While it initially began in the early 1980's, for the past several years there has been an increasing concern in America that the term evangelical has become synonymous with being a Republican. I've tried to understand why some people have formed this impression. I've listened to their worries and given serious thought to how they could have developed this misperception. I've come to the conclusion that the reason many people believe that being a conservative Christian means marching in lockstep with the GOP is that many conservative Christians march in lockstep with the GOP.
Mark Byron has found a particularly egregious example of this mindset. In a recent interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Pat Robertson, the voice of evangelicalism, was asked to represent our views on the next presidential election:
Stephanopoulos: If the party chooses a moderate like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, do you think religious conservatives will split off and form a third-party movement?"
Robertson: "I don't think so. Rudy's a very good friend of mine, and he did a super job running the City of New York. And I think he'd make a good president. I like him a lot. Although he doesn't share all of my particular points of view on social issues, he's a very dedicated Catholic. And he's a great guy. McCain, I'd vote against under any circumstance"
While I wish we could simple dismiss this as another of Rev. Robertson's pearls of wisdom, some people actually believe that he's a serious representative of evangelical politics. Take, for instance, Jon Avlon, a columnist for the New York Sun and blogger at Real Clear Politics, who writes:
This character endorsement is an important green light to a possible presidential run that some social-conservative political operatives were overconfidently whispering was dead on arrival�. Rev. Robertson's warm comments about Mr. Giuliani this Sunday send a powerful message to millions of religious conservatives not to judge their party's early front-runner on a narrow litmus test, but to instead look at the full record to gain a picture of the president he might make.
Mr. Avlon is mistaken. The powerful message being sent to religious conservatives is not that we should reconsider a Giuliani candidacy but that we really have to do more to get the message out that Pat Robertson does not speak for us. Personally, I respect the leadership abilities of Mr. Giuliani and am impressed by the way that he helped transform New York City from a crime-ridden metropolis into a safe, livable city. But as an evangelical whose political views are derived from the Bible rather than from a party platform, I could no more support the candidacy of Giuliani than I could have for John Kerry.
As Dr. Byron wryly notes, "Is McCain more liberal than Giuliani? Not last I checked. If anything, he's more conservative on the moral issues that Robertson supposedly champions. However, McCain's less of a loyal Republican, willing to buck the party leadership. You can be a libertine, but as long as you're a loyal Republican, Rev-run Pat's got your back."
Unfortunately, I don't think the good reverend will be the only conservative Christian to support Giuliani. Robertson may be speaking for a broader constituency but that does not mean that others will not come to the same conclusion on their own. Too many evangelicals have taken the position that supporting an electable Republican candidate is the default political posture for a "good conservative Christian."
Robertson, however, is not the only one who appears to be confused about the differences between being an evangelical and being a Republican. When speaking on political issues, many prominent evangelical leaders are sounding more like Rush Limbaugh than Francis Schaeffer. Too often there appears to be little Biblical warrant for the positions that are taken. Issues that concern the protection of the poor or the defense of the innocent are obvious causes that evangelicals should champion. But is the limiting of Congressional filibusters or partisan budget-reform proposals matters for which there is a specific "conservative Christian" position? Some evangelicals certainly give that impression.
The Democratic Party has certainly made it easy for evangelicals to embrace the GOP. Since the end of the Carter presidency, the Democrats have shown a disdain for any religious people who do not share their acceptance of abortion, sexual libertinism, and nanny statism. Former Democratic Senator Zell Miller, for example, was treated as a pariah by his own party for failing to adopt to the post-1973 definition of what it means to be a Democrat.
After being ostracized by the Democrats it is not surprising that many evangelicals would seek shelter with the Republican Party. To their credit, the Republicans have been more open and accepting of the agenda of social conservatives. Whether it's a true conversion or merely due to political expediency, the Republican Party has made room under the Big Tent for conservative evangelicals. But that does not mean that our political visions are in complete alignment. I believe the model that evangelicals should use when aligning with Republicans should be similar to the way we work together on social issues with our Catholic brothers and sisters.
Over the past twenty-five years, Evangelicals and Catholics have learned to set aside our theological differences in order to become "co-belligerents" in a shared struggle to prevent secularism from becoming the dominant religion. The disagreements between our camps, however, are deep-rooted and likely to remain -- at least on this side of eternity - irresolvable. My being a catholic Evangelical does not mean that I will ever become an evangelical Catholic. The two groups may share similarities but our differences are profound.
This same is true of my relationship with the Republican Party. I share a common cause with the GOP on most moral issues (i.e., abortion, same-sex marriage), on several foreign policy matters (e.g., the war on terrorism), and on some economic matters (welfare reform, for example). But because my neocalvinist views on policy are rooted in the Bible and Reformed theology, they will often differ, sometimes profoundly, from the standard party line. As a fellow traveler of the GOP, I find myself walking side by side with the party toward the same goals. But at other times our paths will diverge and I must follow where my conscience as a Christian conservative leads me. After all, to stand with Christ means that I can't always stand with the Republican Party.
1
As Byron adds after noting that Focus on the Family has taken this stance, the radio segment Family News in Focus broadcast should be re-titled “GOP Leadership Forum.”...The Democratic Party has certainly made it easy for evangelicals to embrace the GOP. Since the end of the Carter presidency, the Democrats have shown a disdain for any religious people who do not share their acceptance of abortion, sexual libertinism, and nanny statism.
The only thing that Focus on the Family seems capable of saying is that they (apparently speaking for all Christians) are being persecuted. Year in, year out, its a constant theme. America going to hell in a handbasket! The End Times are Here! Now, with the large influence Christians have in this country why would anyone think they were victims? And we have had in the USA drastic decreases in crime, abortion, disease, along with increases in good things such as drastic expansions in life expectancy, treatment for such killers as heart disease etc. All this has been happening on a steady upward scale for at least 50 years or more. Does that really sound like the End Times are here? Doesn't all the commotion that such organizations as FOF, Phyllis Schafly's group etc., sound depressingly familiar? Like the excesses of people clamoring for "rights"? They have indeed joined the culture of victimization that is so prevalent in todays society. Are they not simply looking for the non-existent right not to be offended?
And isn't it interesting that those who have fled the Democratic party into the GOP out of distaste for "nanny-statism" have gone on to encourage the GOP to create every kind of nanny-statism there is? An increase in medical entitlements, demand for censorship and control of television, movies, and now even cable. They demand the removal of books they don't like from libraries and schools. And they also believe the State has every right to legislate what specific sexual positions couples are permitted to engage in while having sex, married or not straight or not. And they even demand that anyone who pledges allegiance to America must also pledge it to God as well. If this isn't nanny-statism, then what is?
Over the past twenty-five years, Evangelicals and Catholics have learned to set aside our theological differences in order to become “co-belligerents” in a shared struggle to prevent secularism from becoming the dominant religion. ...
Not just "co-beligerents", False-victims as well. The majority of people in the United States are Christians. It's a plain fact. Christians control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And very few judges would dare identify themselves as anything but Christian now-a-days. Atheists are tiny, tiny, minority of people in this country.
This isn't a war between "secularism" and Christianity. It's a culture war between different groups of people who believe in God. This is an internal religious conflict. It has nothing to do with "secularism" at all.
Secularism is the bogey man, the Devil raised for you to fear to get your blood flowing and your money going into the political organizations. Secularism gets blamed for more problems that even gay people do in this country. In fact it gets blamed for the fact that gay people exist in the first place. But for all practical purposes, it simply doesn't exist as any significant force to be reckoned with in this country.
Even the arguments about Evolution vs. Creationism etc. The vast majority of people who believe Evolution is correct are Christians. Fellow believers. You are arguing amongst yourselves. And you are not just arguing about what to believe, but rather how to believe. And every day that this charade continues, you further limit your own choices about what and how to believe in God.
posted on 05.16.2005 3:04 AM2
I recently discovered that I am a liberal.
Boy was I shocked!
You see, I actually care about the poor, the unfed, the unclothed. That apparantly makes me a liberal.
True, I vote mostly Republican. But that is because some in the party actually have better ideas. Welfare reform, efficient government, supporting religious and non-religious agencies that seek to help the disadvantaged, a new and better solution to social security and then there is the war on terrorism.
Currently, democrats could not possibly get my vote. Every problem needs a govt. solution according to them. How is the 10 year old boy down the street that is without a father and has a mother that makes poor social and environmental choices going to be helped by a faceless, non caring, bureacratic government? Democrats do not "care" more, they care less. Their attitude is let's take the rich people's money, give it to the poor so I (because its all about me) don't have to deal with it. The bigger the government the better! If I were to be a democrat, i could attend rallies, protests about government inaction (or in the case of the military too much action) and think that I am special. On top of that I get to think I am special, caring etcetera without any actual individual challenge, growth or discomfort.
Isn't the better option for us to get to know our neighbor? To go into neighborhoods that need assistance and actually provide assistance. To deliver food to our elderly neighbor during the winter so that he/she can stay home instead of needing to get government assistance. To be a big brother.
Unlike democrats, republicans (especially evangelical republicans) do all these thi........
Wait a minute, not too many do help in these areas. Do they? Well at least evangelicals are known to show compassion, love, forgiveness and non-judgmentalism like Christ di.....
Hmmm, that's not true either.
The sad truth is that neither party (as a group of people) has it right. If the old republican attitude of "fend for yourselfism" returns, then I would be reluctantly voting democrat despite the differences in social issues that I have. If anybody like Patrick Buchanan represented the majority opinion of the party, I'm gone until it changes.
We need to realize that we as a country can make a difference collectively. We need to make decisions based on compassion for the poor, not judging them as lazy. But the system need to help an active you and me as opposed to a slow-acting, impersonal bureacracy.
It is my opinion that Jesus would be high unimpressed with either party.
And I am highly umimpressed with how poorly I was able to express myself here. I don't write that well and am rather tired. I thank you for the opportunity to post and reading my thoughts about this.
Have a nice day.
3
Wow, the grammar in my post was awful.
Sorry,
Good Night!
posted on 05.16.2005 3:11 AM4
Useful clarification, Joe, especially concerning that embarrassment Robertson. He speaks for us? Sure, and Dopey the dwarf speaks for the Disney Empire. Good grief.
I disagree slightly with the way something *sounded* in your post, though I'm not sure you meant it this way. Helping the poor and other outflowings of the love of Christ shouldn't be political issues at all. They should be the concern of the Christian, and especially of the church--first for its own, then for anyone they see that they can help. Teaching that, and practicing it, should be our focus.
As for social change, it's not our job to do it through politics either way--progressive or conservative. It's our job to teach the Gospel in love to the hearts of all humanity, and then help our fellow believers as we are together transformed into Christ's image. Where the Body is more "progressive" than the world, it can serve as an example; likewise where it's more "conservative" then the world. First and last, though, we are the partisans of another King, awaiting the establishment of another kingdom, than those of this earth.
Our relationships to our political institutions in the here-and-now should be pragmatic, based on the need to avoid entanglements which weigh us down as we head toward the End, and never stuck in any sort of "identity politics"--whether those of the Religious Right or those of the Religious Left.
Take care,
PGE
5
Tim, you're one of the reasons why the "Compassionate Conservatism" of Bush works. It might tick off the dynamists in the GOP camp, but it brings swing voters who are moral conservatives but not hard-core free-marketeers. It might not flow off the pages of Russell Kirk, but it is a combination that is a net plus.
posted on 05.16.2005 6:39 AM6
PGEpps said:
As for social change, it's not our job to do it through politics either way--progressive or conservative. It's our job to teach the Gospel in love to the hearts of all humanity, and then help our fellow believers as we are together transformed into Christ's image
We probably agree here, but a distinction is worth making. The conservative Christian agenda originally was not for social change to come through politics, but was to stop the Left from using politics to achieve social change. The only way to do that is to oppose them in the political arena.
That said, we obviously need to be active as Christian citizens, better known for what we do as individuals than what we oppose as political participants.
Joe, as long as we're defined more as opposing evil than doing good, MSM will keep painting us with the same clumpy brush of bigotry: We all look alike.
posted on 05.16.2005 6:46 AM7
As a small point, I want to note that the reason many Christians are weighing in on the filibuster issue is because it is a fight for the abortion issue on the Supreme Court, and the lower courts. If it was just the filibuster issue, and there wasn't something larger at stake, it wouldn't even be on our radar.
The Supreme Court, and it's stance on abortion, is a serious issue - and the Democratic filibuster is a serious obstacle to a (even slight) reprieve from a judicial fiat on an issue we should all be deeply concerned about.
Given that you are concentrating on bioethics, that comment just seemed... odd. It's all about the abortion issue, and who is allowed to serve on the courts. The courts are who are deciding the issues. We want justices who will retain legislative power in the legislative branch - not assume it themselves, in addition to the judical powers they already have.
That's the issue. Not "filibuster rules". Simple up or down vote. Using a loophole to avoid the vote entirely is a serious problem, when the stakes are who gets to determine who gets to make the laws. You know? Don't fall into the hype about "it's about policy". It's not. It's about the Constitution, and returning lawmaking (and law establishing) power to the legislature, and removing it from the courts.
The fact that the "abortion litmus test" is yet another factor puts it squarely in your ballpark, Joe. Don't skip on it :D
posted on 05.16.2005 6:49 AM8
Mr. Avlon is mistaken. The powerful message being sent to religious conservatives is not that we should reconsider a Giulliani candidacy but that we really have to do more to get the message out that Pat Robertson does not speak for us.
Yet Robertson and Falwell are almost always given prime speaking time at the Republican National Conventions. They don't speak for you yet it certainly seems like the Republican Party thinks they do.
9
Boonton, you are correct. And Sharpton and Jackson get a lot of mike time as mouthpieces for the Democrats. render unto Ceasar, as the Man said.
Back in 1997 I wrote this:
Christianity and right-wing politics (RWP) may be mutually exclusive.Christianity teaches that people have a basic human failing, and that left to their own devices, without Divine grace, they will abuse and exploit one another.
RWP says that people are basically altruistic. We can do away with government programs like welfare and food stamps and let communities look after their own.
Christianity teaches that you cannot earn your heavenly reward; salvation is a gift from God and you can either accept it or reject it. RWP posits that a handout is debilitating, and there is something wrong with you if you accept it.
Jesus himself associated with gluttons, drunkards, prostitutes and tax collectors - Hardly the Moral Majority of his day. His actions in the Temple were decidedly anti-business. And the bit with with the loaves and fishes - from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs - sounds downright Marxist.
"Reluctant Republican" puts it very well, Joe.
posted on 05.16.2005 8:26 AM10
I think you have it backwards. The concern is not that right-wing Christians are following the GOP line, but that the GOP has become the captive party of right-wing Christians. On all but its top brokers' bread-and-butter issues, the GOP has adopted the most conservative and exclusively Christian lines about every issue, in many cases appointing far-right Christians to make policy along Christian lines. The problem is not that too many Christians vote one way or another, but that one of the major political parties has decided to create a quasi-religious state in keeping with far-right Christians' wishes.
As for Falwell and Robertson, Boonton is right: they are considered Christian leaders and GOP insiders because millions of Christians watch their TV shows, read their writings, and give them money, and they are constantly on hand at GOP and White House events and strategy sessions. We won't regard them as emblematic of you when you stop giving them credence, time, money, visibility, and influence. But if these are the people you choose to follow and elevate to power, we have a right to believe you mean what you say.
posted on 05.16.2005 9:13 AM11
"His actions in the Temple were decidedly anti-business."
Don't you mean he was decidedly anti-thief, defiling his Father's house?
"And the bit with with the loaves and fishes - from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs - sounds downright Marxist."
To a Marxist's ear, I guess it does.
Christ, the Good Shepard came to save his sheep. Not to give the goats a better political system.
12
Actually, CS Lewis said a christian nation would look remarkably socialist in many ways, and remarkably conservative and old-fashioned in others.
I am a registered Republican. Its interesting - I am probably the only person in my 1000 person church who voted for Kerry. I will out myself here:
Why. Four issues were central to my decision (winnner on point in () ):
1. Abortion: (Bush of course). There are democrats in next election I could support: Bayh, Reid, and Lieberman all voted for the ban on intact D&X's, and Reid for one is pro-life. Understand, Roe v Wade violated the separation doctrine and was wrong - but it was not for a court to decide. The division in this country will not be healed by another COURT decision - it must be political. We are winning hearts and minds and in 5-10 years we will be able to stop abortion by law or constitutional amendment. We need to be consistant and leave the courts our of this.
2. Iraq: (Kerry, or more accurately, anti-Bush) Sorry, we were led astray and the bucked stopped on President Bush's desk. If he was lied to, not enough heads rolled. I think it is terribly un-Biblical to be rabidly pro-war; you should have to grieve deeply to say those words. I think Kerry was right - there was a time when the US entered wars when it had to: Vietnam was and now Iraq II may be poster children for his position. I supported Iraq 1991 and Afganistan - Not Iraq II. Incidentally, must have been my Vietnam War experience; but it was my feeling from the beginning that no WMD's would be found - and they weren't.
We cant leave. We have destabilized (hard to call a brutal dictatorship stable) their government and must "stay the course" and see that their country is re-constructed and politically stable. That is, I believe, a Biblical duty. For a Democrat to get a look, they must agree (which I think my be hard for them) in a way that convinces me they really agree.
[My 24 year old (who joined the Navy after saying the following) hit me with an impossible to answer view of President Bush: She did not feel he was sincerely Christian, or at least consistantly pro-life. Sure he viewed abortion that way, but she could not jibe that with his position on the death penalty in Texas - where she believes he allowed as Governor the execution of a man with a substantial possibility of innocence (with the comment that it might be true he was innocent, but the jury had spoken); or his actions in Iraq. She asked if living beings were as worthy of life as ones that hadn't been born yet. I stuttered]
3. Gay Marriage (Kerry): Not his belief in them, but his contention that a Constitutional amendment was wrong. I think Bush was stirring up the troops with this one. It is a state matter, and the states already have the right not to recognize another states marriages. Pure politics. Now if the Supreme Court pulls another Roe, and legislates on a national level in this matter, then all bets will be off.
I admit to hesitating to vote for the Oregon Marriage Act. You cannot legislate morality; but I do believe marriage is God's turf (and worthy of defense). I am wishy-washy here.
4. Fiscal Conservatism (Kerry): The Republicans Reagan and after have lost it on the budget. Continuing to fund the rich at the expense of the deficit just doesn't fly. Cutting taxes his first term in the face of mounting deficits, while he was raising spending - was purely absurd. President Clinton had balanced the budget; and I actually believed Kerry would try to achieve that again. I would rather have "Tax and spend" than "Not tax and spend"; but I would really rather have "Spend what you make".
I obviously am a christian, and an evangelical; but equally obviously I am not owned by the Republicans who didn't deserve my vote for President in the last election.
posted on 05.16.2005 11:24 AM13
I am a reluctant Democrat because of:
Tax cuts skewed to the wealthy.
Republican support for usury and predatory lending practices.
Republican support for the death penalty.
Insufficient support among Republicans for environmental concerns.
Republican indifference to corporate greed and dishonesty.
Republican opposition to minimum wage.
Republican opposition to gays in military.
Republican dishonest war planning.
Republican opposition to affirmative action.
Republican indifference to racial discrimination in lending practices.
Republican opposition to gay civil unions.
Republican opposition to meaningful prison and jail reform to reduce rapes, murders and assaults within the system and to promote education and rehabilitation.
posted on 05.16.2005 11:24 AM14
Joel Thomas
With all due respect, some of the things on your list might be more republican than democratic positions - but most have had broad support in the country.
Ask this: the filibuster has always existed. Why didn't the Democrats in the Senate muster 41 votes to block some of these things you consider important to Democrates? Start with Gay's in the military - do you really think there is any meaningful Democratic Party opposition to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". How about tax cuts to the wealthy? Good talking point but pick a few bills and look at how folks voted.
posted on 05.16.2005 12:00 PM15
I'd like to point people to a pair of articles in First Things, by one of my favorite authors, J. Budziszewski. Have a look at The Problem With Liberalism, and The Problem With Conservatism. If you've read this far in the thread, these articles will be worth your trouble.
posted on 05.16.2005 12:33 PM16
Scott, thanks for the links. I particularly liked this paragraph:
Christians, then, may certainly commend a law as good or condemn it as evil. They may declare it consistent or inconsistent with the faith. But not even a good law may be simply identified with the faith; Christians must not speak of a tax code, marriage ordinance, or welfare policy as Christian no matter how much, or even how rightly, they desire its enactment or preservation. That predicate has been preempted by the law of God. The civil law will be Christian-if it still exists at all- only when Christ himself has returned to rule: not when a coalition of religious conservatives has got itself elected.posted on 05.16.2005 12:53 PM
17
"Christ, the Good Shepard came to save his sheep. Not to give the goats a better political system."
And the Republicans came to fleece the poor while pulling the wool over their eyes and to milk the religious for all they're worth!
posted on 05.16.2005 12:58 PM18
Rob
The arrogance of assuming that the 15% of the country that are secular are less likely to be fleeced, or lacking in kneejerk reactions, is actually one of those underlying reasons Republicans are winning - "us hicks dont like them there words of y'all".
Pull the wool about abortion off your own eyes - then come talk to me about my being led around by the nose. You have been fleeced into believing embryos and fetuses with a future like yours are unworthy of your notice or protection - and instantly vote against anyone who questions that dogma.
posted on 05.16.2005 1:23 PM19
As one involved with local Democratic politics, I share your reluctance, Joe. I think that any Christian who looks carefully at politics gets uncomfortable; we are all reluctant.
I do not like to see the easy indentification between the Republican Party and Evangelicals, if for no other reason than it seems to erect barriers with those whom we want to reach -- those men and women who need to hear the Gospel. For that reason, I am thankful for those Christian leaders in my community who have taken an a-political course, notably the Rev. Ed Dobson (Calvary Church, Grand Rapids).
That said, it does seem to me that the linkage between faith and party arises in part because the Republican wing owns the megaphone, as it were. The Evangelical-as-Republican is the one who is heard; moreover, if one were to listen to the internal political conversation among Evangelicals there is often a drowning out of those who disagree. We celebrate Principle, but then forget that Principle can often lead to a variety of policies, and one of the tasks of politics is how we weigh those various options.
What we miss in the echo chamber are those other Evangelicals who are not Republican -- who are even Democrats. They certainly exist. Some are lesser known, such as Ed Kilgore at New Donkey, or Ayelish McGarvey (in the current Nation; a Wheaton grad). Some are prominent: think of how the conservative blogosphere treats Jim Wallis and Ron Sider. That too, gets noted by outside observers.
Or listen to how we demonize, how we've mastered contempt of real or imagined foes (do the initials HC suggest someone?). We are far from a Gospel graciousness.
Now mix in the tribal aspect of politics --most of us vote by sociological groupings as much as by any conviction -- and there is another reason Evagelicals can look Republican. This is not that different from African Americans when you think about it. For a variety of reasons, cultural as well as by conviction, they vote Democratic, even though we may know plenty who are conservative or even --gasp!!-- Republican.
I think the path away from this too-easy identification lies with a greater encounter with Grace, that we might listen more, speak wisely, and carry great hope for our opponents. This does go well with partisanship, but it does seem to mark the path of Christian politics.
posted on 05.16.2005 2:00 PM20
Neat, Joe. Neat. Maybe we can get you ont he air instead of Robertson soon.
posted on 05.16.2005 2:48 PM21
Joel Thomas, your post generally troubles me so greatly I'll probably either blog or dream about it. But for now, here are point-by-point responses. They are not all rebuttals, and do not pretend to be exhaustive, because I have neither the time nor talent to be so thorough. Nonetheless, here's a frank but friendly shot across your bow:
Tax cuts skewed to the wealthy.
If wealthy man A pays higher taxes than middle-class man B, then giving an equal-percentage tax cut is obviously going to mean a bigger tax cut for A. Why shouldn't people get tax breaks proportionate to amounts they pay?
Republican support for usury and predatory lending practices.
Why Republican support? Have such practices only existed since 1994? Both parties should be ashamed of letting dishonest "weights and measures" go unpunished.
Republican support for the death penalty.
There's this idea that it's inconsistent to be pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. If one means inconsistent with the "sanctity of life," then that's correct. But following a Biblical approach means believing in the sanctity of God's Word, and Scripture, taken as a whole, approves capital punishment as a legal remedy while disapproving abortion.
I'll get flamed by the Bible haters for that one, but I don't give a pig's snout.
Insufficient support among Republicans for environmental concerns.
I agree with you (finally) in principle, but would hate to see us adopt current Green policies, which I see as socialism wearing a coat of a new color.
Republican indifference to corporate greed and dishonesty.
Agreed. But lefties from D.C. to Brussels (yeah, I lump them together) are incredibly hypocritical about this issue. And the "greed and dishonesty" banner easily becomes an excuse for government raiders every bit as savage as corporate ones.
Republican opposition to minimum wage.
Minimum wage laws, IMO, are a cure worse than the disease. Sure, corporations use them to underpay people. But such laws also prevent massive job creation for beginners who would work for lower pay.
Republican opposition to gays in military.
The concern here, as I understand it, is similar to that of women in combat, i.e., the element of sexual attraction interfering with military duties and morale. The additional concern (on the part of the brass) is that gay men, as men, would be more pre-occupied with sex than straight women, in a military that wants its soldiers pre-occupied with military matters.
Republican dishonest war planning.
I don't even care to argue this one with you, since I can't prove the President's honesty anymore than you can disprove it. The fact is, neither of us was there, nor were we privy to the intelligence (faulty or not) he had to rely on. And I still prefer what Bush did with the military to Clinton's aspirin factory bombing and the debacle in Somalia. In other words, I think incompetent war planning is even worse than possibly dishonest war planning.
Republican opposition to affirmative action.
You might give Thomas Sowell a read on this subject, Joel. I agree with him, and Republicans in general, that affirmative action doesn't level the playing field, Instead it tells people they're inferior on a level playing field. As with minimum wage laws, I think this cure suffocates the patient. It's a noble, but misguided intention in an area where Christians especially should shine so brightly as to silence our critics.
Republican indifference to racial discrimination in lending practices.
This phrase looks loaded. No doubt such discrimination exists, but no doubt it's also a card to be played by people whose credit doesn't measure up to a lender's standard.
Republican opposition to gay civil unions.
We probably flat out disagree on this one, since I consider gay civil unions as reprehensible as legalized pedophilia.
Republican opposition to meaningful prison and jail reform to reduce rapes, murders and assaults within the system and to promote education and rehabilitation.
"Meaningful prison and jail reform..." As long as education and rehabilitation are seen as salvific, prisons will be houses of horror. How about speedier execution for rapists, murderers, and incorrigible recidivists?
Ah, yes, we're miles apart aren't we. (Not even a question mark needed there.)
Joel, the big disagreement I have with you is that your list repeatedly calls for civil government as the solution in areas where Republicans see government action as complicating, not solving problems. They are problems, to be sure.
You'd probably enjoy the work of Ronald Sider, a brother in the faith whose politics I consider somewhere to the left of Boris Yeltsin. As for me, well I voted for the best dang Democrat in Washington, George W. Bush, but wish there had been a true conservative alternative.
Now excuse me; I have to go beat my daughter with a big, thick Bible;-o
posted on 05.16.2005 3:20 PM22
Joe wrote with rhetorical florish:
Since the end of the Carter presidency, the Democrats have shown a disdain for any religious people who do not share their acceptance of abortion, sexual libertinism, and nanny statism.
Just how are Dems accepting sexual libertinism? Is it by accepting the conservative view (in that the state should not inject itself into people's personal lives) that consenting adults can do what they please sexuality? This is not a promotion of being sexual libertine, only the acknowledgment that a society that values freedom and liberty must also allow its citizens to do things social conservatives might find distasteful. Legislating behavior in this area seems like the very height of nanny statism.
Former Democratic Senator Zell Miller, for example, was treated as a pariah by his own party for failing to adopt to the post-1973 definition of what it means to be a Democrat.
Perhaps the Dems felt reasonable distaste for Miller when he appeared at the other party's nomination convention and ranted like a mad man. Interesting to note that Zell recently appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and pretty much acknowledged as much.
posted on 05.16.2005 3:36 PM23
Andy
Is it by accepting the conservative view (in that the state should not inject itself into people's personal lives) that consenting adults can do what they please sexuality?This wasn't, in my limited world, a problem until I had to decide whether gay's met my definition of marriage; or that I couldn't refuse to rent my house to a gay couple; or that my daughter's education crossed the line from undertanding and accepting that Susie had two fathers; to accepting that that was just as good as having a father and a mother (the schools inserting themselves into my daughter's personal life).
My brother-in-law was gay and died of AIDS - my daughter is encouraged to remember and love him. He is her favorite uncle. My sister is gay - she is not ostracized or criticized. She and I have had some very interesting discussions about it; and again she is one of my daughter's favortite aunts.
Our problems began when one of my mother-in-law's grandchildren had a "marriage ceremony" (she's gay) here in Oregon - do we go? (We didn't); and then had sex with a male not her married partner so she could be pregnant. She is, and mom got invited to the baby shower (Mom went - my wife and I sent a gift).
So our issues have never been with what consenting adults do in the personal life - but what we are required to accept and deal with in ours. Those who want gay marriages are trying to insert the courts and the state into private matters - there has never been any societal support for this in any society worldwide ever.
24
Jim:
If wealthy man A pays higher taxes than middle-class man B, then giving an equal-percentage tax cut is obviously going to mean a bigger tax cut for A. Why shouldn't people get tax breaks proportionate to amounts they pay?I assume you're speaking hypothetically, because that's not even remotely how the last couple rounds of tax cuts actually worked. But to the meat of your question: why not give proportionate tax breaks? Because some need the cuts more than others. If Bush could be taken at his word, the tax cuts were supposed to be targeted to stimulate the economy. That should mean giving the money to the people most likely to turn around and spend it in the economy, which would be the people at the low end of the spectrum.
But the phrasing of your question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how marginal tax brackets work. If you cut the marginal rate on the bottom bracket by 5%, then everyone who pays income taxes gets that break, including the wealthiest taxpayers. However, if you make a similar cut on the top bracket, only the wealthiest taxpayers get that cut.
Both parties should be ashamed of letting dishonest "weights and measures" go unpunished.Agreed, and the new bankruptcy "reform" bill that just passed -- with some Democratic support -- is excellent evidence of this. That said, however, it doesn't mean that one party isn't even worse than the other.
But following a Biblical approach means believing in the sanctity of God's Word, and Scripture, taken as a whole, approves capital punishment as a legal remedy while disapproving abortion.Show me where the Bible ever directly addresses abortion. It does not. And a Christian would have to take a very narrow reading of John 8 to think that execution is still acceptable post-Jesus.
Truth is, the Bible speaks both for and against capital punishment (with Jesus speaking against it), and doesn't address abortion at all. So to argue that scripture is somehow pro-execution and anti-abortion is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst.
I agree with you (finally) in principle, but would hate to see us adopt current Green policies, which I see as socialism wearing a coat of a new color.If by "Green," you mean Green Party, I'm inclined to agree. However, I don't think it's necessarily socialistic for the government to protect certain natural resources by regulating such things as emissions and road construction, and even if it is, I fail to see any other effective way to actually protect the environment (although I'm open to suggestions).
But lefties from D.C. to Brussels (yeah, I lump them together) are incredibly hypocritical about this issue.Once again, the fact that both parties are bad doesn't make them equally bad. Without knowing for sure, I'd be willing to bet that corrupt CEOs are far more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. :)
But such laws also prevent massive job creation for beginners who would work for lower pay.Got evidence of this? I'm undecided on minimum wage laws myself, but I can't imagine revoking them would make things any better for anyone. In a good economy, nobody would even be willing to work for minimum wage, IMO. I think the effects of the minimum wage law are probably grossly exaggerated by both its proponents and its opponents.
In other words, I think incompetent war planning is even worse than possibly dishonest war planning.In retrospect, I find it hard to believe that anyone can describe the Bush Administration's war planning (or lack thereof) as "competent" with a straight face.
...where Republicans see government action as complicating, not solving problems.Umm, have you even been paying attention to the current government's actions? The government is getting both bigger and more involved than ever before. Maybe you don't think the current government is really "Republican," but that's just the "No true Scotsman" thing. posted on 05.16.2005 4:20 PM
25
JCHFleetGuy:
So our issues have never been with what consenting adults do in the personal life - but what we are required to accept and deal with in ours.That sounds less like opposition to government sanctioning of gay marriage, and more like opposition to government sanctioning of any marriage. Really, if you take your logic and run with it, the government should never sanction any practice that anyone anywhere may ever find even mildly offensive. Surely this isn't what you want. So why the special case for gay marriage? Note, too, that you had to deal with all those issues even though the state does NOT sanction gay marriage. So what hypothetical difference would it make if the state did sanction it?
Those who want gay marriages are trying to insert the courts and the state into private matters - there has never been any societal support for this in any society worldwide ever.Umm, have you looked around the rest of the world lately? Here's a hint: look North. posted on 05.16.2005 4:24 PM
26
or that I couldn't refuse to rent my house to a gay coupleScratch out "gay" and substitute "Jewish," and please explain why the logic is now fundamentally different. posted on 05.16.2005 4:26 PM
27
Those who want gay marriages are trying to insert the courts and the state into private matters - there has never been any societal support for this in any society worldwide ever.
Your statement is a contradiction in terms. In the first part you say they are trying to insert courts and states into "private matters". By definition an intimate, personal agreement. Then you justify this statement by saying there is no support in any society worldwide which by definition is the actions of a vast number of people in the most impersonal way possible. Incidentally you are factually incorrect as well.
posted on 05.16.2005 4:32 PM28
Umm, have you looked around the rest of the world lately? Here's a hint: look North.You know when I said it I was almost going to hedge - but considering these examples are less than 10 years old in a human history of however long - I passed. You are arguing the cutting edge of a moral/ethical question for puralistic society that is not so easy to discount simply as the ignorant infringing on the rights of gays. Cultural change is slow and the institutions do not change until the culture does - and gays are no where close to changing the culture when it comes to gay marriage.
My actual argument is not that the state cannot be involved; but that involvement needs to be political - not legal. Now, if you all are satisfied that every (might be off by 1 or 2) state that has voted on this has refused gay marriage; and accept that as a testimony that folk do not buy it (at least yet) - great. You will stop trying in interfere in the culture's definition of marriage. [You didn't mean that did you].
No, the hope now is the supreme court will interfere and thereby turn this into a national issue rightly. Do you see that Massachusetts, Eugene OR; San Francisco and a few other places ignited a backlash now etched in law that will now be harder to educate around? Probably not. It is only the gay's unable to "marry" whose rights are at issue here - right?
Scratch out "gay" and substitute "Jewish,"You get anywhere near 50% of the population to view this as an equal substitution I will analyze it politically.
In the meantime, I suggest a serious education campaign on the supporter's of gay marriages part - because they got their political butt's kicked using your "right to private life" argument when it comes to gay marriage
posted on 05.16.2005 5:22 PM29
"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Kingdom of God" Insert that into any politician's ideas and they will win my vote. I agree that God is not happy with any of our parties because all our parties are fueled by money.....oh yeah that reminds me: "Man cannot serve two masters........". The problem with most "Christians" in this country (world) is that they don't read/understand/eat/devour/internalize The Word and that's why they become sheets in the wind when it comes to politics.....oh yeah, reminds me of another parable that our Savior spoke of: houses built on sans or The Rock.
We will be in this dilemma until the day God calls enough! Politics these days demand money....Jesus demands obedience. Sadly, money makes a man lose sense. It is really sad, but then again Jesus said: Narrow is the gate and wide is the path to destruction.
Personally, I don't know if I am a Republican or Democrat, but I know I love Jesus and He tells me to vote and to pay my dues to Caesar. I am glad to see so many cool bloggers who love the Lord. Follow Him first!!
posted on 05.16.2005 6:18 PM30
Just a few, unconnected comments:
I could vote for Rudi, but only if I had little other choice. Yea, I disagree on the social issues. But the Dem would be worse and Rudi would kill a lot of terrorists.
Only "conservative" judges will stop the ACLU types from destroying religious liberty.
If a rich guy gives to the poor out of conviction then he shall be rewarded in heaven. If he's taxed - he's been robbed. He gains nothing.
posted on 05.16.2005 7:34 PM31
I have 2 comments. One is, though I am not a Pat Robertson fan, I wouldn't vote for John McCain for any office higher than city manager--he's a lightweight, and way narcissistic.
Second, to respond to the (tiresome) riposte by tgrish or whoever said:
"Scratch out "gay" and substitute "Jewish," and please explain why the logic is now fundamentally different."
No, that's not an appropriate analogy, once we pass our sophomore years. One might scratch out "gay" and substitute "drunk," or "ballroom dancing," or "rugby playing," because the operative concern considers behavior, not ethnicity. A "gay couple" represents a behavior some people do not want to subsidize, support, or even tolerate on their property. A "Jewish couple" does not.
posted on 05.16.2005 7:35 PM32
Joe:
I hate to say it, but I think this was the most inconsequential post you've ever written (that I've read). You've basically said that you're a reluctant Republican because you can't support everything they stand for. Well, duh. It seems to me that your stance could be better stated as that of a reluctant Republican, who would probably never vote Democrat. You write as if it wouldn't take much for you to vote Democrat sometime, but it's hard for me to imagine a time when you would. Democrats generally oppose everything you support, and generally support everything you are against. This is not rocket science. Many times it's the choice between the lesser of two evils--or you abstain. I have to admit that the way the Republicans have been spending, I have felt like abstaining.
But there's the problem isn't it? I hate the way the Repubs are spending, but what reasonable person could trust Dems to be fiscally responsible? After all, it's the Repubs who are willing to take from the poor and give to the rich, right?
You also say that Robertson supports Guiliani over McCain and that makes Robertson's stature even less appealing. First, have you forgotten the nasty stuff McCain said about Robertson in the 2000 campaign? Second, why would anyone trust McCain? I don't think he has behaved with integrity ever since he found out that he can get air time any time he trashes his own party. I think McCain is still trying to atone for being the lone Republican in the Keating 5 scandal. Remember that?
Guiliani? Well, yes, he's not a social conservative, but if it's between him and Kerry or Hillary? It's Guiliani or you don't vote, right? And at least with Rudy you know what you're getting.
You object to Focus on the Family saying that there is a "conservative Christian" stance on issues like judicial filibusters and budget reform. (Did they really say that?) Well, that's their opinion. I happen to agree that we need more conservative judges and HUGE budget reform. And I don't understand you placing judicial filibusters and budget reform in opposition to "protection of the poor" and "defense of the innocent." We think that conservative judges will defend the innocent. We think that budget reform will protect the poor. We've certainly seen how the other side performs and it's not a pretty sight.
I am a reluctant Republican as well, but the point is that right now, most of the time, for the foreseeable future, until Zell Miller runs against John McCain, I will not vote for Democrat.
posted on 05.16.2005 7:47 PM33
I mentioned "the conservative view (in that the state should not inject itself into people's personal lives) that consenting adults can do what they please sexuality"
JCHFleetguy replied:
This wasn't, in my limited world, a problem until I had to decide whether gays met my definition of marriage; or that I couldn't refuse to rent my house to a gay couple; or that my daughter's education crossed the line from undertanding and accepting that Susie had two fathers; to accepting that that was just as good as having a father and a mother (the schools inserting themselves into my daughter's personal life).
Then tgirsch said:
Scratch out "gay" and substitute "Jewish," and please explain why the logic is now fundamentally different.
And JCHFleetguy responded:
You get anywhere near 50% of the population to view this as an equal substitution I will analyze it politically.
The implication that is all too easy to take away from this, JCHFleetguy, is a tough one. Something like "The moral correctness of a position is dependent on the percentage of people who support it." From reading your comments over the last few weeks that's not a position I think you would advocate, but it does speak to what I see as one of the central problems most of us wrestle with when it comes to morality.
Many people kind of go with the flow within their community of like-minded believers when it comes to right and wrong. We all take lofty positions about morality when pressed on the issue, but in our day-to-day lives I think we mostly parrot what we are hearing. I catch myself over and over again when listening to liberal rhetoric, kind of just going along with the music before asking, "Wait a minute, just why is that right? What's the reasoning behind that position?"
That you have a gay sister and other gay relations and have to grapple with issues like going to the baby shower in person or just sending a gift makes your position all the more stunning.
I grew up in a tiny, rural, midwestern kind of town where everyone was white; Jews, Catholics, and Italians (who were also Catholic but seemed to rate a special designation of there own) were the minorities that stood out. I remember quite clearly being warned about the "known homosexual" when I was an adolescent. So I understand the sort of imprinting of unsupported belief (that is, of prejudice) that happens in that context.
What I don't understand is how someone like yourself who seems quite able and self-sufficient can not see that there is nothing to fear from allowing gays to marry. It's not like they are going to out-breed the rest of us.
My guess is that those opposed to gay marriage are fearful that their children will be more likely to "become gay" if there is no state prohibition on gay marriage. Maybe they are concerned too that discontinuing the prohibition would somehow allow gays to be "content in their gayness" hoping rather that gays should "feel the guilt of their choice" and possibly "see the light." How is this different than the prohibition against interracial marriage that only relatively recently was removed?
posted on 05.16.2005 7:57 PM34
John Mendenhall, repsonding to tgrish, wrote:
"Scratch out "gay" and substitute "Jewish," and please explain why the logic is now fundamentally different."No, that's not an appropriate analogy, once we pass our sophomore years. One might scratch out "gay" and substitute "drunk," or "ballroom dancing," or "rugby playing," because the operative concern considers behavior, not ethnicity. A "gay couple" represents a behavior some people do not want to subsidize, support, or even tolerate on their property. A "Jewish couple" does not.
But it is an appropriate analogy, especially for those of us no longer sophomoric. Jewishness is not about ethnicity, but about membership in a system of religious belief. Perhaps you are too young to remember Sammy Davis, Jr. or you not aware that Jews and Muslims from the Middle East are ethnically the same.
Surely you are not claiming one should have the right to deny a rental to a couple because they like ballroom dancing?
posted on 05.16.2005 8:10 PM35
John Mendenhall:
A "gay couple" represents a behavior some people do not want to subsidize, support, or even tolerate on their property. A "Jewish couple" does not.
That's a bit disingenuous considering that in order to get their coffers full, Tony Perkins had to buy David Duke's mailing list.
AndyS
Legistlating morality is the problem.
posted on 05.16.2005 8:28 PM36
AndyS,
Can you deny rental to a couple because they have kids? Communities can, we call them retirement villages. Can you deny rental to a couple because the have pets? Hmm, some condo associations do that too? How about only singles renting? Only married? How about "married student housing" on campuses? Is that unfair to the single population? Can we have diversity in our formation of rental communities? Or not? It seems to me, it might be ok to have a rental community restricted to left handed people of Baltic descent or whatever else you choose. It seems to me it might just as un-Constitutional to restrict such things as not. What principle makes some restrictions "ok" and others not, besides of course your personal prejudices?
37
Andy S.
You asked why conservatives are concerned about gay marriage, implying it will have no impact on us. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here's how gay marriage will impact society, and each family that opposes it:
1) It communicates to the rest of society that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. I don’t want my kids seeing/hearing that. More importantly, public schools will be required to teach children that homosexuality and same sex marriage are normal. How can they do anything else? It's the law of the land. I'm sure this is one of the real reasons the homosexual lobby is pushing this.
2) It undermines the institution of marriage by making it meaningless (by reducing it to just “two (or more?) people who love each other"). Marriage is a critical institution to a moral, civil society and especially the next generation (e.g., kids). When marriage is weakened, people don’t get married or stay married. Look at Europe–about 50% of children are born out of wedlock, or the inner city. This in turn affects ALL of us, not just those engaging in destructive behavior.
3) If same sex marriage is OK, then where does it end? What about incestous relationships? They love each other. What about polygamy? They love each other. What if someone loves their dog and wants to get “married". Once you reduce marriage to something meaningless you won’t have the means to defend the institution from gross destruction and deviancy.
4) Every child deserves a mother and a father. We have enough problems with broken marriages now, we don’t need to make it worse by intentionally creating more chaos. We need to think about the kids and stop being so selfish.
I have nothing against homosexuals, and although I don’t accept their life style, they are free to live as they choose. I work with them, I have a cousin who is gay. The Church should love them if they are following Christ. But same sex marriage is crossing the line, and cannot be allowed. Marriage has been around for thousands of years for a reason. Never has there been homosexual marriage. The State has a vested interest in preserving civil society and insuring the next generation is brought up in good families, as much as possible.
OK, I'm way off topic, but I had to respond to your question.
posted on 05.16.2005 8:47 PM38
You get anywhere near 50% of the population to view this as an equal substitution I will analyze it politically.
Your right I wouldnt make a majority argument - it was lame, I copped out. Thank you for correcting me.
I do not think these two classes are equal either morally or under the law - therefore substitution is not possible.
I do not fear gay marriage (or gays in fact). Obviously I haven't worried about my daughter's influence from gay's in my family. I admit I am wishy-washy on this issue - I grapple with it constantly. So, read CS Lewis on Christian Marriage in Mere Christianity. Maybe some insight about how I view the institution. Certainly has nothing to do with legal rights.
Marriage is the MOST IMPORTANT EARTHLY INSTITUTION FOR CHRISTIANS. More important than church (buildings), or denomination, or any number of other things. So, I will have to think about it long, hard, and prayerfully before I let it be legally messed with. That is why I recommended some education - cause the case was obviously not made.
There have been those who have recommended two classes of marriage - a "higher" church recognized one; and a "lower" secular one. In that might be a solution. Really do not know.
Perhaps the focus should be on insurance, and wills, and inheritance laws. Might be more profitable.
The overall point is the culture has not changed enough for the law to change
39
"or that I couldn't refuse to rent my house to a gay couple
Scratch out "gay" and substitute "Jewish," and please explain why the logic is now fundamentally different".
The statement is sophmoric and the logic is fundamentally different. I do not and should not have to rent my house out to a gay couple any more than I would have to rent it out to a skinhead, nazi or a KKK member. Not that I am comparing skinheads or nazi's to people that are gay. Just a representation that I can deny based on behavior I disagree with.
Now maybe I shouldn't deny people based on their sexual orientation (actually its not the orientation that I have a problem with just the behaviors associated with the orientation. Thus a christian who is gay and agrees not to participate in certain behaviors in my house would be welcome in the same way that a straight college girl or boy would be welcome if not having premarital sex in my house). Uh, what was my point. Oh, I was saying that maybe I shouldn't deny it based on orientation, but I do and should have the right too!
I can also deny rent based on the fact that a person is a smoker. Or is that also ethically challenging to you?
posted on 05.16.2005 9:06 PM40
Tim
"I do not and should not have to rent my house out to a gay couple any more than I would have to rent it out to a skinhead, nazi or a KKK member. Not that I am comparing skinheads or nazi's to people that are gay."
Can we put this on a wall and frame it?
posted on 05.16.2005 9:13 PM42
Joe Carter
"This same is true of my relationship with the Republican Party. I share a common cause with the GOP on most moral issues (i.e., abortion, same-sex marriage), on several foreign policy matters (e.g., the war on terrorism), and on some economic matters (welfare reform, for example). But because my neocalvinist views on policy are rooted in the Bible and Reformed theology, they will often differ, sometimes profoundly, from the standard party line."
Where do your policy views differ profoundly? Social security?
posted on 05.16.2005 9:18 PM44
I do not and should not have to rent my house out to a gay couple any more than I would have to rent it out to a skinhead, Nazi or a KKK member.
I don't have a problem with this. Just so long as I don't have to rent to heterosexuals or Christians we can get along fine. Oh wait, Religion is a protected class isn't it. And it's (gasp!) based on someone's chosen "preference" or lifestyle. Well I don't see why I should have to be forced to put up with such immoral nasty sicko hetero behavior under my roof. Repent or go to hell sinner!
-Nuff Said! Back to Half-Life 2.
posted on 05.16.2005 10:33 PM45
Would Jesus cut medicaid?Actually, the question might be would Jesus have spoke on the issue at all; and if he did wouldn't he expect the city, town, children, friends, church to take care of their sick or elderly and not the government? posted on 05.16.2005 11:55 PM
46
Jim,
If I wrote what I first thought on your comment comparing gays to pedophiles, my own comment would have been deleted and I might have risked being banned.
So, instead, I'll just quote some Scripture, "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." For right now, any source of grace I have toward you must come from above because it is not coming from within me at the moment.
posted on 05.17.2005 12:25 AM47
If you care about the pro-life issue, take a look at this scorecard from Democrats for Life.
http://www.democratsforlife.org/restore/democra2/scorecard.htm
It only looks at Democrats' votes on pro-life bills and gives them a thumbs-up or down on how they voted. I was surprised to see the high number of lower-level Democrats that consistently vote pro-life. These people are committed to the issue, as it certainly doesn't help their political career in the national Democratic party. Unlike Howard Dean, who says they only need to "talk differently about abortion", these Democrats actually vote pro-life. I don't know if I've ever had the chance to vote for a Democrat, but if one of these people is in your district, give them all the support you can. (I realize you may choose to vote against them if another pro-life candidate runs against them that has other positions that you line up with more closely, but in the mean time, maybe some send some kudos their way.)
48
Mark Olson wrote:
What principle makes some restrictions "ok" and others not, besides of course your personal prejudices?
The principle of civil rights. Perhaps on this blog it might be okay to mention Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor and his instruction to first take the log out of your own eye....
Drexel:
In your 4 points about "how gay marriage will impact society, and each family that opposes it" I see nothing that says how a negative effect on anyone will actually occur. From this statement:
...I don’t want my kids seeing/hearing [that homosexuality is normal and acceptable].
I infer that you fear your kids might be more likely to become homosexual. Is that part of your views?
Look at Europe–about 50% of children are born out of wedlock...
The parts of Europe I am familiar with -- England, Scotland, France, and The Netherlands -- have far less violent crime than we do here in the USA, a higher level of general education, and manage to provide health care to all their citizens. They do have markedly lower levels of church attendance. For all the Europe-bashing that goes on here, I suspect it is more a case of fear of the unknown than a result of informed opinion based on personal experience. These are quite civil and civilized countries.
We have enough problems with broken marriages now, we don’t need to make it worse by intentionally creating more chaos.
What chaos do you think would occur? No one is advocating incestuous or polygamous marriage which have plenty of negative consequences that do not apply to same-sex marriage. Again, can you point to the actual harm that might come to you or your kids from a tiny percentage of marriages being same-sex?
The State has a vested interest in preserving civil society and insuring the next generation is brought up in good families, as much as possible.
On this point we can agree although I know we are reading it differently.
posted on 05.17.2005 1:53 AM49
JCHFleetguy, I appreciate your response and the fact that you "struggle with it constantly." It's a worthwhile struggle.
Andy
posted on 05.17.2005 1:56 AM50
JCHFleetguy wrote:
Actually, the question [Would Jesus cut medicaid?] might be would Jesus have spoke on the issue at all; and if he did wouldn't he expect the city, town, children, friends, church to take care of their sick or elderly and not the government?
So would He also expect "city, town, children, friends, church" to fund roads, pay for the FAA, TSA, FDA, the army, navy, etc.?
How does the Christian right or just the conservative Republican thinking go on this? I see the distinction being made all the time and it baffles me. General federal (public) funds are okay to use for funding so many things (from national parks to nuclear subs) but somehow it's not right to spend them on, say, some poor kid who is severely disabled. When I read something like that I have to wonder about the "culture of life."
Can anyone help me out here? Surely there must be a principle of some kind involved.
posted on 05.17.2005 2:10 AM51
AndyS,
The answer is pretty simple. Our Lord wouldn't be involved in politics at all. He would expect the government to do whatever the government wanted to do and he would go about his business as Savior.
It's a lie to think that you can apply "What would Jesus do" in every situation just because someone thought up a clever marketing scheme. Jesus wouldn't be President of the United States, so he wouldn't go to war with Iraq and he wouldn't not go to war with Iraq. Nor would the Lord be a congressman, a senator, or a registered republican.
As far as me being a republican is concerned, I want to pay the absolute least taxes I can possibly pay and keep the money in my own pocket. If that means less funding for roads, hospitals, the poor, the sick, the needy, however, fine by me.
It should not be in the power of the government to redistribute wealth. If i'm concerned about the poor, the needy, the hungry, the sick, then I can go and take care of them. Feed them, clothe them, help them get well. If I alone am not enough to do this for someone, then I can donate to my local Church which can then take care of these things.
Maybe that's more of a libertarian viewpoint than an republican one. Fact is, the less money/power the government has the happier I am.
And as far as that comment about Jews goes, I believe citizens ought to have the right to discriminate. If someone wants to be a bigot and not allow a certain race or religion or sexual preference to rent from them then i'm for allowing that. If a business wants to discriminate based on color, height, weight, sex, religion, i'm for allowing that too. More power to the individual and less power to government.
Of course, if any business did discriminate against jews, or blacks, or people-who-like-wear-red, then they shouldn't expect me to spend my hard earned dollar there. But I still believe they should have the right to do it.
posted on 05.17.2005 6:27 AM52
""Why I’m a Reluctant Republican -"
It's because Republicans are so Christ-like, isn't it?
-
posted on 05.17.2005 7:02 AM53
This has been on my mind lately. Has a book called "Finding my Theology/Politics" been written yet?
I love Fred Craddock and Charles Spurgeon, Donald McKim and D.A. Carson, Russell Moore (Southern baptist semianry) and Gene March (PCUSA seminary)
What's an aspiring pastor to do? Will churches need a clergy's theology to be more clearly defined? More black and white?
posted on 05.17.2005 7:58 AM54
Eric & Lisa,
The answer is pretty simple. Our Lord wouldn't be involved in politics at all. He would expect the government to do whatever the government wanted to do and he would go about his business as Savior.
And that raises an interesting question:
To what extent should Christians' involvement with the state be modeled on our Lord's involvement with the state?
Paul in Romans 13 describes some of the roles of the State, which might include capital punishment and waging war, but he doesn't say whether Christians are permitted to function as agents of the state to perform those roles. Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but he didn't say whether we should act as Caesar's right hand, if it contradicts the behavioral instructions he gave in the Sermon on the Mount.
As far as me being a republican is concerned, I want to pay the absolute least taxes I can possibly pay and keep the money in my own pocket. If that means less funding for roads, hospitals, the poor, the sick, the needy, however, fine by me.
Yeah, but then the republicans turn around and spend huge amounts on other things that they apparently think are more important than roads, hospitals, the poor, the sick, the needy, etc. And if they're not willing to take directly out of your pocket in taxes, they run up debts so that it can come out of your grandchildren's pockets. I mean, we don't still believe that republicans in Washington are fiscal conservatives, do we?
Hey, this suggests a possible compromise! If Christians who vote democratic agree to support less government spending on social programs, perhaps Christians who vote republican would support the Peace Tax Fund (http://www.peacetaxfund.org/). Then no one would have to see their taxes spent on things they find morally objectionable.
posted on 05.17.2005 8:45 AM55
"Only "conservative" judges will stop the ACLU types from destroying religious liberty."
Care to support this ridiculous statement, Mr. Kelso? Please tell me how the ACLU is doing this. Don't you mean "Only 'conservative' judges will allow us theists to continue to impose our beliefs on others"?
56
Boonton, I was a delegate to last year's Republican National Convention and neither Falwell nor Robertson spoke to the convention. In fact, I can't think of a time that Falwell EVER spoke to the RNC, and if Robertson did, it may have been back when he ran for President in 1988.
Joe, I had a problem with this point: "To their credit, the Republicans have been more open and accepting of the agenda of social conservatives. Whether it’s a true conversion or merely due to political expediency, the Republican Party has made room under the Big Tent for conservative evangelicals." What really happened is that conservative evangelicals took over the Republican Party in many states. They went to precinct caucuses, ran to be party officials and national delegates, sat on rules and platform committees, and ran for public office. It's mistaken to speak of the party as some isolated institution; it reflects the concerns of those who get involved.
It's not a question of marching in lockstep. Here in Oklahoma, and in many other sunbelt states, conservative evangelicals ARE the Republican Party.
posted on 05.17.2005 9:10 AM57
Gee fellas I dunno, but THIS might have something to do with it:
posted on 05.17.2005 9:15 AM58
I work in Christian music and trust me, the Republican = Christian and Christian = Republican mantra is all-pervasive and the generally accepted ideology. Heck, the entertainment director of last year's RNC Convention was the former head of the Gospel Music Assn.
The reason Pat Robertson and James Dobson and those guys don't speak at the RNC Convention is because when the cameras are rolling, the Republicans know to present a more secular, moderate face so as not to scare off non-Christian conservatives. Out come John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, moderates who were quickly shoved back in their boxes once the election was over. Now we have Bill Frist speaking at "Justice Sunday" and a Baptist preacher telling his congregation that if you voted for Kerry you have to repent or find another church. I mean, please.
posted on 05.17.2005 9:20 AM59
Andy S.
For many of us conservative Christian Republicans, the problem is not that we shouldn't spend money on "severely disabled kids." The problem is how that money is spent on those kids. The government has been shown to be an ineffective and inefficient way to help those who need it. In fact, government programs have been shown to do more harm than good by encouraging a whole culture of dependency.
Have you never been a deacon in a church? We make these kinds of decisions all the time. We decide to cut off funds to people who are abusing our system just to get help. We consider it unGodly to continue giving financial help to people if it encourages them to be irresponsible. And we make mistakes. Imagine how gross the mistakes are on the federal level. Think about the history of generations of dependency.
It is truly maddening that people think conservatives are cold and heartless because we don't want our money wasted by bureaucrats. We can do a much better job ensuring that the money is used effectively. After all, it's those evil Republicans who make all that money, right? Can't you understand the resentfulness of those who have created wealth being told how to spend it by bureaucrats who have little conception of how money works?
Second, given the above, we wouldn't be nearly so concerned if the tax rates stayed at a reasonable number like, say, 20 percent. Above that taxation discourages productivity and people start to feel that the government is stealing. It's the law of diminishing returns.
You know, people bring Jesus into this picture all the time, assuming he would just break down and give money to all who need it. Jesus never gave anyone any money. He believed there were things more important than money. He believed there were things worse than death (like dependency, maybe?). Jesus didn't heal everyone. I guess that means he had some of those mean evil Republican tendencies, right? He didn't really care. If he did, he would have cured all ills, taken the money from the rich, distributed it to all to make it fair and all would be, well, fair.
posted on 05.17.2005 9:32 AM60
Republican support for the death penalty.
There's this idea that it's inconsistent to be pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. If one means inconsistent with the "sanctity of life," then that's correct. But following a Biblical approach means believing in the sanctity of God's Word, and Scripture, taken as a whole, approves capital punishment as a legal remedy while disapproving abortion.
I'll let that interpretation of scripture "as a whole" pass and simply note that it is a matter of record that innocent people are occasionally convicted. We can free the wrongfully jailed, but we can't raise the innocent dead. Nor have we the right to risk killing them.
Support for capital punishment and other primarily Republican forms of death-dealing is the biggest problem with the mobilization of the "Christian" right in the USA today.
As the Schiavo affair illustrated, the GOP will woo the religious with ostentatious concern for pre-sentient and post-sentient life. As the Schiavo senate memo proved, they seek political benefit by doing so. As GOP capital punishment and "defence" policies demonstrate, GOP concern for sentient life doesn't measure up. Is this US Christians warping GOP policy? I prefer to believe that it is the unChristian warp of the GOP.
Has it not occurred to US Christians that a lot of "born again" people in and around the GOP are using those two weighty words very lightly - and very implausibly?
posted on 05.17.2005 9:42 AM61
After all, it's those evil Republicans who make all that money, right?
Hey, what about those scary liberal elites that the religious right is always warning us about? Don't they make money, too?
posted on 05.17.2005 9:45 AM62
"For many of us conservative Christian Republicans, the problem is not that we shouldn't spend money on "severely disabled kids." The problem is how that money is spent on those kids. The government has been shown to be an ineffective and inefficient way to help those who need it. In fact, government programs have been shown to do more harm than good by encouraging a whole culture of dependency."
My father became the first man in his family to go to college because of a harmful, terrible government program called the GI Bill. That degree made him dependent on the government for a job: he spent the next 35 years as a public high school teacher for mentally retarded kids. There are several dozen retarded adults out on the streets today who would surely have been permanent wards of the state -- but who are instead living independent, economically productive lives, because my dad taught them to drive, tell time, make change, hold down a job, cook, pay bills, and get by on their own.
That cycle of dependency corrupted me, too. I grew up in houses financed by VA and FHA loans -- programs that helped build the American middle class. I got through college on state scholarships, federal Pell Grants, and low-interest federally-guaranteed loans. And the subsidizies continued right through my 40s: I've been shamelessly dependent on mortgage interest deductions to help support my upper-class lifestyle. In fact, all this sucking at the government teat has demotivated me so thoroughly that I'm now eligible for those sweet tax breaks for the upper 2% that y'all insisted we rich folks had to have. Thanks.
As for disabled kids: Federal law requires that they be furnished with a full public education. Most districts can't fund this. (My dad and his colleagues all retired 20 years ago; nobody bothered to replace them.) So, my husband and I have personally spent over $50K out-of-pocket on treatment for my dyslexic son -- money that, by law, should have been paid by the state.
The majority of LD kids who don't get appropriate education end up *extremely* dependent on the government. They have about three times the rate of delinquency of non-LD kids, and very few of them ever live up to their economic potential. They comprise about 2/3 of our prison population nationally, and this lifelong supervision costs taxpayers somewhere between $25K-70K per year. My own brother, who has the same disability my son does, has spent most of the last 25 years just this way.
I guess Jesus would rather have taxpayers pay hundreds of thousands to prison guards later, than pony up now for the teachers and treatments that would enable my son to become a productive, taxpaying citizen for the rest of his life.
On this issue, as with many others, your fear of "dependency" is completely and totally misplaced. It's the kids you DON'T help who you'll be paying the bills for from now until they die. You may think otherwise -- but there are decades of data that say you're wrong. (However, since that's all just secular science, unsubtantiated by any credible faith-based sources, you're free to ignore it in favor of your own ill-informed opinion.)
And you wonder why the rest of us think Christianists are a menace. Sheesh.
posted on 05.17.2005 10:52 AM63
Actually, the question might be would Jesus have spoke on the issue at all; and if he did wouldn't he expect the city, town, children, friends, church to take care of their sick or elderly and not the government?
I'm certain that Jesus would have spoken on the issue, given his concern with helping the blind and the sick and the halt. I also expect he would have called upon the city, town, children, friends and church before calling upon the government.
And if the city, town, children, friends and church were listening to Jesus, would we even need Medicaid? Government social programs exist where Christians have failed to live up to their beliefs.
posted on 05.17.2005 10:57 AM64
Litz
Now we have Bill Frist speaking at "Justice Sunday" and a Baptist preacher telling his congregation that if you voted for Kerry you have to repent or find another church.First, Frist spoke to 5000 folk (pretty small turnout for such hype) and said very little. He is a politician - he talks to crowds to get them to support his position. As an old anti-war liberal, I think it is pathetic the way the left has forgotten how to organize. Getting a lawyer to run to the nearest liberal judge for a restraining order is not political organization. And yet they complain because their competition defines, organizes, and wields their base - thats what you do in politics
And it is disingenious to talk about this preacher: He was a fool, and he lost his job over it.
AndyS:
So would He also expect "city, town, children, friends, church" to fund roads, pay for the FAA, TSA, FDA, the army, navy, etc.?The growth of federal bureauracy is a post WWII event - how did most of this stuff happen before then? My personal opinion is that there is infrastructure that must be national in scope (FAA,FDA,Army,Navy) and stuff that can be handled at the state level, county, city, individual. The truth is that the closer you get to the local level, the more efficient and less wasteful programs become - and the more those programs can reflect the values of the community they are in. Programs the public defines as necessary should be handled on the lowest level possible - as close to the problem as possible.
There are "opponents" I like talking to because it is obvious that they are not only stating their position and trying to "win" (I have no problem with that); but they are obviously listening and seeking answers. You are one of those for me. But, we have no common view of the philosophical issues involved (the forest) while we argue over the placement of the trees. So:
The Problem With Conservatism, and
The Problem With Liberalism
Rob Ryan
Care to support this ridiculous statement, Mr. Kelso? Please tell me how the ACLU is doing this. Don't you mean "Only 'conservative' judges will allow us theists to continue to impose our beliefs on others"?Where to start? 1st read the two "problem with" essays above. 2nd: The "culture wars" can be traced back to two closely parallel events: Roe v Wade - which violated the separation doctrine of the Constitution and set up the "central" division in our country; and a general thrust (all ACLU and ilk driven - in the courts) to re-define Religious Freedom as Freedom from Religion. Christians have been on the defensive for 30-40 years. Now the problem is: the VAST majority of the country view themselves as christian; and secular folk couldn't just stop with half the pie - they kept nibbling away until they bit into a lot of people's pieces. Along come some capable organizers (and some demagogues) and the hornet's nest has been stirred up - but we did not start this boss. posted on 05.17.2005 11:12 AM
65
Gone at Last
As for disabled kids: Federal law requires that they be furnished with a full public education. Most districts can't fund thisThis is the point: the feds pass a law they dont fund; your local system could get more local tax dollars to fund it if federal taxes didnt take so much; and if your taxes were lower you could have replaced the $50k yourself.
Honestly, what do you think the solution to this is?
posted on 05.17.2005 11:38 AM66
Gone at last
I'm so happy for you. You are probably the exception to the rule of the cycle of dependency--either that or you married well.
You accuse me of ignoring decades of data showing the success of government programs. Yet the first thing out of your mouth is that we need more money for education. If it's been so successful, why do we constantly need more? We have spent over 6 trillion dollars transferring wealth, and yet our schools have gotten worse and the poor in our country have a poverty of spirit that no poor person in Calcutta would understand. We spend over $13,000 per year for students in Washington DC, yet they perform at the bottom of all students in the country. You have missed the point of all the uproar for the last 20 years!! After all the spending, our schools are worse than ever! Throwing our money at failing government schools doesn't work!!
Or are you ignoring the fact that our schools are failing in favor of your own ill-informed opinion?
posted on 05.17.2005 12:17 PM67
Um, I think I mentioned that I DID replace that $50K myself. I could do that, because all those years of soul-sucking government dependency have made me a high-tech millioinaire.
But I also know a lot of families with kids in similar situations who don't have that kind of money, and didn't get the help my son did. Their kids are in their early teens, and you can already see more than a few of them starting to spiral down the drain. Hope you're up to paying their bills for the next 60+ years.
Federal law is appropriate in any area where a consistent national policy is necessary. Civil rights, environmental protection, and educational standards are three such essential areas. That said, it's not the feds who are shortchanging my son; it's the state of California, which used to have no problem paying father's salary. California schools were hit hard by Prop 13 in 1978. The state will also be recovering for years from the Enron scam, which left it tens of billions in debt. After the rich folks got their tax rebates, and Ken Lay and his criminal cronies got their loot, there wasn't much left over to do right by my kid.
The first step in solving the problem is realizing that giving these kids a proper education is not "encouraging dependency" or other such ideological drivel. It's a sound investment in keeping them off the public books (and in the taxpayer pool) for the rest of their days. Once y'all figure that out, it should become an obvious investment for governments at *all* levels to want to make.
posted on 05.17.2005 12:21 PM68
Gone at Last
I do not necessarily see any problem with those areas you consider national in scope (the only one being education actually). You should give some thought to the taxpayer revolt that drove Prop 13; and think about the "what if" of the Federal government not bleeding so much out of the taxpayers pockets before that - would the revolt even have occurred. You should think about direct (most state tax codes allow deduction of Federal income taxes paid - hence less income for state) and indirect result of lower Federal taxes on the ability of California to raise more money in taxes (not just property) to fund programs. And think about your ability to affect change at the state level compared with your ability to affect change at the national.
69
"I'm so happy for you. You are probably the exception to the rule of the cycle of dependency..."
In fact, no. I'm not the exception: I'm the rule. Most of the 1960s-era working-class kids who came out of well-funded public schools, and went on to get subsidized diplomas from major universities, have ended up giving much more back to society than we ever took out. There are tens of millions of us -- we are your doctors, nurses, teachers, accountants, and scientists. We are also the core of this country's taxpaying middle and upper-middle class. You couldn't run this country without us.
My experience has been that most people who foment about government creating dependency usually have their own personal stories about getting ahead with government help. If you got a decent public education, have been cared for in a public hospital, drive on public roads, take a mortgage interest deduction on your house, went to college after military service, or get farming, ranching or SBA help, you are also a beneficiary of government handouts. Take the mote out of your own eye before you start criticizing others, please.
"--either that or you married well."
As a matter of fact, I did. Because I was well-educated and productive, I was able to attract a husband whose family is in the oil business. If you want to talk about people with a debilitating dependence on government welfare -- oh, please, let's start with the oil industry.
"You accuse me of ignoring decades of data showing the success of government programs. Yet the first thing out of your mouth is that we need more money for education."
Um, no, actually. I did not say that. (It helps if you actually *read* the posts before responding to them.)
20% of all school kids are dyslexic. We know how to remediate their problems, and enable them to achieve their economic potential. We know it costs a total of $30-50K per kid to do this. We also know, conclusively, what happens when we don't -- and that we could close 2/3 of our jails if we did. What's so difficult about this?
And, while we're at it, how does it serve "family values" to ask a working-class couple to scrounge up that kind of money -- which, for most American families, is more than their life savings -- to provide the needed treatment on their own? Should Mom leave the other kids at home, and go back to work to pay for it? Maybe Dad should just take a third job. Or perhaps they could move out of the house, live in the city park, and save on the rent. I'm sure Jesus would agree that it's all worth it if it keeps their souls pure from the taint of "dependency." We are not, after all, our brother's keepers.
Everybody knows our schools are screwed up. They sure as heck abandoned my kid. But sentencing up to one-fifth of the nation's children to a life in the justice system because they might wind up as "dependent" is just stupid.
posted on 05.17.2005 12:56 PM70
gone at last
two-thirds of our jails are filled because of unremediated dyslexia? I will read your posts more carefully if you promise to read them, too.
Absolutely incredible.
posted on 05.17.2005 1:38 PM71
I think it's interesting that to so many of you Christian and secular are mutually exclusive.
Is it not possible to be a Christian but believe that the government should be secular-- meaning expressing no faith and showing no favortism for one faith over another? Or imposing a particular faith's view on everyone? What if this were a predominantly Muslim country? or Jewish? Would you still want religion and government to be so cozy with one another?
Same goes for government schools. If you want Christian education, that's great, but don't expect public schools to provide religious education or a Christian perspective, that is your job. As for what public schools teach, they should teach about what exists in our society, like it or not. If a public school health class acknowledges that there are different kinds of families in the world, including gay couples, living together in monogamous relationships, raising children, married in some states and in several countries, how can you object to the teaching of this fact? It is your responsibility as parents to teach your children your beliefs, to say what is wrong/right because your religious beliefs dicate so. It is your job at home to guide your children's beliefs, it is the school's job to educate and inform them about reality.
What I find silly is the idea that banning any mention of gay people somehow makes them disappear, makes it so your kids will never know about them. The truth is the gays are gaining acceptance. Why? Because they are fighting for traditional values now-- marriage, family, they want the same responsibilities as heterosexuals. You might not like the way their family looks or think they will ever be equal to yours, but they've changed from fighting for free sex to marriage and family rights. How is that not better for our society? healthier? safer?
posted on