What does it mean to live in a "Christian Society"? Since the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian, and as the influence over our "secular" government has come increasingly from Christian corners (evangelical or otherwise) -- what does that mean? How Americans think about our government is interesting, and I think many of our concepts about property rights and individualism have affected how we interpret the Bible and not the other way around. Many other nations who have large populations of Christians have drastically different government policies for welfare, 'morality' issues, fiscal policies and etc. While we like to say that we have a separation of state and religion, more and more, at both the individual and federal levels, discussions like abortion, taxes, gay rights, privacy, and welfare have taken on implications from the religious quarters. 1) If as Christians, we believe in charity and caring for others -- at which level do those things come from: government or individual? 2) If as Christians, we believe in a cerain moral absolution (i.e. abortion, death penalty, gay rights) -- at which level do those things come from: government or individual? Are those two things mutually exclusive or for instance, can Christians believe that helping others is an individual pursuit while having an abortion becomes government domain? NOTE: I don't agree with everything the article below states (Christian life should encompass both questions of both moral and communal choices -- but at which level?) I think the article below makes large generalization and is a definite left-leaning piece, but it does raise up an interesting question about the paradox of being an "American Christian". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9342324/site/newsweek/ Overturning the Gospels Katrina has reminded us that Christian morality should be about responding to the wretched and loving the unlovable—not about other people’s sex lives. WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY By Melinda Henneberger Newsweek Updated: 6:40 p.m. ET Sept. 14, 2005 Sept. 14, 2005 - There was a great piece in Harper's last month, "The Christian Paradox: How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong'' by Bill McKibben, about how three out of four Americans believe the Bible teaches this: "God helps those who help themselves.'' The Gospel according to Mark? Luke? Actually, it was Ben Franklin who came up with these words to live by. "The thing is,'' McKibben writes, "not only is Franklin's wisdom not biblical; it's counterbiblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up.'' Now, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we have seen—and been unable to look away from— the direct result of this self-deception. And if such tell-me-I'm-dreaming scenes as rats feeding on corpses in the streets—American streets—isn't enough to make us rethink the public-policy implications of turning the Gospel on its head in this way, then truly, God help us. We as a nation—a proudly, increasingly loudly Christian nation—have somehow convinced ourselves that the selfish choice is usually the moral one, too. (What a deal!) You know how this works: It's wrong to help poor people because "handouts'' reward dependency and thus hurt more than they help. So, do the right thing—that is, walk right on by—and by all means hang on to your hard-earned cash. Thus do we deny the working poor a living wage, resent welfare recipients expected to live on a few hundred dollars a month, object to the whopping .16 percent of our GNP that goes to foreign aid—and still manage to feel virtuous about all of the above. Which is how "Christian'' morality got to be all about other people's sex lives—and incredibly easy lifting compared to what Jesus actually asks of us. Defending traditional marriage? A breeze. Living in one? Less so. Telling gay people what they can't do? Piece o' cake. But responding to the wretched? Loving the unlovable? Forgiving the ever-so-occasionally annoying people you actually know? Hard work, as our president would say, and rather more of a stretch. A lot of us are angry at our public officials just now, and rightly so. But we are complicit, too; top to bottom, we picked this government, which has certainly met our low expectations. The Bush administration made deep and then still deeper cuts in antipoverty programs, and we liked that. (The genius of the whole Republican program, in fact, is that it not only offers tax cuts and morality, but tax cuts as morality. Americans do, I think, want to feel they are doing the right thing, and when I hear an opponent of abortion rights say, "I'm voting for the most vulnerable, the unborn,'' I have to respect that. Of course, we also like tax breaks and cheap gas and cranking the thermostat up and down—so when Republicans play to both our better angels and our less altruistic ones, it's not that tough a sell.) But have Democrats loudly decried the inhumanity—or even the hidden, deferred costs of the Bush cuts in services to the most vulnerable among the already born? Heavens, no, with a handful of exceptions, such as former vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, who spoke every single day of his campaign—and ever since—about our responsibilities toward those struggling just to get by in the "other America.'' Most party leaders are still busy emulating Bill Clinton, who felt their pain and cut their benefits—and made his fellow Dems ashamed to show any hint of a "bleeding heart.'' Clinton's imitators haven't his skills, though, so his bloodless, Republican Lite legacy has been a political as well as moral disaster. That's not, of course, because voters give a hoot about poverty, but because along with the defining moral strength of its commitment to the underclass went most of the party's self-confidence, and all of its fervor. Incredibly, they even ceded the discussion of compassion to President Bush, a man who has always struck me as empathy-free—to an odd extent, really, as we saw again last week when he cracked jokes about his carousing days on his first trip to the Gulf Coast. Immediately after the disaster, Bush quickly intervened—to make it possible for refiners to produce dirtier gasoline. He has since zapped working people on the Gulf Coast all over again by suspending the 1931 law that requires employers to pay the prevailing wage to workers on all federally financed projects. Others in his party have expressed concern about all the freebies evacuees will be enjoying: "How do you separate the needy from those who just want a $2,000 handout?'' Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski asked—by way of explaining why debit cards for Katrina victims were a bad idea. So far, though, I'd love to be wrong, I see no reason to think the president's sinking poll numbers will persuade him that there's more to (pro-)life than opposing abortion. I still dare to hope Democrats may yet remember why they are Democrats, though. And that would be a real come-to-Jesus moment. © 2005 Newsweek, Inc. © 2005 MSNBC.com URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9342324/site/newsweek/
Well said, IMHO. That is why I have begun to call the "Pro-Life" movement, the "Pro-Birth" movement.....because, in the last 20 years, it has become increasingly apparent that "pro-lifers" stop caring about the "life" after the baby is born.
I guess I am a rare Republican that gives charitably if not irresponsibly. I do it because of my faith in God. I do it because i am supposed to. I am supposed to. Do Democrats have too little faith in their fellow man that they must mandate charity? That's not fair.
But war, or at least war readiness, is an absolute responsibility of the government as the founders intended. Is charity? That's a real question. I have no idea what the constitution or the declaration have to say about charitable obligations.
not much...but are we then making an idol out of the Constitution, from a believer's standpoint? i think i'm guilty of that at one point. that the Constitution is seen as this holy document...that it might supplant how we, as Christians (not everyone else) might view what our government SHOULD be instead of modeling Christ. i prefer Christ over Thomas Jefferson, in particular. and, no..that doesn't mean i'm asking for a theocracy...i'm merely talking about how i vote in this republic.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Back then it was acceptable. Now we now it is animalistic. I guess since some of them owned people the constitution is worthless. I don't think we are making an idol out of it. I used the documents as a foundation to theorize that the original intent was to create a sulf-sufficient populace. I recognized that I didn't know so I posed the question. Incidentally, I, too prefer JC over TJ.
Why is the original intent of the US Constitution really a matter of concern? I posit that the *founding fathers* did not look at the Consitution as an immaculate document, just a good place to start. I have read that the founding fathers knew later generations would have to sort out issues like slavery that they themselves did not have the political will to tackle.
Have to disagree with you here, Max, in a friendly way. Without Thomas Jefferson, this country might very well not exist, or exist in a form we wouldn't recognize. Christ's words would still resound through history, and have the affect today that they have had in the past. I think Christ, from what I know, was someone who would approve of our country, in the main. I believe he existed, and was one of the great philosophers of all time. His words have had meaning for many religions, and hundreds of millions of people. I am agnostic, but I have enormous respect for him and his work, and those who believe in him. I have to say, however, that Jefferson was also a great man. He was not perfect... certainly by the standards of today, and I believe that Christ was not perfect, either. If I recall some of what you have said about him, Max, I think you would agree that he didn't see himself that way. Christ affected, and still affects, the world. In his own way, through the creation of this country we love so much, so does Jefferson. They do so in different ways, of course, but what they did resonates still. I'm proud to be an American citizen. I disagree with much of what this country has done in the past, and what it has done recently, but the good far outweighs the bad. I would like to think that Christ would feel something similar. Keep D&D Civil!!
That's a pretty glib way to look at the Constitution. Just because there may have been one intention when the Constitution was drafted is no reason why our society WHO DIDN"T WRITE THE THING should be beholden to the intent of men who died 200 years ago. Why are Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et. al so friggin' infallible that we should live our lives or direct our government according to their intent? The concept of equality under the law, or any other legal or ethical principle is always in constant flux and it is an intellectually stunted approach to throw up our hands and defer to the founding fathers over questions of what WE should do.
should being the key word. When we don't we refer back to original intent. It's why 9 Constitutional Scholars make up the Supreme Court.Yes it is a living document. It's amendable. But there is a process for that and until an amendment we follow the words written all those years ago.
doesn't surprise me you disagree. but I believe Christ to be the very Son of God...the Messiah....my savior. you can see how..in my mind..he might win out over Thomas Jefferson
Certainly. I'm looking at it from an agnostic viewpoint and, I hope, with respect for those who disagree with me, whose numbers are legion, no doubt. KEEP D&D Civil!!
