The "Christian Right"

Maybe someone could clear this up for me: Why does the Christian Right in the USA behave like Jews gone wrong?

I see so much of the religious political debate involving Christianity in this country focusing on Old Testement theology that Jews themselves don't treat the same way.

So much furor developed and remains concerning displays of the 10 Commandments given to the Jews by Moses being displayed on Public Buildings and courts. But no Christian furor (or at least large public movement) in favor of public displays of the beatitudes.

Why is that? Why are Christians fighting for Judeaism?

I don't have a problem with Jews or the Jewish faith at all, but NONE of the jews I have ever met espoused the Jewish Religion the way Christians espouse the Old Testement. After all, I would defer to the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testement. (Mind you, I haven't ever met a Israeli Jewish Settler though, I live in NY state after all, and they may be different, I don't know).

It just seems to me, Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell etc all seem to be Angry Jews, not Merciful, Peace Loving, Humble Christians. And I have no idea why, it's almost like Christ's Teachings were meaningless to them, and that all that matters, especially to the pentacostals, is simply saying, something to the effect, that Jesus is God's Doorman.

When I read the words attributed to Christ I get the sense of Peace, Honesty, Charity and all the things that make people Good and want to do Good. I watch the 700 Club, and I sense evil and hatred pouring out of those gawdy monstrosities. I don't believe in the devil, but damn I am all but convinced those poeple are in fact the devil incarnate.

It's because these people make their livings on preaching a fire-and-brimstone reactionary Christianity, which is much more reflective of Old Testament Yahweh than hippie New Testament Jesus.

Yes, these fundies that like to pretend they idolize everything Christ stood for, are in fact, the very own people Jesus was rebelling against. These same people, if they claim that the bible isn't to be taken literally,(most fundies do anyway) well if that's the case, then it's morals support wife beating, sex slaves, stoning people, murder, lies, rape, and numerous other atrocities. When you read the bible, and understanding it is vastly different from just reading it, you come to the cold conclusion that god is just your average, symptomatically hesitant diety, who is sketched as a assassin of people, or anything for that matter, who refuses to bend over for him.:lol:

The Christian Right, is an exaggerated myth. Liberal christianity like the Episcopalians are so far left they don't know what basic christianity is anymore.
So they do't recognise it when they see it.

JOHNYJ said:

The Christian Right, is an exaggerated myth.

Click to expand...

Really? Please explain Pat Robertson (Christian and Conservative Republican) and Jerry Fallwell (Same), and almost every single Republican is a Christian. http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Liberal christianity like the Episcopalians are so far left they don't know what basic christianity is anymore.
So they do't recognise it when they see it.

Click to expand...

Wawa, save your crying for someone that cares. I don't think the Republican-run churches are identical to early churches either. For one, the early church had no places of worship- they were just people who believed in Jesus's resurrection. Actaully, during persecution, churches were probably dangerous to be caught in. If you read some letters from the NT, some churches were called by there city names. So, neither Repub nor Democrat has any resemblence to basic Christianity, nice try tho.:lol:

When you read the bible, and understanding it is vastly different from just reading it, you come to the cold conclusion that god is just your average, symptomatically hesitant diety, who is sketched as a assassin of people, or anything for that matter, who refuses to bend over for him.

Click to expand...

What Bible have you been reading? I've read much of the King James Version of the Holy Bible and I haven't come to these conclusions at all.

FluffyNinja said:

What Bible have you been reading? I've read much of the King James Version of the Holy Bible and I haven't come to these conclusions at all.

Click to expand...

Then you haven't absorbed any of the information; it probably flew right over your head. Throughout the OT, this "god" fellow is depicted as a mafia headman who orders rapes, murders, killings, and he throws monumental hissy fits if anything is not about him.:lol:

First I would like to introduce myself. I am a Pentecostal minister in my local church and I am presently working on my minister's license. Politically I am a Centrist Democrat, most likely the only Democrat in my church.

Here's the problem as I see it.

Reconstructionism

Traditionally Pentecostals and Baptists have been Dispensationalists and largely political isolationists that wished not to "mingle with the world of politics". Within the past 20 years a growing number of Pentecostals, Baptists, and other Evangelicals have shifted theologically to Covenant Theology (Calvinism). This new approach has revived old Calvinist Theonomics. This has left their theology and politics wide open for theocratic extremists. The issues of abortion and gay marriage are largely fuel for this fire. Many in the religious world that are pushing the Church further to the right are Republican partisians who can only see abortion and gay marriage as today's only social evils.

Republicans have capitalized on this shift and have begun a love affair with the Christian Right that has given them a sense of "acceptance". However with abortion the Republicans have only offered empty promises. The only policy Republicans have offered to resolve the social problem of abortion is banning the procedure and throwing people in jail. They completely ignore the socio-economic side of abortion and how the abortion rate can be reduced drastically with common sense policies even while Roe still stands.

Republicans have now turned family values into merely banning gay marriage. However most will remember that it was Republican Ronald Regan, Governor of California who pushed for and supported "No Fault Divorce" legislation. They completely fail to see the greatest threat to marriage is No Fault Divorce policy. Far more straight marriages end in bitter divorce than there are gays wanting to marry. They also do not see livable wages and healthcare as family issues.

The Republican Party and the Christian right also completely ignore the clear commands of the Bible for social justice regarding the poor, needy, widow, and fatherless. (Please read Holman Bible Dictionary entry on "Justice) for details: http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T3548 )

If it were not for the issues of abortion and gay marriage what we know as the Christian Right would have no fuel and would spin out of control.

Most Americans have no problem with the Christian Right until they try to force their beliefs into law, public schools and down our throats! When they restrict their beliefs to their homes and churches we support them. There is a clear difference between using your religious beliefs to guide you in making political decisions and trying to get them put into law so you can force them on others. That is what is behind the current fear of the Christian Right.:roll:

Christopher,

You are correct, the reconstructionist movement is pretty influential, but why the popular appeal? What is it that is attracting the followers to subjugate themselves to this system? And why is it there is so much emphasis placed on Old Testament theology and behavior, often, it seems to me, at the expense of Christ's message?

libertarian_knight said:

Christopher,

You are correct, the reconstructionist movement is pretty influential, but why the popular appeal? What is it that is attracting the followers to subjugate themselves to this system? And why is it there is so much emphasis placed on Old Testament theology and behavior, often, it seems to me, at the expense of Christ's message?

Click to expand...

It gives them meaning and a cause. It also is an outlet for the pain and anger caused by issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Indirectly, these issues are feeding the Christian Right. Americans for the most part are a very traditional and religious people. If we do not moderate ouselves on abortion and perhaps uphold traditional values the Right will continue sweeping Republicans to power every 8 years or so only to loose power after the Republicans completely destroy the economy.

ChristopherHall said:

It gives them meaning and a cause. It also is an outlet for the pain and anger caused by issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Indirectly, these issues are feeding the Christian Right. Americans for the most part are a very traditional and religious people. If we do not moderate ouselves on abortion and perhaps uphold traditional values the Right will continue sweeping Republicans to power every 8 years or so only to loose power after the Republicans completely destroy the economy.

Click to expand...

I understand the concern over abortion (but I don't agree with their practices), but not over gay marriage.

As you pointed out, marriage is suffering so much between hetrosexual couples as it is, that it would seem to me a far better use of time strengthing that aspect, rather than going after a small minority of people, who should be allowed to form legal economic and familial relationships. Not to mention, when marriage interferes with their political view, they are quick to weaken marriage.

With abortion though, especially the leadership of the reconstruction, it aggrevates me that they are primarily all talk. To be honest, I don't really think many of these people care one wit about one aborted pregnancy. I see it as thier revenue stream.

Of course, these two issues are related also. There has been an effort to weaken marriage and family, which, i would think, leads to increased abortions.

The whole thing seems to work out as a confused, borderline psychotic, political and philophical system, with no overall driving theme, beyond claims of insight into the mind of God. Injuring marriage, shunning birth control, reducing education, which are essentially policies that promote abortion. It's almost like they are consciously trying to set up an enviroment that will give them a following.

These people gather so much money from their followers they could supply funds for marriage counselors, condoms, and adopt and provide for dozens and dozens of kids. But they don't, instead they get on TV to get more money, so they can be on TV more.


Personally, I was raised Catholic and have since left the Church. And in part due to the behavior of many Chruch leaders, catholic and otherwise, I have left all Churches. Thier lust of power and control is, I think, an affront to God, and substitutes faith in God, for faith in Men (Church leaders). I have resigned myself to trust that God will show me the way.

libertarian_knight said:

I understand the concern over abortion (but I don't agree with their practices), but not over gay marriage.

As you pointed out, marriage is suffering so much between hetrosexual couples as it is, that it would seem to me a far better use of time strengthing that aspect, rather than going after a small minority of people, who should be allowed to form legal economic and familial relationships. Not to mention, when marriage interferes with their political view, they are quick to weaken marriage.

With abortion though, especially the leadership of the reconstruction, it aggrevates me that they are primarily all talk. To be honest, I don't really think many of these people care one wit about one aborted pregnancy. I see it as thier revenue stream.

Of course, these two issues are related also. There has been an effort to weaken marriage and family, which, i would think, leads to increased abortions.

The whole thing seems to work out as a confused, borderline psychotic, political and philophical system, with no overall driving theme, beyond claims of insight into the mind of God. Injuring marriage, shunning birth control, reducing education, which are essentially policies that promote abortion. It's almost like they are consciously trying to set up an enviroment that will give them a following.

These people gather so much money from their followers they could supply funds for marriage counselors, condoms, and adopt and provide for dozens and dozens of kids. But they don't, instead they get on TV to get more money, so they can be on TV more.


Personally, I was raised Catholic and have since left the Church. And in part due to the behavior of many Chruch leaders, catholic and otherwise, I have left all Churches. Thier lust of power and control is, I think, an affront to God, and substitutes faith in God, for faith in Men (Church leaders). I have resigned myself to trust that God will show me the way.

Click to expand...

Many good points. Please read a few of my posts on the following thread for some interesting data:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=7797

ChristopherHall said:

Many good points. Please read a few of my posts on the following thread for some interesting data:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=7797

Click to expand...

Very good stuff there. I applaud you.

There are so many people I've talked to that do think abortions should be legal, myself included, but that the economic and social pressures that influence women to get them should be understood and plans effected in such a way as to make it the last alternative.

I think this also goes to a strange paradox regarding family and community.

I am a libertarian, and advocate of individual liberty. Now poeple often take that as a kind of "go it alone individualism" which, i think, is not libertarianism. It may be for a very small portion of people who want to be hermits, but for the rest of us, that life would not be favorable.

I see family and community is an essential part of society. The paradox though, is with the advent of many socialist and socialist-like practices promoted by Western Governments over the past 90 years or so, has been not an increase in social connection, but an isolation of it.

I was taught, and still hear it stated, that the nuclear family is the mainstay of any society. But I don't think that's true. I think extended family and voluntary social groups are the mainstay of any society. And that the promotion of socialist values has not expanded the level of social involvement, but rather lessened it to the point of "go it alone individualism." Which is basically resulted in the most complete divide and conquer effect ever seen.

The advent of the large nation state has produce, what I termed, "Social atrophy." A situation, in which the state is doing what it can for protection, education, welfare, etc so much, that what is in effect happening is people aren't learning how to be people, how to be social. If someone is doing "all the work" for you, what need is there for you to do the work yourself?

How this relates to abortion, is that women who are considering abortion, often don't have the family or social bonds necessary to raise children, let alone the economic considerations.

I live in NY State and am cursed with the useless bag of flesh Hillary CLinton for a Senator, however she did one thing I like, but in a sappy and broad way, in titling "her book" "It takes a Village." I don't take a village, but it does take a few people, especially more than a single mother.

Rasing kids is hard work. I am generally regarded as a very patient person, but damn, just the once a week visit from my little brother is enough to drive me nuts. (Note I am not a parent, but my brother was born the day I went to College Orientation).

Socialism, the "Middle Way" government, Materialism/Consumerism, and social atrophy have led to conditions, where I think people forget what it really means to be a social animal, or like myself we never forgot it, we just never learned it, and heve to spend valuable time trying to figure it out. Going to parties, chruch, and funerals really isn't enough.

I believe in a co-operative government/business approach as opposed to massive government programs.

I am a deeply religious man. And a lot of people fail to see many things in the Bible. For example under the Law of Moses God gave very specific commands regarding the welfare of the poor, fatherless, widows, orphrans, and strangers. Here's an excellent dictionary entry on this idea of biblical justice:

http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T3548

There are a few statements made that I believe are important:

"Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens (also called “sojourners” or “strangers”), wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick (Job 29:12-17; Psalms 146:7-9; Malachi 3:5). Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression (Micah 2:2; Ecclesiastes 4:1). To oppress is to use power for one's own advantage in depriving others of their basic rights in the community (see Mark 12:40). To do justice is to correct that abuse and to meet those needs (Isaiah 1:17). Injustice is depriving others of their basic needs or failing to correct matters when those rights are not met (Jeremiah 5:28; Job 29:12-17). Injustice is either a sin of commission or of omission."

...another is....

"The most prominent human agent of justice is the ruler. The king receives God's justice and is a channel for it (Psalms 72:1; compare Romans 13:1-2,Romans 13:4). There is not a distinction between a personal, voluntary justice and a legal, public justice. The same caring for the needy groups of the society is demanded of the ruler (Psalms 72:4; Ezekiel 34:4; Jeremiah 22:15-16). Such justice was also required of pagan rulers (Daniel 4:27; Proverbs 31:8-9).

Justice is also a central demand on all people who bear the name of God. Its claim is so basic that without it other central demands and provisions of God are not acceptable to God. Justice is required to be present with the sacrificial system (Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-17; Matthew 5:23-24), fasting (Isaiah 58:1-10), tithing (Matthew 23:23), obedience to the other commandments (Matthew 19:16-21), or the presence of the Temple of God (Jeremiah 7:1-7)."

...and finally....

"These legal provisions express a further characteristic of justice. Justice delivers; it does not merely relieve the immediate needs of those in dire straits (Psalms 76:9; Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 58:11; Isaiah 62:1-2). Helping the needy means setting them back on their feet, giving a home, leading to prosperity, restoration, ending the oppression (Psalms 68:5-10; Psalms 10:15-16; compare 107; Psalms 113:7-9)."

These commands in the Law of Moses were commands given to a nation, a society, a people. These were not commands written to individual private citizens. Therefore I contend that the true Biblical mandate regarding government is the preservation of justice and welfare of society's weekest most vulnerable members. This requires a co-operative establishment where government ensures the well being of those in need.

I do not buy into leze faire capitalism, nor do I embrace socialism. I guess I see a mixed society as being the most moral.

In America we have 50 million Americans without health insurance. Private volunteer groups and churches cannot shoulder this burden. When these individuals go to emergency rooms the hospital has to eventually eat the cost. That drives up their prices and that drives up medical insurance premiums to cover those prices. This is bad news for the rest of us because we have to pay those outrageous premiums. Then more people find that they cannot possibly pay such high premiums so they opt out of health insurance and the cycle feeds itself. I see no other way than a co-operative government/business solution to protecting our economic interests and ensuring justice (in the Biblical sense) for all Americans.

ChristopherHall said:

I believe in a co-operative government/business approach as opposed to massive government programs.

I am a deeply religious man. And a lot of people fail to see many things in the Bible. For example under the Law of Moses God gave very specific commands regarding the welfare of the poor, fatherless, widows, orphrans, and strangers. Here's an excellent dictionary entry on this idea of biblical justice:

http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T3548

There are a few statements made that I believe are important:

"Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens (also called “sojourners” or “strangers”), wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick (Job 29:12-17; Psalms 146:7-9; Malachi 3:5). Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression (Micah 2:2; Ecclesiastes 4:1). To oppress is to use power for one's own advantage in depriving others of their basic rights in the community (see Mark 12:40). To do justice is to correct that abuse and to meet those needs (Isaiah 1:17). Injustice is depriving others of their basic needs or failing to correct matters when those rights are not met (Jeremiah 5:28; Job 29:12-17). Injustice is either a sin of commission or of omission."

...another is....

"The most prominent human agent of justice is the ruler. The king receives God's justice and is a channel for it (Psalms 72:1; compare Romans 13:1-2,Romans 13:4). There is not a distinction between a personal, voluntary justice and a legal, public justice. The same caring for the needy groups of the society is demanded of the ruler (Psalms 72:4; Ezekiel 34:4; Jeremiah 22:15-16). Such justice was also required of pagan rulers (Daniel 4:27; Proverbs 31:8-9).

Justice is also a central demand on all people who bear the name of God. Its claim is so basic that without it other central demands and provisions of God are not acceptable to God. Justice is required to be present with the sacrificial system (Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-17; Matthew 5:23-24), fasting (Isaiah 58:1-10), tithing (Matthew 23:23), obedience to the other commandments (Matthew 19:16-21), or the presence of the Temple of God (Jeremiah 7:1-7)."

...and finally....

"These legal provisions express a further characteristic of justice. Justice delivers; it does not merely relieve the immediate needs of those in dire straits (Psalms 76:9; Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 58:11; Isaiah 62:1-2). Helping the needy means setting them back on their feet, giving a home, leading to prosperity, restoration, ending the oppression (Psalms 68:5-10; Psalms 10:15-16; compare 107; Psalms 113:7-9)."

These commands in the Law of Moses were commands given to a nation, a society, a people. These were not commands written to individual private citizens. Therefore I contend that the true Biblical mandate regarding government is the preservation of justice and welfare of society's weekest most vulnerable members. This requires a co-operative establishment where government ensures the well being of those in need.

I do not buy into leze faire capitalism, nor do I embrace socialism. I guess I see a mixed society as being the most moral.

In America we have 50 million Americans without health insurance. Private volunteer groups and churches cannot shoulder this burden. When these individuals go to emergency rooms the hospital has to eventually eat the cost. That drives up their prices and that drives up medical insurance premiums to cover those prices. This is bad news for the rest of us because we have to pay those outrageous premiums. Then more people find that they cannot possibly pay such high premiums so they opt out of health insurance and the cycle feeds itself. I see no other way than a co-operative government/business solution to protecting our economic interests and ensuring justice (in the Biblical sense) for all Americans.

Click to expand...

If I may butt in, looks like you have described the rare Christian, who is foremost helping others. I had an aunt, who died a couple of years ago, who gave to others, gave resources, a shoulder, her time. She lived in a small house in Tupelo, Mississippi, drove an average car, and because she was very faithful, pretty much gave away the rest on an ongoing basis. She was compelled to do this because of her religion, but also she thought helping others was her personal responsibility.

I would never presume to expect anybody else to do this, but, if our country is 80% Christian, a larger number of people should be of the selfless nature. I am not religious, and don't exactly practice what I'm preaching, but my wife does so much that I hope part of that redeems me.

I think it was LK below who brought up the subjects of abortion and gay marriage, and that many preachers use subjects like these for their 'fire.' There is a lot of this, the creation of a 'struggle,' a constant battle against some thing which keeps their followers interested and excited. This is appealing to the base level, pandering, but it keeps the people coming back, and tithing. I wonder how many people in this country would attend services held outside, with no money involved, where the minister only talks about love and giving. Probably very few, its not sensational enough.

I think what the Christian Right really wants in this country is control, in public schools and other government venues, in order to correct the recent 'errors' made by our society. Its the last thing they should have.

ChristopherHall said:

I believe in a co-operative government/business approach as opposed to massive government programs.

I am a deeply religious man. And a lot of people fail to see many things in the Bible. For example under the Law of Moses God gave very specific commands regarding the welfare of the poor, fatherless, widows, orphrans, and strangers. Here's an excellent dictionary entry on this idea of biblical justice:

http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T3548

There are a few statements made that I believe are important:

"Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens (also called “sojourners” or “strangers”), wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick (Job 29:12-17; Psalms 146:7-9; Malachi 3:5). Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression (Micah 2:2; Ecclesiastes 4:1). To oppress is to use power for one's own advantage in depriving others of their basic rights in the community (see Mark 12:40). To do justice is to correct that abuse and to meet those needs (Isaiah 1:17). Injustice is depriving others of their basic needs or failing to correct matters when those rights are not met (Jeremiah 5:28; Job 29:12-17). Injustice is either a sin of commission or of omission."

...another is....

"The most prominent human agent of justice is the ruler. The king receives God's justice and is a channel for it (Psalms 72:1; compare Romans 13:1-2,Romans 13:4). There is not a distinction between a personal, voluntary justice and a legal, public justice. The same caring for the needy groups of the society is demanded of the ruler (Psalms 72:4; Ezekiel 34:4; Jeremiah 22:15-16). Such justice was also required of pagan rulers (Daniel 4:27; Proverbs 31:8-9).

Justice is also a central demand on all people who bear the name of God. Its claim is so basic that without it other central demands and provisions of God are not acceptable to God. Justice is required to be present with the sacrificial system (Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-17; Matthew 5:23-24), fasting (Isaiah 58:1-10), tithing (Matthew 23:23), obedience to the other commandments (Matthew 19:16-21), or the presence of the Temple of God (Jeremiah 7:1-7)."

...and finally....

"These legal provisions express a further characteristic of justice. Justice delivers; it does not merely relieve the immediate needs of those in dire straits (Psalms 76:9; Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 58:11; Isaiah 62:1-2). Helping the needy means setting them back on their feet, giving a home, leading to prosperity, restoration, ending the oppression (Psalms 68:5-10; Psalms 10:15-16; compare 107; Psalms 113:7-9)."

These commands in the Law of Moses were commands given to a nation, a society, a people. These were not commands written to individual private citizens. Therefore I contend that the true Biblical mandate regarding government is the preservation of justice and welfare of society's weekest most vulnerable members. This requires a co-operative establishment where government ensures the well being of those in need.

I do not buy into leze faire capitalism, nor do I embrace socialism. I guess I see a mixed society as being the most moral.

In America we have 50 million Americans without health insurance. Private volunteer groups and churches cannot shoulder this burden. When these individuals go to emergency rooms the hospital has to eventually eat the cost. That drives up their prices and that drives up medical insurance premiums to cover those prices. This is bad news for the rest of us because we have to pay those outrageous premiums. Then more people find that they cannot possibly pay such high premiums so they opt out of health insurance and the cycle feeds itself. I see no other way than a co-operative government/business solution to protecting our economic interests and ensuring justice (in the Biblical sense) for all Americans.

Click to expand...

As far as my advocacy of ecnomics, I espouse the Austrian School. Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc. I hold the view that unless there is a systematic violation of another individuals rights, that the government should not be involved.

I also think that many of the problems our society is facing are due to the government getting involved way too much. It is my firm belief that much of the rising cost of healthcare is directly or indirectly a result of government intervention into that market. THis ends up making common proceedures expensive, and major proceedures out of reach, not to mention, pushes people out of having healthcare/insurance policies.

I think there exists, in theory, an ideal government. Benevolent leaders striving to make as many people's lives better as possible. The Problem is two fold: first Money and Power are very influential and corrupting forces that will cause leaders to make law that injures rather than improve lives, and because the government is always closely associated with money and power, that less scrupulous and evil people will be attracted to it. It's these facts, which are universal to all states, though they may differ in magnitude, that prevent the system and institution from effectively doing what you, me, or other well minded people want it to do. Eventually it will lead to an enviroement where the state is more prone to creating more injury, than it ever could help.

Imagine how corrupt Christianity would be if this government were now running it for all Americans. The danger of course, in any theocratic state is corruption of the religion in service of power. This is the same for all other things done by government

Consumers are the sovereigns of an economy, and consumer choice is the mechanism that drives all economies. In order for consumer choice to be best facilitated also requires the consumer, at least, have access to all relavent information about a good or service. Much like is being looked at with use of RU-486. If a consumer is not aware of what the business is aware of, the economy is then skewed in favor of producers. Favoring producers leads to market abnormailites, that then often require government intervention to correct.

Therefor, the role of government should be limited to proscribing and prosecuting social or economic behavior that evidences systematic violations of people's rights. The rest is up to "society" to take care of. Otherwise we risk becoming dependant upon the state to do these things, and then we forget or never learn how to do them ourselves, which then further increase our dependancy on the state.

When we as a society are fully dependant upon the state apparatus the collapse of the society is pretty soon to follow.

When setting up governments and government programs, what should be a central element in them, is that they are disigned in such a way, as to be no longer necessary in the future. But, governments don't do that, what they do instead is structure themselves and desgin programs that further perpetuate the state, both on purpose and accident.

kal-el said:

Really? Please explain Pat Robertson (Christian and Conservative Republican) and Jerry Fallwell (Same), and almost every single Republican is a Christian. http://www.theocracywatch.org/



Wawa, save your crying for someone that cares. I don't think the Republican-run churches are identical to early churches either. For one, the early church had no places of worship- they were just people who believed in Jesus's resurrection. Actaully, during persecution, churches were probably dangerous to be caught in. If you read some letters from the NT, some churches were called by there city names. So, neither Repub nor Democrat has any resemblence to basic Christianity, nice try tho.:lol:

Click to expand...

The loudest squeak gets the grease, That explains Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwells notariety.
Liberal christianity is fadeing out.There decision to deny traditional christian beliefs will be their undoing.

Very interesting post libertarian knight. I'll chew on that for a while.

ChristopherHall said:

Very interesting post libertarian knight. I'll chew on that for a while.

Click to expand...

It's a little more disjointed than i wanted it to be, and a little to much of a mix of personal info and political philosophy. I just re-read it, and I am surprise how well it came out though. I almost scapped the post because it didn't "feel" right when I was writing it.

You may want to read one of the links in my signature, the one titled "The Nature of Man and his Government." Pretty good points in there. It may add a little clarity to some of my thoughts.

kal-el said:

Then you haven't absorbed any of the information; it probably flew right over your head. Throughout the OT, this "god" fellow is depicted as a mafia headman who orders rapes, murders, killings, and he throws monumental hissy fits if anything is not about him.:lol:

Click to expand...

First, what is your distinction between "murders" and "killings?" Or did you simply add BOTH of these for dramatic effect?

Secondly, where, EXACTLY, did you find scripture where God ORDERED rapes?

Thirdly, many would argue that God simply allows humans to make decisions for themselves and makes them aware of the consequences (The wages of sin are death). In the story of the Passover, for example, the Egyptians were given many, many opportunities to change their evil ways. They simply chose to ignore or disobey God's laws. The outcome, they brought upon themselves. Same with Sodom and Gommorah.

Fourthly, a mafia headman would indicate organized crime. How is it that you come to equate God with common criminals who sustain themselves through the exploitation of others (ie., prostitution, gambling, drugs, and during the 20's - bootleg liquor). Whom did God exploit for his own benefit, and why would he even need to? Please, enlighten us O Great One! You, evidently are privy to some unearthly vision of what the Bible truly means and of what God's true intentions are.

By the way, I've been reading some of your posts concerning scripture, and most of your observations simply reflect YOUR twited interpretations. Biblical scripture, especially the Old Testament was not written to be interpreted literally. Even Jesus and the apostles used symbolism and spoke in parables. The Bible, like the U.S. Constitution can, for the most part, be interpreted liberally to mean just about anything you want it to. For example, the Judicial System's interpretation of "Free Speech" has changed dramatically over the past 200 years. True-believers (those with FAITH) will take a positive message from the pages of the Bible and will use it as a guide for how to live their lives. To use the Bible as a literal Historic account is naive.

I, personally believe you've been reading too many Dan Brown novels.:roll: :roll:

tryreading said:

If I may butt in, looks like you have described the rare Christian, who is foremost helping others. I had an aunt, who died a couple of years ago, who gave to others, gave resources, a shoulder, her time. She lived in a small house in Tupelo, Mississippi, drove an average car, and because she was very faithful, pretty much gave away the rest on an ongoing basis. She was compelled to do this because of her religion, but also she thought helping others was her personal responsibility.

I would never presume to expect anybody else to do this, but, if our country is 80% Christian, a larger number of people should be of the selfless nature. I am not religious, and don't exactly practice what I'm preaching, but my wife does so much that I hope part of that redeems me.

I think it was LK below who brought up the subjects of abortion and gay marriage, and that many preachers use subjects like these for their 'fire.' There is a lot of this, the creation of a 'struggle,' a constant battle against some thing which keeps their followers interested and excited. This is appealing to the base level, pandering, but it keeps the people coming back, and tithing. I wonder how many people in this country would attend services held outside, with no money involved, where the minister only talks about love and giving. Probably very few, its not sensational enough.

I think what the Christian Right really wants in this country is control, in public schools and other government venues, in order to correct the recent 'errors' made by our society. Its the last thing they should have.

Click to expand...

Very good points. I know many in the Christian Right who are sincere and truly believe that what they're doing is the right thing. I pray for them that they realize that Christ's kingdom is not of this world.

ChristopherHall said:

Very good points. I know many in the Christian Right who are sincere and truly believe that what they're doing is the right thing. I pray for them that they realize that Christ's kingdom is not of this world.

Click to expand...

There are many Christians who are sincere, some of my posts seem to be slamming the entire religion and overgeneralizing. I have Christians in my family who are good and reverent people, and I would do anything necessary to insure that they have the freedom to worship what, and as, they believe.

But I can't stomach any type of control over Americans further than our current status. Personal rights are paramount-if we lose them then we can't control our own lives or keep our government as much under control as possible. Anybody who would try to acquire power for the purpose of bringing prayer back into public schoolrooms, or enact law that would limit us in any further way, such as making the First Amendment religion clause a one-way street, religion in, but maintaining no government control out, is trying to subvert the law. Many of the Christian Right want to do this, and want ID taught in school. Congress once passed a law adding 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance. This was an illegal act, as was the 'In God We Trust' approval on money, which last century became a requirement. There is no reason to let these crimes stand, and they are being challenged now. There should be no further laws enacted backing religion, and all existing ones removed, except laws that protect one's right to worship as he pleases.

tryreading said:

There are many Christians who are sincere, some of my posts seem to be slamming the entire religion and overgeneralizing. I have Christians in my family who are good and reverent people, and I would do anything necessary to insure that they have the freedom to worship what, and as, they believe.

But I can't stomach any type of control over Americans further than our current status. Personal rights are paramount-if we lose them then we can't control our own lives or keep our government as much under control as possible. Anybody who would try to acquire power for the purpose of bringing prayer back into public schoolrooms, or enact law that would limit us in any further way, such as making the First Amendment religion clause a one-way street, religion in, but maintaining no government control out, is trying to subvert the law. Many of the Christian Right want to do this, and want ID taught in school. Congress once passed a law adding 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance. This was an illegal act, as was the 'In God We Trust' approval on money, which last century became a requirement. There is no reason to let these crimes stand, and they are being challenged now. There should be no further laws enacted backing religion, and all existing ones removed, except laws that protect one's right to worship as he pleases.

Click to expand...

If atheists or agnostics have time to worry about what is printed on money or what words are in the Pledge of Alligiance, we as a nation are doing pretty good.

Can you give me an example of an atheist being denied a liberty?

Chris,

have you happened to chew on my prior posts at all?