More Active Posts
Front Page
The Practical Choice
 |
 63 Comments |
Regardless of how you feel about Pat Robertson, you have to appreciate his blunt prioritization: “To me,” he said in his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for president, “the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits.”
Left off the list, among competing priorities for Christians, was stopping the practice of murdering the unborn. Giuliani is, though he downplays it as the Republican primaries near, in favor of allowing the practice. How inconvenient.
Unless, that is, one believes with Robertson that protecting our hides and pocketbooks is more important than protecting defenseless innocents. I wonder, however, if those are even really his priorities, or if they are simply the best way to dress up a fundamental fact driving many Christians to the Giuliani camp, which is that he is beginning to represent the best hope of defeating Hillary Clinton. I’m hard-pressed to think of any subject more likely to send sweet little church ladies into a fit of profanity than that woman.
Perhaps this is uncharitable to Pat Robertson, though I’m not sure which casts him in a more damning light: elevating self-protection and tax rates above protecting the unborn, or simply listing the selling points of the guy he’s backing, not because of the man’s principles, but because he embodies the best chance of beating a despised opponent and maintaining a venal party’s grip on executive power.
This being politics, of course, we are urged to be practical — the only perfect candidate is Jesus, after all, and when he finally returns there ain’t going to be no election. What’s more, there’s only so much a pro-life president can do, anyway. Back the candidate with the best chance of beating the bad guys, is the implicit message, though after numerous sex scandals, a pernicious addiction to federal earmarks, and failure to enact meaningful reform in virtually any policy area, I’m beginning to wonder if the party evangelicals have backed for years is any better than the party we routinely demonize. It’s not so clear to me, in other words, that it’s pragmatic to remain loyal to a band of partisans who make a mockery of Christ every time they refer to themselves as Christians.
What’s more, why all this concern with practicality? It’s always fascinating to hear people who claim to believe in the parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the 5,000, and the Resurrection, among other natural impossibilities, wax eloquent about the imperative of practicality whenever elections roll around. If Christians have some sort of mandate to be active in the public arena, then at the very least it seems we ought to bring Christ along with us. Where in the Gospels are we called to stop government waste? How does that squeeze out protecting the voiceless? Are we called to obsess over our own survival? Are we called to embrace evil because it is lesser? What pathetic witnesses we make, when begin calculating electability quotients, and lending our names to those who oppose our fundamental beliefs, out of a desire for protection.
But perhaps I’m being impractical. We wouldn’t want to stand on principles only to see a heathen elected, would we? Or worse yet, someone who might raise our taxes? Standing on principle might mean the Muslims get us. We’d be martyred, for crying out loud, and all because we couldn’t compromise a little. Heaven forbid, and let the unborn fend for themselves.
 |
Topic: Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: election-2008, pat-robertson, politics, republican-party, rudy-giuliani |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Soul searching
Guliani has pledged to nominate SCOTUS judges in the vein of Roberts and Alito. That means he’ll do as much to fight abortion as GWB has done, and that’s good enough for me.
The choice should not be seen as pro-life versus pro-choice, but rather Hillary versus whoever can best defeat her next November.
Yeah, I tend to agree here with Outcast. There’s not much a president can do about abortion other than pro-life judge appointments and support of bills passed which put certain limits in place on abortion. That’s not to say I’ve made up my mind yet to vote for Giuliani. But it might turn out to be the best thing to do.
Backing Giuliani in order to beat Clinton is like marrying a frog because you think toads are ugly.
The most a president can do to end abortion is to nominate conservative judges - something Rudy has promised to do. And even if the Supremes were to overturn Roe v. Wade the matter would simply go back to individual states to decide. The irony is that while Rudy is personally pro-choice, he could end up doing more to outlaw abortion than his pro-life predecessors.
I am convinced that the best Democratic candidate for President is Rudy Guiliani.
#3 Right on.
I wonder if we would even have this “lesser of two evils” debate if Christians were to actually pray for God to raise up righteous leaders to govern us instead of spending so much time arguing about which candidate is the least offensive towards Christian principles. Talking about being practical…
“Standing on principle might mean the Muslims get us…”
Tony,
What does that mean? Does it mean that all the other candidates are weak-kneed pacifists who will stand by and do nothing while muslims in their motorboats and lear jets invade our country? I’d say the most practical option is the candidate who will do his best to insure that the U.S. government doesn’t spend more than it takes in.
Vote for Ron Paul!
“the only perfect candidate is Jesus, after all”
Tony,
You’d be wrong there. Jesus himself stated that his kingdom is not of this world.
BTW, Tony, I had a little trouble getting your sarcasm, so perhaps my previous comment doesn’t apply. In any case, we are called to obedience to God’s word. Finances are often a subject regarding societies rise and fall. Ezekiel writes “Son of man, the house of Israel is to me become dross: all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver.”
Perhaps the “pocketbook” is not so unimportant in regards to the handling of money by our leaders. Would Giuliani stop the financial bloodletting?
I find Tony’s comments to be insightful. As I’ve been saying for some time now, this is going to come down to a choice between politics and principle. It appears that the choice is going to split the conservative Christian base. I suspect the larger part of conservative Christians will go with politics in the end. Most people do.
As a liberal, I’m going with “principle” in the primary. But for the general election I will most likely have to go with “politics”. If it’s Hillary or whomever, so be it.
If the race comes down to Hillary vs Rudy! it’s going to be a real dog fight. I predict it will be the meanest and nastiest fight any of us have seen. The “Swift Boating” of John Kerry will look like child’s play. You know they’re both digging up dirt on each other right now.
I’m also having trouble seperating out Tony’s views from sarcasm. He refers to Hillary Clinton as a heathen, but of course she is a lifelong Methodist. Are all Methodists heathens?
I’m voting on principle, which is why I’m for Obama. (and why I was for Bradley, Tsongas, Gore, etc). I tend to lose in primaries as the above list suggests.
As for Robertson — he’s a charlatan — and I actually think his endorsement helps in one respect only. It makes it more likely that Romney will get the nomination. If I were Rudy I would not want that buffoon’s endorsement hanging on my neck.
Only Dick Nixon the lifelong antiCommunist could get on that plane, fly all the way across the Pacific and shake hands with the ChiComms. In a similar vein, perhaps we will see the status quo ante on abortion policy under Rudy and the justices Rudy puts on the Supremes. (It is for me at least an unlikely perhaps, but I wont rule it out)
I would prefer at complete end to abortion in all 50 states. But that may not be immediately achievable. Let some states (California) enshrine and celebrate infanticide while others are free to collectively decide not to permit it.
I like George F. Will’s description of the “moral federalism” which was dealing with the controversy quite well before the Supremes imposed their “one size fits all” Roe v Wade verdict.
Abortion policy should be remanded back to the political branches (legislators) and not black-robed judiciary wisemen. Not an ideal situation but the best we are likely to achieve with no Wilberforce in our midst.
Tony nailed it. Thanks for a bottom line answer that expresses my feelings better than I ever could have.
I sense that Christian conservatives are coming around to a more Biblical view of civil government and voting. I’m seeing Christians forsake their addiction to power and party politics and stand for principle. For a long while, even World Magazine was a Republican cheerleader which lambasted anyone who dared mention voting for a third-party candidate or spoke the truth that voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. Tony Woodlief and others are wise to recognize that blind party loyalty makes a mockery of Christ.
DCL, I thought Tony’s “heathen” reference was to Romney, with Hillary being the “worse yet” who might raise taxes.
I would think that people who believe that the Bible (and the formation of this country) was devinely inspired, would see the value of using the founding text (which is the documentation of the basis of our beliefs) for solving these problems we all complain about.
Outkast, Janie, and BT, etc.are exactly right on this. What would pro-lifers want from a president, other than what Giuliani has already promised? Any action past his SCOTUS nominations would be an infringement on the constitution.
“I would prefer at complete end to abortion in all 50 states”
That is as unconstitutional as Roe V Wade.
Unless, you want to go by the process(es) outlined in Article five.
Your best shot there, would be the national covention route
And that, I believe would have a decent chance at being successful.
But what you don’t do, is vote for the most liberal guy in the field simply because he voices his opposition to abortion the loudest.
Have any of these other pro-life candidates even mentioned what kind of SCOTUS justices they would nominate?
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
It wouild seem that some GOP voters could actually teach Fred Thompson a lesson on how to do that.
Fred is being faithful to the constitution. Some pro-life GOPers don’t seem to concerned about following the very text that provides a solution to their problem
I will most likely vote for Giuliani -
Many say Giuliani has “promised.” How well has he kept his promises in the past? In addition, anyone who thinks that killing a baby is a solution to any problem would never get my vote. The fear of Hillary seems to be taking the place of the fear of God. The election is still a year away.
I disagree with my friend, Outkast, at post #1.
First, in politics today, a pledge is not as solid as one’s track record. And Giuliani’s track record on court appointments is not good in my view.
Second, a president can do a lot more for the pro-life cuase than merely nominate decent and humane justices (which I am not even sure Guiliani will). He has the influential bully pulpit, he can exert influence over funding policies, parental consent laws, Surgeon General appointments, and so much more.
I think Giuliani is the one Republican candidate who is the least likely to be able to beat Hillary Clinton. Polls, schmolls.
Hillary’s surrogates will villify Giuliani on moral/character grounds (which Republicans have not pressed) and those attacks will find traction applied to Rudy in ways they would not find traction with a Romney, Huckabee or even a McCain. Giuliani has been treated rather well by the media because he is the least conservative Republican candidate. But the press will turn hard on which ever Republican wins the Repub. primariies and many media-driven and media-informed voters will be swayed by the attacks. Rudy’s personal and political record may pull the rug out from under him after the attacks come in earnest after the primaries. Rudy defends himself well, but I also think he will necessarily be on the defense much more than other Republicans who have so far already been more positive in their campaigns (like Romney and Huckabee).
I think Rudy will also not get the support of a significant amount of committed pro-life voters. Rudy’s candidacy (vs Hillary) is more will attract a third party movement with disaffected conservatives and Christians.
Ronald Reagan got a lot of “Reagan Democrats” but I do not see Guiliani doing the same nor do I see him in Reagan’s mold to a significant degree.
You may be correct, Joel Mark. But when Rudy was here in Dubuque (a Democrat stronghold) yesterday morning, many of the supporters who showed up seemed to be union members who are likely Democrats?
Romney is still my choice, BTW, unless Huckabee gets more traction in the next couple of months.
Mr. Giuliani may very well bring in some Democrats because of his pro-abortion stance. As president, he is limited to proposing legislation. He can sign a bill or veto it. If you accept him at his word that he’d nominate Roberts or Alito type judges, what more do you want from him.
But he now has to deal with the Bernard Kerik problem. We’ll have to see how that pans out.
Outkast
Why would Romney be your choice, he flip flops on abortion - Romney is also in a cult, doesn’t that bother you?
NJ Lawyer and Outcast,
I may be under-estimating Rudy’s ability to bring in some Dems or moderates if he makes it to the final election. However, he could lose a lot of conservatives too. Who knows?
Such factors are rather unpredictable and the bag of possible factors is very mixed. I am not ready to vote for a pro-choice candidate in the primary on the basis of a pure political guess when better options exist.
But if our choice ends up being between Clinton and Giuliani, I will vote for Giuliani. I love my country too much to obstain or boycot a vote with such high stakes.
I do not think anyone, no matter how pro-life they are, has any need or reason to make rash vows to themselves this early over who they will or will not vote for later. Advocate freely but keep an open mind.
I love conservative Christians forcing themselves to be pragmatic and calculating. Will we still love you in the morning? Does the Pope you know what in the woods?
Victoria,
where does it say in the Bible that it is worse to belong to a cult than to be an adulterer who supports abortion? I missed that exegesis.
Romney didn’t flip-flop on abortion BTW. He only flipped…to the right position. A lot of people become wiser and more conservative (I’m not saying they’re equivalent) as they get older.
Robertson’s willingness to drop abortion from his list of priorities is telling. A variety of Christian communication theorists have shown that the current “pro-life” position is more a product of marketing than Biblical exegesis. Organizations like Focus on the Family have worked hard to frame issues in a manner that has helped create an evangelical subcultural identity.
In many cases, those who identify with this subculture will say that they are “pro-life” and yet have no sense of what that entails. For example, a woman recently told me, “I think abortion should be stopped, but I’m not in favor of punishing people involved with it.” But at its heart, the stock “pro-life” position is a position that generally requires the criminal punishment of medical practitioners and/or their patients.
The left has found a new strategy for dealing with the abortion question. Watching John Kerry flail around during the Q&A portion of the final debate signaled the need for a message that did not amount to being “anti-life.” So what’s the new talking point: “We are pro-life, but not pro-criminalization.” And what’s the effect? It gives younger evangelicals a long-awaited opportunity to dance on the grave of Jerry Falwell (by voting for Hillary) without feeling like they’ve abandoned their convictions.
Robertson, of course, realizes that his old stance on abortion (the pro-criminalization position)is a political albatross. He’s watched his influence wane in recent years. Now he’s found the way to revive it.
It’ll be interesting to see of Dobbie follows suit. Pat has always had better survival skills than Dobson. But if Dobson is even half the power-hungry egomaniac that he seems, then expect him to hop on the Rudy train soon.
TRR
Yes you missed that exegesis, because I didn’t make the comparison.
“Rudy’s candidacy (vs Hillary) is more will attract a third party movement with disaffected conservatives and Christians.”
I don’t think that the GOP can afford to be any more divided than we already are.
They’re already going to have Ron Paul to deal with. That’s probably about 20% of the votes that the GOP would usually have
The block of voters who think the federal govt. exercises authority it doesn’t have, will outnumber the voters who think that Giuliani is lying about his SCOTUS pledge.
I guess we could make it a six party race.
That will end up going something like:
Clinton-32%
Giuliani30%
Ron Paul-19%
Mike Huckabee-16%
Stephen Colbert-2%
Ralph Nadar-1%
Victoria,
It looks like you made that comparison in #24 when you say:
Why would Romney be your choice, he flip flops on abortion - Romney is also in a cult, doesn’t that bother you?
Cameron
Two different posts, or hadn’t you noticed? But of course you did…. LOL
Tony,
So let me get this strait, we are not suppose to be practical when it comes to endorsing potential political leaders because as Christian we believe in a litany of miracles. Hmmm, well I bet daily you do many practical things. Save a little money, get the oil changed in your car. Pull a few weeds out of the garden. All because you don’t expect the miraculous in the day to day, or more exactly has you have eloquently stated before the miracles are most common within us.
The bottom line here is the big picture. In a two party system it is rare that one can find the candidate who fits the template of our convictions to the end. As a Christian I have much respect for GW Bush, as a conservative I much contempt for GW Bush.
It is astounding to me that you could group both parties together. One party cannot tell you what they believe. One party cannot have a pro-life candidate. One party believes that they know better for you and your family than you do. The other party, like me and probably you to, will let you state most any belief. You can be pro-choice (pro-death) or gay, or liberal, or conservative or libertarian.
Bottom line, there are huge differences in the two parties. When political Christians such as Pat Robertson endorse someone like Rudy it makes me think much harder about the stakes of the game than if he had say endorsed Mike Huckabee. I am not ready to endorse Rudy, and in the end I may not. But in the world of today I don’t hold Pat Robertson in contempt because he did.
We have to be practical, because the way that my beliefs were shaped I believe that the federal government has but one responsibility, and that is to protect me and my family from attack. They have no business allowing infanticide or redefining marriage or telling me what my child is suppose to learn or how I should discipline my child.
As I reflect, I wonder, Tony do you really believe that there are no differences between Republicans and Democrats?
Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It’s unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don’t have to try.
Not my words but Peggy Noonan
CL,
I don’t think anyone’s questioning the differences between the two parties. Especially for those of us who favor free trade and strong property protections (including IP), no Democratic candidate is all too attractive.
Nevertheless, it is significant that the GOP is no longer extending the welcome mat to social conservatives. In other words, social conservatives have become to the GOP what lower-class African-Americans are to the Dems. Only eight years ago, evangelicals thought that GWB would lead them in a take-over of the Party, giving them the chance to whip us social moderates into line. According to the evvies’ visions, we Rockefeller Republicans would be the ones who would have to “get pragmatic” if we wanted to preserve free trade and low taxes. But it didn’t happen. Now it’s the morality czars and their legions of grass-roots acolytes who are having to “get pragmatic.” Welcome to the new GOP!
CL,
Perhaps a more interesting question is whether you equate the moral implications of voting with getting one’s oil changed.
Your Noonan quote is certainly apt; the spectacle of Christians trailing behind the wagon trains of politicians who think little of the Gospel, and worse, trumpeting their values (lower taxes, War on Terror) while they only mutter ours in safe company, is to me the height of cynicism. And it is borne in cowardice, as well as shortsightedness, selfishness, and a decidedly un-Christian hatred toward Democratic politicians, such that we would throw our lot behind the likes of a thrice-married, pro-abortion, mean-spirited non-churchgoer (by his own account), rather than see a Democrat elected.
And we wonder why Christians lack moral authority.
Hey Guy, I haven’t endorsed Rudy! And no I am not equating the moral implications of voting with getting one’s oil changed. But are you equating the principal of not voting or actually casting a protest vote as the same as holding sacrosanct some ‘moral’ position? …to the point of enshrining the exact flip side of that position? What I am saying is that I can’t imagine a world where it would be better to have a Democrat elected than the most liberal Republican or even John McCain!
I can count on my fingers the number of Democrats that would be acceptable. The thing is that there is still the party discipline (like it or not Republicans are still the standard bearers of conservatism). Or are you saying that you want to start a new party!
Ok, lets have a country like Israel, 40 different parties in a parliamentary system and a veritable ocean of zealots willing to kill us all while we sleep. Thanks, but no thanks… I am not in favor of abortion, or mean-spiritedness or non-church going. What I am in favor of is open debate. What I am in favor of is listening when public people opine, including you!
Finally, I have not met the Christians that you refer to! Just try to change the name of a Sunday school class in my church. Heck, you make it seem as though the average Christian in the US today is the equivalent of a lamb in a flock headed by Osma bin Robertson. Let’s get real. The average Christian is quite independent minded in their voting. What we don’t need are holier than thou pundits aiding and abetting enemy (the Democrats) thru the nuances of our decision making!
I guess that what I am for is that if you disagree with Pat Robertson, that you make you argument like a man and not have the petty pot shots of I am better than you because I have not been for Harriet Myers, or any of the number of other controversial things that Pat Robertson has said or done. That you stand up and tell me and the rest of us why and how he erred! You are smart and articulate (and you are not African-American, so that is not a slight). Tell me in real words, not in the dripping cynicism of the original post. Show me what you have got, I’ll be watching!
Tony,
Thanks for your reply above. Even though I’m a Republican, I’m glad to hear you identify the un-Christian hatred that pervades evangelical discussions about the Democratic Party. I also tend to think that all this political hand-wringing is inconsistent with our need to trust in Christ’s sovereign governance of His creation.
Tony,
How cute Tony, as you pronounce all the women “sweet little church ladies into a fit of profanity than that woman” I don’t know who you have been acquainted with, or church affiliation, BUT….. I have NEVER heard any TRUE Believing Christian women who would use profanity against anyone, ….. never mind someone in a Presidential race. There are millions of men who will vote for Giuliani, does that make the “sweet little church ladies into a fit of profanity” - ?
Giuliani has a real chance to win this race, the others don’t. You might not like Giuliani, I don’t know….. another thing - You nor anyone else knows whether Giuliani asked forgiveness of his sins. We ALL need to search our hearts and ask forgiveness.
This is a ridiculous comment, Christ isn’t running for anything, HE paid the price on the cross for your sins and mine and the entire world. To put Christ our Redeemer other than who HE is as God the Son, makes me wonder as to what point you are trying to make.
Tony, ….. this is interesting, what should we “compromise a little” concerning the Muslims? This question begs to be answered. If you believe in “compromise” please list those things you believe the United States should COMPROMISE. And while your at it…..what is “a little” - ? -
CL,
I was actually going to spend the time trying to help you unwind the illogic of your last comment, until I got to the part where you question my manhood. If you’re looking to meet one of the Christians I refer to, I suggest the closest mirror.
Victoria,
It’s simply untrue that I called all women who oppose Giuliani “sweet little church ladies.” The fact that set A (people who oppose Hillary) contains subset B (sweet little church ladies) does not therefore imply that all people (or women) who oppose Hillary are sweet little church ladies.
Regarding your revelation that you have never heard a TRUE believing Christian woman who would use profanity against someone, I suggest expanding your circle of acquaintances to include Christians who occasionally sin, if you can tolerate the prospect. I enjoyed, however, the implication — just before you chastise me for judging Giuliani’s heart — that you, Victoria, can discern professing Christians from TRUE Christians.
About Giuliani’s repentance you are right — nobody has any idea whether he has repented. Given his propensity of late for making public pronouncements that will rope in the evangelical vote, perhaps he could have included a heartfelt statement of remorse for his treatment of his past wives, for starters.
Regarding Christ for president, I struggle to believe that you are incapable of seeing the point. Of course I don’t think he’s running for office. I do get your hint, however, about my possible heresy. I’ll endeavor to be more careful, given your keen eye for separating the TRUE Christians from the rest of us.
Regarding your last point, I suggest you re-read my original post. I was suggesting the opposite of compromise. The statement you have bolded was in the voice of one of those who advocates practicality in voting.
It’s amazing to me that we keep ignoring the candidates who really represent our views because they’re supposedly “unelectable”. If recent years have said anything it’s that evangelicals have significant influence on such things. Seems like to me that someone like Huckabee’s not electable only because we keep saying he’s not.
Ultimately, however, our hope is not in elections but in God, who directs the hearts of kings and rulers no matter who they are. Knowing that, I’m of a mind with Tony to vote my conscience and trust God to sort it all out. Keep praying folks!
Regardless of how you feel about Pat Robertson
Toad comes to mind.
Tony,
I was not questioning your manhood, rather your ultimate position that it would be better to allow a Democrat to be elected or to vote for a Democrat, I cannot tell which, than for a Christian to vote for Rudy.
I enjoy your posts, truly I do. I like the fact that you are interested in holding Christians accountable for what they ought to be rather than what they are. There is much too little of that going on today. I don’t like the fact that often the way that you attempt to hold folks accountable comes across to this reader as a situation of unredeemable corruption. I just don’t believe that.
I could go on about my allegiance with Classical Liberal principals (the first of which is life especially the unborn), many of which I learned from you long ago, and how these are more aligned with Republicans than Democrats. I could go on about my belief in American Exceptionalism and the fact that Democrats simply don’t believe in it. However I won’t, I will just say that if you felt that I was challenging your manhood, I apologize. You are a good man and this has been a good discussion, I have rather enjoyed it.
CL,
No hard feelings. I probably read “make your argument like a man” with a thinner skin than I should have.
I don’t see only unredeemable corruption, but instead a steady abandonment of principles — by Republicans, by Democrats, and most unfortunately, by too many Christians — for the sake of short-term political gain, or expediency, or practicality. Of course we must be practical in most walks of life, but what I’m suggesting is that we view our political activity not only from a utilitarian view (i.e., what will this vote yield my favorite causes, versus that vote?), but from a moral viewpoint as well. Given how little political activism by Christians has yielded on net (by some accounts, Falwell, Robertson, and company have done more harm than good, for example, by serving as ready bete noires for liberal fundraising groups), what if we Christians focused on the witness that our voting behavior provides? What if we demonstrated that we are willing to lose — on taxes, on war, on immigration — in order to stand firm on principles?
I could be wrong, but it’s worth asking. Point taken about coming across as condemning the whole lot of them as irredeemably corrupt. If I can be redeemed, after all, I suppose there’s hope for anyone…
Seems like to me that someone like Huckabee’s not electable only because we keep saying he’s not.
The reason I’m liking Huckabee less and less is because I’m finding out more and more his views on illegal immagration, healthcare, etc.
Is he perhaps too Christian in those areas; taking care of refugees, the migrants, the sick, etc.
No, hrw. The Bible calls for individuals to care for refugees, the migrants and the sick — on their own, individually.
Or would you care to provide a biblical reference for when there’s a call for “government” to care for those needs?
Huckabee can’t, and neither can you!
the government is the representation of the people; a collection of indviduals. Christ called individuals who in turn could use the state to respond to Christ’s message. Huckabee understands that as both an individual and a governor he is responsible for the care of his neighbour.
HRW: For the second time, could you please provide a bibical basis (chapter and verse) for your assertions in post 46 (and now 48)?
Outkast,
I think you’ve strayed onto thin rhetorical ice, and I’d like to extend a hand to bring you back to firmer ground. There’s no direct Biblical basis for a number of modern institutions, yet one can make an argument that the Bible doesn’t deny their legitimacy either. Public schools, for example, as well as corporations. A good chunk of the Bill of Rights is based on natural law interpretations of Biblical principles, but the logical work you’ll have to do to justify them on Biblical grounds can just as easily yield you a decent justification for a representative government that has social welfare as one of its ends (at which point the good Christian is enjoined to obey civil authorities…).
If you want to make an argument for limited government, you have to rest it on the reality that man is fundamentally wicked. This is, in fact, what infuses the foundational economic and political texts underlying the American experiment — Smith’s Wealth of Nations, for example, and The Federalist Papers, especially Madison’s views. We have checks and balances, and a Constitution that attempted (before being graudally subverted) to limit government precisely because the Founders realized that the Bible would NOT be obeyed by the majority of men. Markets and limited government, rather than being a natural outgrowth of Biblical living, are our pessimistic protection against the reality that, until Christ returns, the majority of men will behave selfishly. The beauty of markets is that they transform selfishness into activity intended to benefit one’s fellow man. That’s the ground I’d rest my limited government argument on, as well as the empirical reality that — again because of the inherent wickedness of man — many government welfare programs have proven to be abject, wasteful failures, especially compared to private initiatives.
Now if only we can get more churches to stop building gorgeous new buildings and instead build welfare- and prison-to-work facilities…
Nope
Outkast, You are exactly right.
These loiberals just don’t get it.
They think that they’re going to get credit for their govt. stealimng from some, (making their lives harder) to give to others that may not even deserve it.
I guess, by their logic, every American will be blessed by God because their govt. decided someone needed “taken care of”
Very leftist..
And pitifully lacking in the area of understanding the difference between charity from the individual, and giving govt. the power to bless some and curse others.
So the govt. of the US shall be in white linens, huh? We are clothed by our individual righteous acts done on Earth. in the kingdom of Heaven.
Why shouldn’t I be left with more of my earnings to do good works with?
You are robbing me of my personal blessings, so some govt. clown can arbitrarily give out cash how they see fit.
Very Christian
Outkast.
Pay no attention to these guys. They haven’t a clue.
Outkast
If you provide the chapter and verse for your post #47, then I will have the biblical basis for my comments. As I said, the gov’t is the mere representation of individual desires for society. It functions as a tool to be used to support the individual as they seek to take care of the poor, sick and refugees.
However, if you deny the legitimate use of the state in eocnomic matters, under which justification do you place the use of the coercive arm of the state to enforce moral or social agendas? To be consistently liberitarian you must allow individual choice and action in all areas of life even if the result is one you would profoundly disagree with.
Outkast,
It seems like you’re trying to read a bit of social Darwinism into Scripture. I’d agree with you if you’re saying that Scripture is opposed to a truly socialist system. But short of a godless socialism, there’s no reason why a government cannot propose a just and workable immigration process and make a certain degree of basic health care available to all citizens.
You seem to propose an either-or scenario in which we have to choose between social Darwinism and Socialism. Neither such system is just. The government, after all, has a role to play in preventing injustice and cruelty. The mere fact that injustice is systematic (such as with an unjust immigration code)does nothing to mitigate our guilt in perpetuating it.
Meaner,
I daresay that if you find yourself clothed in your own righteous acts in the life to come, you’ll likely find yourself in hell. For only those who by faith find themselves clothed in Christ’s righteousness shall see heaven.
Anyway…something to ponder.
Rev 19
“6: And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
7: Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8: And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev 3:4-5
Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy.
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Rev 3:17-18
“Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing: and knowest not that thou art wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked:
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou may be rich: and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear.”
Rev 16:15
“Behold, I comest as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Mr. Meaner clearly didn’t read my last comment, or simply didn’t understand it, but since quoting disconnected Bible verses is the order of the evening, perhaps these are worth considering, even if they aren’t in the stern King James:
Romans 3:21a
“because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in his sight”
Romans 3:23
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
Ephesians 1:8-10
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”
You are saved by faith.
You are rewarded..”every man, according to his works.”
Your righteous acts make up your garments, which is a cryptic way of saying, either you will wear a priest’s garment…or not, during the reign of Christ. And that depends largely on the choices you make at the end of this age.
There…that should freak everyone out!
Ahem
They’re only disconnected if you can’t understand the connection.
I’d rather not have to spell it out.
(I will, if you tell me specifically what you disagree with)
But if you’re quoting Romans to make your case, while claiming the Law isn’t in effect,
My assertion about righteous acts is the least of your concerns.I don’t know if there is enough space on this site to help you get what I’m saying.
How about this one
I Jn. 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Law: for sin is the transgression of the Law.
So…what do you call sin?
I suppose we can stipulate that we both agree with the entire Bible. We also agree about the appropriate size of government. And yet we speak almost entirely different languages. So you were thinking that I was a liberal big-government do-gooder, and I was thinking you were someone who believes he’ll get into heaven because of his good works, and then you were thinking that I believed there’s no such thing as sin.
So I’ll try to give you the benefit of the doubt in the future, and you can try to do the same for me — deal?
BTW,
My kudos to Outkast, earlier, wasn’t an insult directed at you. It was a show of support for the position he was taking.
In retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have said “these liberals”, or “these guys”.
I have no doubt that you and HRW, in fact, have a clue.
I just get agitated when I read socialist rhetoric first thing in the morning.
#59
Deal..
And, once again..my apologies
No hard feelings, and no apology needed.
I usually don’t read George Bernard Shaw until after lunch, for that very reason.
heh
