I’m so disappointed
from The New York Times:
All along, Mr. Bush’s political guru, Karl Rove, had argued that if Mr. Bush could turn out millions of conservatives and evangelical Christians who stayed home four years ago, he could win, aided also by population shifts that added electoral votes to the Sun Belt states in which the president ran strong both times.
I’m just going to be real blunt here. I would consider myself an evangelical Christian and I did not vote for President Bush. And I did vote four years ago. I actually voted for the President. But as his presidency has drawn out, I have come to conclusion that nothing about his term in office is Christian. Evangelical Christians are kidding themselves if they think W. is the answer to the country’s “moral dilemma.”
Considering “moral values” was the top issue of the election, per exit polls, I think this is worth some serious investigation. Being an evangelical Christian and being a cultural Christian (something I would not consider myself to be) are two different matters entirely. It would be far more accurate to say that Bush turned out cultural Christians to the polls and not evangelical ones. Evangelical Christians, one would think, would understand that “moral values” doesn’t really mean shit. Cultural Christians would perhaps not. Evangelical Christians would not look to an election and a political party to resolve problems as they see it. Cultural Christians perhaps would. Evangelical Christians are concerned with the Kingdom and seeing God at work in people’s lives. Cultural Christians are perhaps more concerned with preserving their level of comfort than they are about the things of God.
As Christians, we are not promised earthly comfort or safety or wealth; we are not promised a preservation of our way of life. What we are promised is that this life will be hard; we are told to be content in any situation; we are told to look after the orphans and widows of this world (the unwanted) and that that is the religion God accepts as pure and faultless. We are told to expect persecution for our faith, not our culture of church, and that is something American Christians have no concept of whatsoever.
I’m so tired of being lumped into the “evangelical Christian” category (read here as cultural Christian) because I claim the name of Jesus. To the cultural Christian majority in this country, I say to you, “not all who are wandering are lost.” Get your heads out of the sand, search your own hearts, do not accept what you are told because it comes from some so-called authority figure. Jerry Falwell does not speak for me. Paige Patterson does not speak for me. James Dobson does not speak for me. I cannot and will not let fat, white men, who profess Jesus, yet pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars a year while people around the globe are dying of disease and war and famine, speak for me.
You claim the name of Christ, yet I see no evidence of it in you. I see phariseical lifestyles. I see true hypocrisy in two forms — claiming to be something you are not, and claiming not to be something you are. Shame on you.
Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand.
November 4th, 2004 at 10:12 am
amen.
November 4th, 2004 at 2:23 pm
Side note: just got an email from a friend trying to comment on this post but couldn’t get through. i had setup our comment blacklist to include .us and .info domains, but it unfortunately blocked any words ending in us and info (i.e. Jesus), too. i’ve turned it off. Sorry for the dozen or so who’s comments were automatically rejected. Comment away.
November 4th, 2004 at 7:33 pm
hi guys! joshua, i rarely read blogs, but had some free time at work, etc. and wanted to see what was new with the rudds. man– i am saddened by this post. honestly, as a political science student and a somewhat sickening huge fan of the system of politics, i am sick of the Christians who voted for kerry just because they didn’t want to be clumped with the Christians who did. i 100% agree that politics is politics, and who but the Lord knows where bush’s heart is… but i do know that he stands (by his voting history, etc.) for not just “moral values” but Biblical issues that should matter to us. i am as skeptical as the next that he is doing this for the glory of God, but i would and could not EVER vote for a guy of john kerry’s caliber who is outright supporting and legalizing SIN in this country. yes, bush has definitely screwed up over the past 4 years– but do you know what kerry stands for? do you realize what he supports and is seeking? do you realize what things could be “legal” if he were president? i, as a former gay-marriage proponent (because the i thought it was unconstitutional to outlaw it), believed 100% in the separation of church and state–but those words have NEVER been in the constitution. the only thing it says is that there will be no established church (ie: church of england). how far the supreme court has gone. america– not God’s holy land or anything. wow– on a tangent, sorry. definitely don’t jump on the fake “Christian” bandwagon putting faith in bush (note: you will NEVER find/hear/etc. any “God Bless GWBush” quotes in my presence) — because you’re right– he’s claiming things that we might not deem “fruit”, but LOOK AT KERRY. sick. i’d rather a mediocre man doing Biblically good things in office than a mediocre man doing Biblically crappy things in office. we are to be “salt and light” proclaiming and demonstrating Him in this world… how could we outright vote (although i am not saying that bush is the PERFECT answer) for things that are COMPLETELY against God’s will and character. sorry– just thinking… =) y’all are great and i love those pictures of judah!
November 4th, 2004 at 8:05 pm
nowhere in my post, nor in our blog anywhere, have we ever said we voted for Kerry or were Kerry supporters. just because we don’t support Bush means we are automatically Democrats? We do not consider ourselves Democrats. I don’t understand how people read into this. I’m so tired of people saying, “I know Bush ain’t all that great, but LOOK AT THE OTHER GUY!” It’s like saying, “Hi, I’m Adam, but Eve ate the fruit first!” That’s just sick.
And where you said, “id rather a mediocre man doing Biblically good things in office than a mediocre man doing Biblically crappy things in office,” I’d agree with you one hundred percent as well. That’s one reason I didn’t vote for Bush.
Please don’t assume to know my choices or motives; or to think that I don’t understand or have not studied the political process/system or the Constitution, because I have. Believe it or not, many of the millions of people who didn’t vote for Bush are educated, are Christians; and many are actually both.
November 4th, 2004 at 8:22 pm
Wow. i’m going to have to confess that i believe God to have ordained President Bush to another term in office. i mean, Bush is the president. And i don’t think that took God by surprise!
i also confess to not understand God’s ways of doing things. If it were up to me, things would be done quite differently. However, knowing that when my plans turn amuck it’s usually for some unexpected outcome i could have never imagined.
i must also confess that i believe God will allow the Antichrist to fool the world that he will bring about peace and justice. Now why would God allow that?
Oh yeah, His ways are not our ways.
And for all of you Bush supporters out there: i’m not saying that our President is the Antichrist. He *might* be, but i’m not saying that.
Wink & smile.
November 4th, 2004 at 8:31 pm
Kristen, you made some good points in your post, but you lost me in your reply to Liz. Are you not making similar assumptions about Bush voters in your post?
November 4th, 2004 at 8:40 pm
i think fat, white men who proclaim the name of Jesus will be in heaven with me- the lying, sinful, hateful, and evil woman i am, or am i reading something different?
November 4th, 2004 at 8:57 pm
to bill: huh? similar assumptions? I don’t know what you’re talking about. could you please be more specific? regardless, any assumptions i make are perfectly acceptable - this ismy blog. that’s the point.
to katie: what i said was that the evangelical bobbing heads did not speak for me. I don’t assume to guess who gets to go to heaven. that’s not my job.
November 4th, 2004 at 9:30 pm
sent via e-mail when the comments were partially blocked:
“oh kristen i love you; you move me to tears of a
happier sort (of recognition and resonance) than those i’ve cried over the last few days.
to quote the band vol, “jim and tammy and reverend swaggart/they don’t look like jesus and they’re a whole lot fatter/don’t miss the truth for a stupid side show/don’t confuse the cup for the contents it holds” (i think not so much an indictment of chubby people per se as people fat with wealth).
my house is alight with shock and sadness, especially as 5 out of 7 of us are christian of some stripe or other and work in social justice of some stripe in part because of our love of God’s creation. we do not feel represented either by those who are more intent on judging than loving or teaching.
we must work for a change in this country to broaden our concerns and cares and preserve our democracy from weakening by both parties.”
from Lauren in California
November 4th, 2004 at 10:06 pm
What scares me about Evangelical Christians when it comes to the current political climate, is that they don’t believe in Democracy, they Believe in Theocracy. They want their personal Faith values to be everyone’s faith values, forceably, if necessary. You can see it in the statement above where Kerry is lambasted for “Legalizing sin” and the specific issue is Gay Marriage. The fact is that all manner of Sin is perfectly legal in the United States. The idea of Democracy is that people govern themselves, and the government protects the minority’s human rights.
It is frightening to me that so many Christians want to have their faith values branded into law. The idea is that if others in this country will not Choose Christ, we can force Christ on them by making laws, and telling people what they can and can’t do. Telling children they must pray to Jesus in school, The idea of outlawing sin, or what one group of people perceives as sin, is mortifying. If we govern this country by one group’s faith values, whose values do we choose? And do we really think that forcing people to abide by laws is going to draw them to christ? We have forgotten that Theocracy is what Christ came to free us from. And it was a Theocracy that put him to death.
This group of Christians is willling to contintually vote for men who worsten the quality of life in this country for the poor and middle class in favor of large corporations and the wealthy, destroy the enviromnent, go into enormous debt, and make lousy foriegn policies in the midst of an increasingly global world, because of their stance on issues that should be personal choices.
The Christian right to me personifies the story of the good samaritan. They are so worried about the way things look in America, that they don’t care about the actual people who need help. It is more important to save the appearance of marriage than it is to grant people equal rights that affect their actual lives in areas like healthcare and taxes. banning gay marriage won’t make people not gay. And it won’t preserve anything Christian about the legal institution of marriage in America. And taking a stance against a gay’s couples right to be legally recognized isn’t going to convince them they need Jesus. I use the gay marriage example, only because someone else brought it up first. Take pretty much any of these so called moral values, and it is the same story. This menatlity is everything that Jesus stood against.
sorry about the long post, but the idea of living in a Theocracy, Christian, muslim, or any other, horrifies me.
November 4th, 2004 at 10:40 pm
I’m sorry I was not clear. I was referring to your frequent use of shibboleths and stereotypes by which you judge people you do not know while taking exception to anyone who presumes to draw conclusions from your statements.
I ask your forgiveness if an offense was taken. I assumed that as an evangelical christian you would not want to be guilty of the very thing you fault in others. I will not invade your blog again.
Katie, I am an old fat white guy who will look you up in heaven when I have time. You may need to give me a few thousand years to find you.
Grace and peace
November 4th, 2004 at 11:00 pm
Amen to Bill and Katie.
November 5th, 2004 at 12:36 am
well i think it’s been agreed that the political system isn’t great. it’s not. it’s never going to be great.
and kristen: i’m sorry if i offended you in assuming your voting preferences or political knowledge– i do not consider democrats/liberals/kerry supporters or any non-bush supporters ineducated/atheistic, sorry if it seemed like that.
nathan, i agree and know completely that people are more important than any law or sin we talk about. that’s grace and Christ and we should show/talk more of it. yet, i am unsure of how to stand on the also “real life” things and laws that effect me and others that are happening. i do not think that a gay-marriage ban would stop gay people– and yes, homosexuality is NEVER the issue. it’s the Lord and sin. in oklahoma, we just voted on making gambling (via lottery) legal here. i, being somewhat numb to the lottery in texas, didn’t understand why so many “Christians” were against it. yet it is gambling. definitely not honoring to the Lord, and yes, people are going to do it whether the law passes or not. so– do i vote for it? or do i not? in a perfect world, we could say “hush, let’s just get back to getting right with the Lord” but we can’t. on tuesday, i had to vote to see if in OK, gay marriage and gambling would be legal, and i just can’t vote for them. i understand the “theocracy” debate, i used to argue this against the Bible-belters up here, now i’m lost somewhere in the middle. thank goodness that His grace is also sufficient for my stupidity and His sovereignty covers anything on this earth. no more posting for me… ever (just kidding).
November 5th, 2004 at 7:42 am
“shibboleth” n. A word or pronunciation that distinguishes people of one group or class from those of another.
nice word! and yes, I was intentionally drawing a distinction. however, please notice that I did use the word “perhaps” each time so as not to make definitive assumptions. and yes, it did involve stereotypes in order to make a point. would you seriously disagree with those statements? the point was to provoke thought, and to say that Christians are not blind Bush-followers.
rather than taking me to task regarding my method of communicating ideals, wouldn’t it make more sense to do something about encouraging people who say they follow Christ to really follow him, instead of being concerned about whether or not their church culture is preserved? what happens when it all goes to pot? does that suddenly not make you a Christian anymore? then why expend so much energy fighting for it? it’s not worth it.
I have not taken Kerry to task on the blog because he is not the President. Bush, however, is.
Bill, to assume “that as an evangelical christian you would not want to be guilty of the very thing you fault in others,” is a wrong assumption. I do not think being an evangelical Christian is about being better or less “guilty” than other people.
And please, don’t remove yourself from our comment boards because we don’t agree with you. If we wanted to remove you, we would remove you ourselves, but we believe in free speech. You are welcome here.
November 5th, 2004 at 10:47 am
Lots of good comments. Most well thought out. Here is one more that hopefully will add something else to think about. Kristen comments that she will not let fat, white men, who profess Jesus .. speak for her. Nathan comments: “This group of Christians is willing to continually vote for men who worsen the quality of life in this country for the poor and middle class in favor of large corporations and the wealthy,….”
Here are a few thoughts:
If as individuals, we feel WE should be doing something that will help the poor and middle class then WE should be doing it. As Christians our lives should represent this ideal. As I see it, the Bush organization (and some Republicans as well) comes closer to allowing that than others. As the Democrats purport to see it, the government should be doing these things instead of you. In other words, the very things Nathan so eloquently expresses about why we shouldn’t live in a theocracy are absolutely correct. The difference is the democrats in essence try to force their own version of a theocracy through social programs for the poor and middle class….in reality the programs don’t work (what government programs really work well?) and this in turn is actually veiled socialism. Right now the democratic party likes to offer the hope of a better life through THEM. They want the poor to have hope (in my mind a false hope) that is based on what THEY (government) can do for them. In other words, many democrats in state and federal office want to take YOUR money, claim it as THEIRS, and then spend it in a way they have deemed appropriate with little or no recourse. And the truth is, if you publicly disagree with the vast moral judgments made by the democratic machine you are labeled to be a racist, unintelligent, greedy, fat old white man.
In politics it is all about money and power. Where the money is, there is power. Where the power is, there is money. I would prefer to have more money in my pocket so that I can decide where to spend it. I do not desire to forfeit this job to democrats or republicans.
My friends, the enemy is not democrats or republicans. We have two common political enemies, the tax system and the enormous bureaucracy. If you want true reform in America, change the system so we the people have the power and the money to make the changes as our hearts lead us.
I encourage everyone not to be so judgemental. Joshua is right. God ordained Bush to be president. Pray for our government. Pray for our president. The enemy (the real enemy) loves for us as believers to denigrate and deny each other. Lift each other up. Challenge each other to ponder why we believe what we believe without making it seem personal or angry. Understand in your hearts that no matter how much you might consider yourself to be right (in the political sense) you just might be wrong. Turn your disappointment in the campaign into action in someone’s life.
Sorry for the long post.
Blessings to all.
November 5th, 2004 at 11:17 am
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Reggie.
On another note: isn’t it about time for a grass-roots movement to break us from the chains of this two-party system? Something’s got to give here.
November 5th, 2004 at 11:31 am
I think one of the saddest things, if not the saddest thing, about the rhetoric used by both Christians who support and who are against Bush’s agenda and methodology is that it divides the Body of Christ. Now, I don’t say this as someone claiming to be free from bias. I have a slant against Bush’s policy because it does not fit with my understanding of Christlikeness. That being said, it saddens me (without placing any blame on anyone) that this Body which is supposed to be one is full of so much anger at one another. I don’t think this can be solved politically, i.e. by making those on the left come over to the right or making those on the right come over to the right. I think it would take a whole lot of prayer and thought that’s way outside the box of politics. Think of John the Baptist–he was announcing Christ and he was way outside the box. I’m not saying that we should withdraw or be weird or irrelevant; but I do think we have to continue to return to the fact that our Kingdom is not of this world. I don’t really have any suggestions to offer. My heart is in anguish for the Body to be the Bride and to love the poor and the lost.
November 5th, 2004 at 12:39 pm
Ted. . .You da’ man.
All laws are moral, and when passed, are enforced upon all citizens equally. The real question is “whose morals will they be”. On a sidenote, I never heard the left complaining about morality being shoved down people’s throats when unaccountable judges chose by fiat to legislate on the bench concerning abortion-on-demand or the definition of marriage.
The conservatives (which inlcude a significiant number of peeps from the Christian ethos) happen to have a sizeable majority of Republicans in the House, Senate, and White House through which they can progress their ideas. It is a political reality that will be with us for perhaps another decade if trends continue–get used to it or start convincing 3 million people to change their mind in four years.
Liberals, on the other hand, are out of power and will continue to be until they change their gameplan. They have been successful getting some of their ideas advanced via activist courts, but with the power of appointment residing with the party that believes in judicial restraint, that undemocratic loophole will be closed sooner rather than later.
I am not here to say one ideology is fully Christian and one is fully pagan. But it is my opinion that I will have better odds in the conservative camp with the more blatant of the issues that are contrary to the Holy Text (embryo-chop-shop-labs, skull crushing of babies 90% born, allowing the institution of marriage to be a variable decided by the whim of unaccoutnable judges, cycle of poverty inherent in unreformed welfare programs etc).
It is my opinion that these issues leave no room for compromise, and I vote accordingly. However, it is quite a leap for someone to then accuse me of damning anyone that disagrees with me. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind a spirited debate, but I can handle the issues like an adult and not stoop down into “I know you are, but what am I,” emotional diatribes.
Emotions and passions are high right now (especially for the frustrated left who expected different electoral results), and there seems to be a lot of assuming going on. And you know what they say about assuming. . .
Anyway, Ted is 100% correct. Both the left and the right have ameable motives and goals–who ISN’T for a clean environment, better education, better healthcare, retirement security, homeland security, et al. But the utlitimate answer to what humanity REALLY needs transcends this crap-hole of a planet and firmly rests in the hands of the King of Deep Heaven who is returning to set things right once-and-for-all. In the meantime, we have to do our best to make political decisions based on our firm convictions and be willing to answer for them.
November 5th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
Joshua,
You are right. The two party system as we know only perpetuates the status quo. I believe the grass roots really starts with a complete overhaul of the tax system. We the people must demand it. The tax code is so obtuse and the numbers of people it takes to enforce it is such a waste of our money. This can be said for so much of our government. It is a tremendous drain on our national economy….much more so than deficits. Huge amounts of people being paid large amounts of our money for absoutely useless things. Put the money and the power back in the hands of the people.
Blessings to all…May others see the love of Christ in us!
November 5th, 2004 at 12:48 pm
reggie, nice to have you back on here. you too, ted — how’s married life?
please keep in mind the original post was not about political parties or left vs right. and nothing anyone posts on here regarding the political process will change my mind. just be aware of that.
November 5th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
Uh-oh, now people are talking about my world. Ok, we can reform taxes a little, but let’s stay as far away from the national sales tax and flat tax as possible. There is a gigantic industry which employs millions of people (software, accounting firms, etc) that would really hurt the economy if it were to go “poof”. And I actually like my job.
But yes, some simplification wouldn’t hurt either. I would be afraid to learn how many lines there are in the IRC (Internal Revenue Code).
November 5th, 2004 at 1:03 pm
Hey, Kristen. Married life is very good. Maybe we can stop in Dallas then next time we’re in Texas.
I guess the whole right and left thing was my own tangent. Anyway, I agreed with what you had to say in your post.
November 5th, 2004 at 1:05 pm
Heh, I was about to say something similar, Justin. Our job kinda depends on the tax code being a tangled web of mystery. Heh. How does it feel to profit off of buearacratic chaos?
It is kind of sad when we have to call the IRS to explain their own tax codes to their agents. (Yes, it has happened.)
November 5th, 2004 at 1:12 pm
i was wondering when you tax guys would throw your two-cents in. Hehe.
November 5th, 2004 at 1:19 pm
Keep those tax laws obscure and confusing!! (I feel so dirty)
November 5th, 2004 at 2:01 pm
wow, everybody, i just have to jump in on the discussion here. i liked the comment about everyone being so well-thought out. i think there is also a lot of feeling-it-out too, and emotions are a part of this discussion big time. it is sad how so many people try to intellectualize their positions on politics and do not give equal value to their emotions on the subject. horray for strong emotions, on both sides. emotions are good in sorting through how to go about moving on now that the election is over. we are mystical creatures and especially when it comes to spiritually discerning truth, we need our emotions to inform us. okay, enough about emotions, i will move on:
whoever said that politics are all about money and power, they are right on. though most of you don’t know me, this thread is what brings me to post. this is where christians (of whatever label) get frustrated. the church is full of politics, and to me it sounds like kristen has been really hurt by the fat white guys who do politics in the evangelical church movement(s). am i wrong? as i see it, the big denominations and the movements and para church organizations have gotten on the bandwagon of campaigning, and not just for the GOP or DNC. this evangelical movement which gets singled out by politicians is courted and favored by the politicians, specifically, for the money. everybody knows that politicians aren’t the standard for moral character. perhaps they win a few prizes for seeming to have character and for living on a big stage all the time. but we all know how it’s all a facade. as far as the facade goes, many pastors, ministers and especially cultural christians— dare i also say the evangelical and blogging christians— are guilty of the same thing, living on a stage, living to other people’s perceptions of them, and only seeming to be moral. it’s so easy to get caught up in it. but i don’t say this to point fingers.
what we, who belong to the kingdom of God need now, is to stick to the commands in the gospel, and continue to seek the Lord. to take part of community here on earth, we will no doubt run into those who will try to use us, court us for our money, or hypocritically label us as one thing or another. sometimes it’s an all-out war just to avoid getting caught up into some kind of propaganda ourselves. so what is the answer?
stay close to Jesus. and in prayer, i have found that the truth becomes bright and obvious. the seeds for moral decline have been planted in our nation for a long, long time, and for whatever reason, our nation has a role to play in the politics of the earth. we cannot avoid politics, or demonize it either (though i am convinced of the demons which run many of the movements in america go undetected) these global wars and diplomatic matters have to do with the wars in the heavenlies, and when we pray, for our government, we will see that there are actually very relevant truths and issues being talked about on the national-global stage after all: sudan. genocide. abortion (what percentage of our generation was never born after all, and how this relates to the stem-cell controversy). sexual identity/pain/wounding on a grand scale. materialism. addiction to drugs and the spiritual stronghold that brings… there are so many issues that are recognizable to all (christain and not) as BAD. and to say that all of a sudden the fat white evangelicals are tryinng to get the corner on the market of morality and goodie-two-shoes-ness or even the Lord, well it’s short-sighted.
pray, people, pray. perhaps in all of this controversy, and deconstruction of the issues, candidates and direction of the country, whether we go towards socialism or stay in the capitalistic democracy we have, we will fall on our knees and pray.
i believe that the Lord will bring this revolutionary generation together, and already has started to do so. aren’t you glad that the cloud of confusion that fell so quickly before the election is over? perhaps a bush presidency will allow this generation to rise up and prepare for what God has called us to do- to unite and throw off the corruption which has quenched the Spirit for so long. no one seems to be arguing about the obvious where bush is concerned: his heart is broken by the prayers of the people. and that, has nothing to do with politics, but with the kindgom of God uniting. at least, that is how i take things. i applaud everyone’s thoughts and explanations here, and think that the church is us, as well as those caught in the machine of propaganda and politics… well i am only rambling now so i will post again another time, perhaps with a little bit more of a single point instead of the many i have made.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
I love all of this…only one more thing from me…
For all of those that supported Bush, don’t for one minute trivialize the feelings and thoughts of those who supported Kerry. Same goes for Kerry supporters. It is clearly time to be secure in what we believe, and know there is room for a lot of different thoughts and feelings….not just our own. We are all part of one body…but the body has many parts. Respect them all. It is only through the love and grace of Christ, through that love and grace manifesting itself in how we treat others, that will make a difference in this world. So…show a little love and grace. Shalom ya’ll!
November 5th, 2004 at 2:51 pm
nathan: very well said. like, VERY well said.
my comments
as far as left/right slash two-party system, you may want to check out the political compass and the analysis of both candidates. i’m personally more of a socialist-libertarian than anything, and that is the system i see the early church adopting…however that early church started and initially thrived as micro-system operating within/under an occupying empire. which means that socially and politically, christians should have more in common with nonviolent muslims in iraq. instead, most christians support the current empire and hope for theocracy. more reason to believe constantine was the beginning of the end for christianity. (forgive the large logical jump there.)
my main issue with much of the political talk i hear coming from christians is their desire to legislate against personal moral “wrongs” and not legistlate for moral “rights” (helping the poor). reasons aside, our government, being a supposedly secular and social institution, should be staying out of the personal business of its people while providing for equity and stability within its citizenship.
i don’t like the two party system either, but it is my observation that the dem’s would tax us for a few billion to provide for our own people, and the GOP IS taxing us for TENS (hundreds?) of billions to wage unnecessary and illegal wars and establish itself as a modern empire.
in the 90’s rep’s critized our military effort (as lame as it was) in bosnia and kosovo to stop genocide by asking “are we the world’s police?” now it seems they are more than willing to spend billions to become the world’s ruler.
i am, however, looking forward to the involuntary government sponsored weapons training and travel to exotic foreign lands, and an early ticket to the afterlife! just so long as it’s the flag on my helmet and not a cross.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:58 pm
forgot to add:
1 Thes 4
“…and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business…”
November 5th, 2004 at 3:25 pm
thought you guys would like this:
Headlines From the 2nd Term
November 5th, 2004 at 8:29 pm
daniel,
even better said.
trey is right that all laws are based on morals.
But it doesn’t seem that difficult to determine what morals to legislate by.
The idea in a democracy is that the morals are morals that serve to protect the rights and liberties of all the people. Or said a different way, the law should serve to protect the rights of all its citizens. So we can say universally that Murder is morally abhorrent to everyone because a murderer takes away another’s right to life.
Whose rights are taken away by allowing a committed homosexual couple the right to healthcare?
Let’s take for example the prayer in school issues. So many Christians want to reinstate school mandated prayer. But Christians are quite free to pray in school anytime they want. Why should the muslim kids in class be forced to recite our christian prayers? The government protects the rights of all involved by having no mandated prayer of any kind, and leave kids to choose for themselves what prayers to pray, if they pray at all.
That is the nature of a free society.
Theocracy is not a free society, because religious beliefs are largely about personal issues, You can’t legislate religious convictions without infringing on the rights of others to believe differently. God gives everyone this right, but Religious Theocracies take that right away. I am continually exasperated at how many people do not seem to draw a distinction.
November 6th, 2004 at 1:13 am
just wanted to say how lovely i thought your post was. i am not a christian, democrat, republican or otherwise, rather an open person who supports goodness in the world and a person who does not support bush.
—c
November 6th, 2004 at 10:33 am
this is a great piece on NPR related to this…
November 6th, 2004 at 11:40 am
“trey is right that all laws are based on morals.”
…now see here we go talking about morals…(Joshua and Kristen are like “oh no–train wreck!!)
Notice the personal language around the word “moral” and the social language around the word “law.” I submit to you that murder is not illegal because it is an immoral act to murder another human being, but rather because it is necessary for our civil society and its constructs that we not go about killing each other. The rules that we as a society have agreed upon are related to our personal morals, but there is no direct correlation.
Laws do not exist to make citizens moral people. Laws exist to maintain order. More importantly, laws cannot make citizens more moral people. It is not that “You cant legislate religious convictions without infringing on the rights of others to believe differently,” it is that “You cant legislate religious convictions” FULL STOP. Why someone would want to try is another matter all together.
There are those who would make the “slippery slope” argument in light of the social implications of a particular freedom–let’s take gay marriage (as the topic du jour)…gay marriage leads to marriage with barnyard animals, downfall of society, etc. Well hopefully I don’t have to explain to all on this thread what a poor argument that is, but my question for authentically concerned Christians is: what about the failed institution of heterosexual marriage? If you are married, how has the state sanction of your union supported or strengthened your vows before God (assuming you made any “before God”)? I don’t know about Texas, but in Florida there are NO barriers to either entry or exit from a legal marriage. There are certainly no elements of the legal institution of marriage that have any real meaning or purpose in such a union.
Last thing: one of the advantages of legal marriage is lower insurance prices. But lower insurance rates are given based on statistics about married persons being safer, living longer, etc. This has nothing to do with morals, and is in all probability a statistic that extends to gays in long-term committed relationships (perhaps more so–most gays I know are more health-conscious than average).
So even our statistical analyses haven’t evolved. But they will. And what People Of Outspoken/Authoritarian Religious Convictions need to realize is that our social mores will evolve, and they will do so even while the POOARC’s convictions stay the same. And that’s a good thing. Because the teachings of Jesus must also evolve within hearts, and they will not be able to do so without an individual’s ability to choose them freely.
November 7th, 2004 at 2:54 am
wow.
i was going to say something, but then daniel and nathan mostly did it. and thanks reggie for your thoughtful comments, very well articulated even where i disagreed with you
. but i thought i should at least say a little something so there were more girls commenting.
also, i would like to advocate that we as people of (all) faith(s) do what we can within our relationships with people to address societal issues we are concerned about. if you’re concerned about abortion, work in those cool programs that help pregnant moms know what to do, and work so that pregnant women aren’t stygmatized, and lobby for living wages so that parents can support their families and not worry about an extra mouth. then no matter the legislative situation you can help.
November 7th, 2004 at 11:36 pm
Deconstructing the words moral and law, is mere semantic argument and void of substance. This is where I must challenge joshuas rant. I find found his tone very presumptive and overly-instructional. To say that morality and virtue are personal, and thereby not societal, is either not fully fleshed out or it is imposing relativism on the dictionary. Its not fair to twist the issue this way. If laws are strictly societal- for the sterile purpose of order, and are not for the promotion of morality and virtue, then how does one interpret the language of the preamble to the constitution and how does one validate bill of rights?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (preamble).
Do not these words speak of promoting intangible constructs, aren’t these words heavy with moral impact and meaning? What is this securing of the blessings of Liberty that we the people promote? Should we now sanitize the language used in order to replace the religiously loaded word, perfect?? I challenge joshua to defend and explain how these words to the preamble are not moral words, speaking of virtues held dear to the writers of the constitution?
Deconstructing and plundering Treys previous argument in this way is not fair. Law and morality are in fact, related directly. Talking about the meanings of the two words only proves that your arguments are based on your own convictions, and not the day-to-day reality of how society works. Its just not fair to label people who disagree with you as People of Outspoken/Authoritarian Religious Convictions, as if they were some kind of flat, stock character, a static, stupid group doomed to be eliminated by the progression and evolution of society.
Deconstructing has value, but when you ridiculously separate laws in society from religious morals in a society you are embarking on theoretical fiction, not an actual debate about the real society we all live in. In fact, I submit that in your condemnation of your so-called POOARC, you are yourself being religious, according to the worldview/religion of social progress you espouse. And this method of argument dehumanizes and attempts to disqualify others, making yourself more human, more valid.
As far as Joshuas argument that laws do not exist to make citizens moral, I will concede that fact: the law cannot make people moral. But I simply do not take the logic train to his next full stop. How the heck does one go from that fact, to then saying that you cant legislate religious convictions? I mean, youre grabbing at straws here. Whoever said that laws were legislations of religious convictions in the first place? Arriving at a conviction, for sure, is a personal journey. But to insert RELIGIOUS as if it qualifies convictions in some special way just perverts, distorts this description of the lawmaking process– as if somebody really separates all their convictions out and says to themselves, I think Im going to make laws based solely on what I do or do not believe about God. Oh, really, is that even possible? Find me one person who claims that unique ability and I will say that person is deluding themselves. Perhaps it disturbs you that imperfect, elected lawmakers and presidents undergo a personal process in coming up with, and proposing laws, and that judges go through a personal process in enforcing and interpreting them. But if thats the problem, then talk about that, dont use the manipulative phrase, legislating religious convictions! Again, you are deconstructing too far here, and for the purposes of espousing and imposing your own views- to the denegration of others’ views. You are hijacking the argument to your own ends. Legislating religious convictions is a manipulative phrase made-up recently and touted during the political campaigns. I must point it out and discount it. All of us are created equal. And none of us can *authentically* say that they are able to separate their own moral convictions from behavior. Nobody is that enlightened or pure. For any of us in this debate to try and make the other side less equal as a means of argument is piss poor. I just have to point that out. Lets argue without using such unfair attacks. it’s preachy and self-righteous.
I was surprised that nobody seemed to appreciate my previous call to prayer, either. If we are ever to achieve unity in the body of Christ in this nationregardless of whether we trod down our current capitalistic democratic path or change into socialism or not, we will need to seek the mind of Christ in all things, and love of each other, attempt respect and forgiveness, and worship the Lord, not our clever minds. The law of the land cannot or will not ever substitute for or change the kingdom of God. To be so afraid of the kingdom of God (and to be afraid of being united with people that don’t agree with us), that we as Christians retreat into trusting the philosophical and governmental structures of this world, is an impotent path to follow.
November 7th, 2004 at 11:38 pm
OOPS, I MEANT DANIEL’S ARGUMENT. SORRY JOSHUA.
November 8th, 2004 at 9:30 am
So, does anyone have any comments about what Kristen actually said in her original post?
Jessica, don’t be surprised that “nobody seemed to appreciate [your] previous call to prayer”. i’m sure many people do, but i’m not surprised no one commented in regard to it. As you can see here, *most* people would rather comment a long and drawn out disagreement with someone else than pray. It’s more fun.
However, like many people, i do pray.
i pray in thanksgiving for a God who is and is able.
i pray for my wife and daughter, that they would know how loved they are.
i pray for our community, that we would serve each other out of love for one another.
i pray for the leaders of this age, that they would lead with honesty and integrity.
i pray for the Church, the body of Christ, that we would allow God to knit us together and that we would not try to achieve it ourselves.
November 8th, 2004 at 5:29 pm
joshua: let the thread live and wander where it will. isn’t that the point? do you just want “yea” and “nay” comments. “yea.” i agreed with Kristen 100 percent. i feel like i’m continuing to defend Kristen from ppl who have questioned her POV based on irrational and/or emotionally selfish poor arguments.
jessica: it seems all you’ve done is argue against my writing style and semantics and little else. what exactly are you opposed to/promoting?
“Intangible constructs,” yes, “heavey with moral impact and meaning?” No, I wouldn’t say that. I posted the definition of moral to try and create some base from which to discuss the terms, and you not only seem to have taken offense at my posting the definition, but personally hold most strongly to the 5th definition given and poise all your comments from that perspective.
Bush has taken his 51% and called it a “mandate.” It is not a mandate, it is reason for concern and conversation and understanding. You seem to promote these but at the same time take offense at the way I write?
I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t hear what you’re trying to say, I guess.
all: Pray all you want, hear voices in your head and talk to the walls and the ceiling and the floor and I have every confidence God will hear your monologue and take at least a quizzical interest. But I would prefer you pray with your lives.
November 8th, 2004 at 6:09 pm
ah, daniel, you have revealed yourself to be the one to have taken an offense, and now you have attacked me personally with you “hear voices in your head” comment.
i will leave you be, daniel. in case you thought i was being ambiguous about where i stand: i definitely think our country should avoid socialism, and i think that bush is doing a good job.
i simply thought that your argument about morals and laws deconstructed the terms too much, so i tried to point that out. i thought your use of the term, “legislating religious convictions” was contrived, so i tried to point out why. i didn’t feel like addressing your rant about homosexual marriage. i don’t have problems with you disagreeing with me. i respect that you are articulating your views and that you care so much about the country. but, daniel, arguing doesn’t have to be done immaturely. your snarky words to me at the end say more than anything else.
as far as joshua’s redirection to kristen’s original message– i think it’s smart to be able to distinguish between cultural christianity’s exploitation by politicians. i liked the way that kristen differented evangelical christians (how she sees herself) from that cultural group. it is annoying to see people hypocritically submitting to the obnoxiously shallow money-drive campaigns in the name of morality, and the purchasing jesus bobbleheads and stuff. kristen’s got a great point about karl rove. it’s something to think about and talk about.
November 8th, 2004 at 10:15 pm
“we are told to look after the orphans and widows of this world (the unwanted) and that that is the religion God accepts as pure and faultless. We are told to expect persecution for our faith”
i am not surprised when the government, politicians, and laws fail to do what the Church is called to do with and through Christ.
no one speaks for me. may I, my family and the Church speak into the world with our very lives.
may we talk with God, with each other, and others about this tension that is our lives in, but not of the world. without causing division, but without fear of being pc.
might we even love ‘fat’, white, greedy men as much as we do the orphans and widows
…i can’t wait to see the rudds again
November 9th, 2004 at 1:18 am
let me try and sum up the conversation:
daniel: can’t leeg ist late mor als pee pul! read a f**king dickshunary!
jessica: your mean and deconstruct TOO MUCH. fooey.
daniel: i’m sorry did i offend you?
jessica: no but obviously YOUR offended. ha. if i wasn’t such a picture of christian morality i would have some choice words for you mister!
“yes you are” “no i’m not” “are too!” “am not!” etc.
November 9th, 2004 at 1:28 am
jessica: just as a clarification, my “snarky” words labeled “all:” were more directed at joshua than anyone, and i consider him a good friend. he’s free to pray and believe in it and i hope we have the kind of relationship where i can snarkfully deconstruct prayer.
November 9th, 2004 at 1:38 am
i hear voices in my head.
November 9th, 2004 at 9:38 am
since i have been addressed, i will have to post again. i’m getting tired of this and so i will say: yes, i am a perfect shining example of morality and all you people should follow my ways!
if only everyone could dish it and take it too. it’s been fun but i’m done with this thread.
November 10th, 2004 at 11:25 am
Thanks for participating!