed in a state-run brothel, no government can order her to spread her legs voluntarily (and, yes, that does happen to this day in some parts of the world). "Respect for authority" does not extend to excusing personal sin.
And so how does that relate to this current situation? Well, while I am morally obliged to pay my taxes. But I am also morally obliged to speak up about what I consider to be a grave evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Most of the conservative church groups try to influence public policy...but they, for the most part (to my knowledge) stay off the public teat. For example, Christendom College (probably the most conservative Catholic college in the country) refuses to accept any government assistance (they do not even accept federal tuition assistance for their students). Hillsdale is the same way. I understand that there are a number of Baptist primary and secondary schools that completely refuse any student assistance (such as textbook programs and school lunch programs) from the government, as well (I'm not a Baptist so I can't cite examples).
I don't have a problem with religious groups from either side of the aisle attempting to influence public policy. They have a legitimate voice and a legitimate perspective. So do environmental groups, business groups, "community organizers," etc. I do have a problem if one group and one group only has the ear of a president, regardless of whether it is a religious group or a non-religious group.
(And if you try to cite Bush, let me tell you, several of my evangelical friends feel, in retrospect that he played them like a fiddle)
I agree, to a certain extent. While I agree that a government employee should not be using government time to proselytize, nor should the Bible, Koran, or any other text be quoted as the basis of a government policy, I do think there is some legitimate role...without the government officially endorsing a particular religion.
The biggest example I can consider are organizational chaplains, to include paid positions. They provide important services to organizational personnel. Now, in a government that does not endorse a specific religion, obviously, chaplains from multiple faith groups should be on staff in the relative proportion of the religious affiliation of the personnel within that organization and, if there aren't sufficient members of a given religion available to justify a full-time staff position, the organization should make provision to bring in part time chaplains or volunteer chaplains, trained in the nature of the chaplain job (as opposed to traditional clergy). Obviously, special consideration needs to be provided by these chaplains to avoid the appearance of proselytizing, and, yes, some consideration needs to be made for atheist and agnostic organizational personnel to care for their needs.
And, believe it or not, I agree with you.
We are mixing threads up between this one (that should be discussing the relgious aspects of government / church entanglement with the current administration) and the one down in the 'tacks sewer. So, just to keep it brief, the current issue is that this is obviously a desperate attempt to co-opt liberal religions. Why obvious? Because of the timing of the religious references.
OK.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark,
Since your post is so long I didn't want to copy and paste. . . . God's providence does not exempt you from civil obedience. . . nor from paying your taxes or from obeying the laws of the land.
We are to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. . . . what you think you understand about grave evil may in fact be wrong. You may have taken a political agenda and mingled it with a narrow biblical perspective and come up with a uniquely American Christian phenomenon. . . . truth, justice and the fear of social values.
If you break it down. . . what is your complaint? That your taxes are being used for the health and welfare of others? And that this somehow goes against what is right in the sight of God?
Because you believe God didn't say that is how to see to the care of others? Because it is the State using your money to help feed, clothe, and house those less fortunate? Widows, orphaned children, those disabled and not able to care for themselves? Or is it just unwed mothers that bother you? People with addiction issues?
Take another look at what it is you are opposing. The help, care, and concern for those less fortunate. You are justifying this as evil. Why? Because you are taxed? In a society where you live and enjoy the benefits afforded? Because it is the State offering these helpful programs.
Food on the table of a hungry family is God's bounty whether it comes from food stamps or a pay check. As long as it is received with thankfulness does it make it ANY less a blessing???
A hungry kid get's a school lunch on your dime. . . My goodness. . . the grave evil just sucks the air from the room.
Jesus said. . . pay your taxes. . . the society in which you live says. . . part of this money is going to help the poor. . . this reflects our values as a society. . . . not some conspiracy against God. Take another look at what you think is grave evil. Not a chance it is close.
Paul tells us to obey the laws of the land. . . pay your taxes. . . and Mark says. . . I have to, but I will speak out against such grave evil. . . . what evil. . . that part of your taxes are used for the good of others??? Yeah. . . okay?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Excellent and well put post, Geisha!
Thank you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Yes, I feel it is a grave evil for government to take a function that should be carried out by each and every individual. What part of that do you not understand?
You say, Take another look at what it is you are opposing. The help, care, and concern for those less fortunate.
That is a dishonest, deceitful, and loaded statement. I never once have said, nor have I implied. I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals. There is a difference.
But let us try to understand here the hard lesson you are trying to teach: are you saying that it is sinful an evil to oppose the government or that it is sinful and wrong to oppose the government on matters where Geisha779 and GarthP2000 agree with the government?
This gentleman is acting sinfully, in your mind. He is opposed to Health Care Reform. If he doesn't repent, he will go to h3ll.
These people are acting sinfully, because they oppose government policy, right?
This woman is sinful, because she refused to accept a sham re-election of Ahmadinejad in Iran.
In this case, the people with the pro-"choice" signs are acting in accordance with the Scriptures, because they are supporting government policy, but those with the pro-"life" signs are evil, because they are not giving respect where respect is due (Rom 13:7).
These Iraq War protesters and these Vietnam War protesters are horribly sinful, because they dare to oppose the "ministers of God" (Rom 13:6)
"Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." (Rom 13:2) -- these folks should have simply gone back to their segregated schools, segregated neighborhoods, and gotten back in the back of the bus and gone home and pay their taxes and shut up.
And, of course, these people are already in H3ll. They committed the ultimate sin: they opposed their government and started a revolution, over, of all things, taxes.
--------------
Geisha, let us separate the arguments. There is a legitimate discussion as to whether or not it is a government function to provide social services to the less fortunate, there is a separate function as to the government's function to take over the healthcare industry, and then there is a discussion whether one may morally dissent from the government in any case.
You, Geisha, are too new around here for me to know your position on the Iraq War based upon your posting history. Garth and I have had many discussions on the subject and so we know each other's position on the matter. So I don't know whether you would say that Iraq War protesters were morally wrong in protesting that effort. Based upon Garth's posting history, I would surmise that he would have a really hard time saying that Iraq War protesters (or Vietnam War protesters, for that matter) were acting in a morally illicit fashion (of course, some did, I am talking about peaceful protesters, not those who used violence).
I would imagine, though, that you would support the aims of the civil rights protesters of the 60s and the women's suffrage movement of the early 20th century. (If I'm wrong in my assumption, please let me know). But these people, whose pictures I've linked, were protesting in opposition to established government policies and the authorities who enacted and enforced those policies. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.(Rom 13:1-2). Were these people, the civil rights protesters and women's suffrage protesters, acting in morally illicit fashion? Will they (or have they) incured the judgment of God?
So before dealing with the moral licitness of the government performing certain functions, let us deal with whether a person can legitimately oppose the government or rebel against the government in any case.
Is it always wrong or is it only wrong when one disagrees with Geisha?
(And, by the way, what kind of veil do you use when you pray? (1 Cor 11:5) And, of course, I don't need to ask if you keep silent in the church (1 Cor 14:34) -- of course you do)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Wow Garth. . . coming from you that means something to me. . . .
Mark,
We live in a secular society not a theocracy.
If you are being prevented from speaking the gospel. . . obey God rather than men as the Apostles did in Acts 5. Here in this country you are afforded the right to choose your own religion or faith. You can preach the gospel without fear of incarceration. These protections are written into our Constitution. . . a big deal.
You live in a society that embraces the ideal of bearing one another's burdens. A secular society which seeks to care for it's poor.
Kiss the ground you walk on Mark. The authority or rule you live under is put in place by God. He determines the bounds of our habitation. . . . everyone. You get 60-70 years here. It is not your eternal dwelling place. . . . we obey so God is not spoken ill of. . . we don't give people an opening.
In TWI we had a real knack for twisting things so that evil became good and good was evil. We had a narrow scriptural view and were convinced we knew what was right. . . when in truth, and I think you might agree we embraced bad things.
Compassion for the poor is a good and Godly thing. . . . how often did Jesus remind us of the poor? Yet, when we as a society use a portion of tax money . . . .collected by law . . . . to help the less fortunate, to reach out a helping and. . . . it becomes an ungodly thing? No it doesn't.
Well, you could tell me that it doesn't really help. . . some hyperbole about human dignity. What good is dignity when one can't feed their family?
Reach down and grab your bootstraps. . . pull as hard as you can. . . you will never lift yourself that way. But, if you are down and someone reaches down with a hand. . . . you may get up. . . . . if you are really heavily burdened it may take two. . . . sometimes we have to carry people until they can stand. . . . some may never stand. . . do we as a society step over them?
There are places where the poor sleep in the streets.
It is not just the Christian who has compassion. . . we are all made in His image. . . . those who confess no faith can be fine moral and kind people. . . . who KNOW the difference between right and wrong. . .
To add: We were posting at the same time. . . . protesting is not illegal is it?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I am beginning to think, Geisha, that you should be posting on the Calvinism thread instead of this one.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The government isn't usurping anything from the individual. . . get out there and visit the prisoners and serve the poor. . . who is stopping you?
WG,
I assume you mean this. . . Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
or this
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Romans 13:1
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
No I mean the part about everything having been predestinated by God so there is nothing we can do. Why vote if that's the case?
And by the way, one man who firmly believed and practiced theocracy was John Calvin himself. Though the Council of Elders had the vote, they were so influenced by Calvin (and probably afraid of him) that they pretty much voted his way.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mark,
After reading your latest post, the one with all the pictures, I couldn't help but think "Wow! Talk about your loaded statements!"
But this little jewel you said kinda stood out to me:
I'm sorry, but since when did _any_ of the 'gravely evil' (?) government social programs 'usurp', ie., take away, prohibit your ability, right, and obligation to help the poor, speak out on their behalf, and do all those other charitable activities? Like it's an either/or situation?
Government participation doesn't 'usurp' your participation in the least! ... At all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Honestly, while I am very sympathetic to most of what Mark has posted, the reason the government stepped in is because individuals weren't doing their part. The Catholic Church has always been very active in charity works but a lot of other churches aren't.
Ephesians 4 tells us to work with our hands the thing that is good so that we may have to give to him that needeth, but I think most fall short in that area. Praise God for those who do not!
Both my grandchildren were supported at least in part by government programs. We did help where we could.
Probably the big thing is people keeping their heads and hearts straight on whether they worship God or the government. Does God inspire Obama? I have no idea, but I have my doubts.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Aren't gov'ts and authority usually established by war?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think charitable giving/action and philanthropy are 100 times more efficient, dollar for dollar, than gov't ever could be. Gov't could help by adjusting laws that cause prices to be so high.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I don't really think God's providence works that way. . . I believe He works within the framework of our freewill. Kinda awesome. He is able. . .
American's actually give billions to charity each year. We are some of the most generous people on the planet.
Didn't many social programs start as a result of FDR's New Deal and Johnson's The Great Society?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
You may have a point, but Gov't programs are consistent over the long term. . . . and that still doesn't make them "grave" evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You might think so on the surface, but that would not be looking at it in the context of Rom 13:1-7, which is the verse originally cited back in post #13 of this thread.
The assertion is that all government, no matter how evil, no matter how cruel, no matter what, is of God and that Christians have a duty to not resist the government, again, no matter what the policies they put in place. and that we simply have a duty to pay our taxes, and give the government respect and honor. In other words to shut up and let Øbama do whatever the heck he wants to do. And if we don't do so, we are wrong and God is going to get us in the end.
I challenge that interpretation and instead assert that, while we have an obligation to be good citizens, that obligation does not extend to subordinating our moral consciences to support policies that are morally objectionable. And, in fact, I would assert that we have a moral obligation to oppose policies that are morally objectionable.
While others have tried to limit the application of this Romans 13:1-7 passage to an attempt to cow opponents, like myself, to support government-imposed socialism, I assert that if this passage is applicable in this case, it must also equally be applied to other opposition movements. Thus, the pictures.
And yes, of course, I picked out famous pictures of movements that would likely be approved of by liberals. Why? Because I know of only a very few people who would oppose movements like civil rights, women's suffrage, etc., if Romans 13:1-7 is a moral constraint on my right to protest socialized medicine then those movements were equally in violation of Romans 13:1-7. And since I would doubt that most would say that those movements were sinful for the virtue of them being anti-government policy movements (w/o regard for what they stood for), then it goes to show that Romans 13:1-7 should not be applied here either, because Romans 13:1-7 does not give a context of any policy imposed by a government.
Usurp: 1 a : to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right <usurp a throne> b : to take or make use of without right <usurped the rights to her life story>
2 : to take the place of by or as if by force : supplant <must not let stock responses based on inherited prejudice usurp careful judgment>
First of all, I am not limiting the statement, I have opposed the government usurping a task assigned to individuals., to "social" issues. It was about government powers in general.
Secondly, government usurps powers reserved to the states or to the people all the time in multiple areas. The most egregious examples are through regulatory activities. A couple of examples: I have had to, through my time in the military, learn to do industrial electrical wiring. (One of the jobs I had was to travel around and install communications sites in "exotic" parts of the world) I am amply qualified to install electrical circuits in my home. However, I am constrained from doing so by government regulation. (Since my job currently does not involve this, I felt no obligation to go out and get my "master electician" license). Frankly, in most cases, that would be a regulation that makes sense: most people would be clueless and, thus, dangerous, poking around an electrical panel. But the government regulation covers it all. Another example are some new regulations that will be coming out in the next year that will make construction of low income housing (such as habitat-type homes) far more costly, as they will have to comply with some far more stringent energy efficiency regulations. As costs increase, it will become more challenging and more expensive to build. One other such regulatory concern is the return of FCC regulation on political broadcasting (link is to a broadcast law blog, not a r-w extremist blog)
Third, government programs and government handouts (whether they be to low income people or to Goldmann Sachs) cost money. That money is either raised through taxes, through increased national debt, or through monetization. In the case of taxes, that removes available capital that can be used for private charitable concerns. In the case of increased debt, that furthers extended taxes or inspires monetization. And monetization reduces the buying power of capital that hasn't been taken by taxes, thus reducing the effectiveness of money that is contributed.
Fourth, and most importantly, peoples' attitudes change. They expect government to act. What is the government going to do about this, that, or the other. This is not to say that when there is some disaster that we Americans do not open up our hearts and wallets. But on a day-to-day basis, we expect the government to do something. Interestingly, when one advocates direct action as opposed to government programs, the person is assailed as trying to take food out of the mouths of children.
take away, prohibit your ability, right, and obligation to help the poor, It doeesn't prohibit it, but it removes a significant capability to do so, for the reasons outlined above.
speak out on their behalf Not yet, it doesn't. However, it does impact it on a more macro basis: my message is not received well by most "social justice types", who largely advocate for more government involvement. I know in my church, we deal with constant appeals for money, are called on to lobby politicians to increase government spending, and so on, but the calls to directly participate in social work are very, very muted: limited largely to youth group activities or Knights of Columbus activities. Which is the opposite of what I believe should be.
Like it's an either/or situation? It isn't, Garth, a totally either/or situation. Otherwise, I would be sitting back fat, dumb, and happy while the government takes care of my obligations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.