American Christians in Politics and Government

[InvisibleBallots]

"But American Christians, I must say to you as I said to the Roman Christians years ago, "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind." Or, as I said to the Phillipian Christians, "Ye are a colony of heaven." This means that although you live in the colony of time, your ultimate allegiance is to the empire of eternity. You have a dual citizenry. You live both in time and eternity; both in heaven and earth. Therefore, your ultimate allegiance is not to the government, not to the state, not to nation, not to any man-made institution. The Christian owes his ultimate allegiance to God, and if any earthly institution conflicts with God's will it is your Christian duty to take a stand against it. You must never allow the transitory evanescent demands of man-made institutions to take precedence over the eternal demands of the Almighty God."

Does this sort of thing belong in American politics?

[Vincardog]

1. Only if I get to head the Theocracy. aWoL should recuse himself if he

wants to lead a church or a death cult.

[stray cat]

2. "I was just following orders" should never be acceptable.

I question anyone whose ultimate allegiance is to anyone or any government institution or state. I want leaders who are ethical and can think and not just follow orders. Secularists can certainly exhibit blind faith as well as anyone else. Blind obedience or faith in anything is dangerous.

[sangh0]

3. Of course it belongs in politics

In a free society, people are free to think and say what they wish. I don't know when (or why) liberals began to believe that we should start putting limits on political debate.

[InvisibleBallots]

11. maybe it's not liberalism

maybe those trying to limit the political debate in such a way aren't liberal. good point, sangh0

[datasuspect]

4. absolutely not

when you see the entire world as god's kingdom, it's hard to differentiate between the secular and the sacred.

it's even more difficult when you believe it your duty to spread "the good news."

the problem is, not everyone is religious and they don't want to live in a "spirit-filled" world.

[InvisibleBallots]

5. what is the difference between the secular and the sacred, btw?

Is there some specific dividing line?

[datasuspect]

6. there is a secular world

and a sacred world. these terms are used as descriptors and are not equivalent to concepts like "separation of illinois and iowa is the state line."

you see, you can demarcate boundaries between states and countries. with ideas and ideologies you have to use your imagination and reasoning ability.

the difference between secular/sacred can be distinguished in lots of ways.

the activities of evangelical preachers who get out the vote for bush shows a blurring of the division between the sacred and secular.

attempts to introduce creationism as an equivalent explanation for biological changes over time also illustrates the difference.

[InvisibleBallots]

7. what about, say

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. pushing to get out the vote among Black congregations to support civil rights? Does that blur the division between the sacred and secular?

[datasuspect]

8. it can

i'm not sure if he conducted his activities under the auspices of a 501(c)(3) charitable organization or if the exemption requirements were the same back then.

however many churches, which ARE 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, do involve themselves in campaign activity; maybe not for the RNC or other political organizations, but i've heard preachers endorse candidates to their congregations before and know that churches were involved in getting out the vote for a dubya. this to me constitutes a form of campaign activity.

part of the requirements for exemption under 501(c)(3) stipulates that the organization not be involved in campaign activity.

nonetheless churches get around this by "substantial activity" and "educational activity" tests.

if i'm not mistaken, advocating civil rights and voter rights (which, among other activities, were what MLK involved himself with primarily) is a lot different from endorsing specific political candidates.

but, when you have the president endorsing his specific brand of christianity publicly and using that as a primary basis for his agenda, (and as a test for cabinet choices, judicial appointments, and the federal legistlation he signs), i think that is an unwarranted intrusion of religion into the state.

like i said, NOT EVERYONE IS RELIGIOUS.

[InvisibleBallots]

9. maybe

"advocating civil rights and voter rights (which, among other activities, were what MLK involved himself with primarily) is a lot different from endorsing specific political candidates."

Of course, the Republicans would say that advocating the "rights of the unborn" is a lot different from endorsing specific political candidates, too.

Unless you can make a clear distinction between a "religious" ideology and a "secular" ideology, I don't think it's possible. And of course, any time you try to make that clean distinction, half of the people are going to disagree with you.

[datasuspect]

10. well

it's possible for a non-religious person or a religious person who is so moderate that they veer perilously close to apostasy (when compared to a strict reading of scripture).

i do know religion has absolutely no place in a public school.

i know i would put more faith in an engineer who relies on sound scientific and mathematical principles rather than scripture when he or she calculates load bearing properties of steel girders or sway when designing a bridge.

and so on and so forth.

that's where you can find the distinctions. they are rather clear. maybe the ideas can't be expressed in terms of absolutes or dichotomies (black and white thinking, either/or), but that is a problem with an individual person's perceptions, not the ideas themselves.

sometimes things can be both/and with a smattering of either/or.

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. Who said it?

They certainly don't speak for me, or for my Church.

[InvisibleBallots]

13. the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Here:

But American Christians, I must say to you as I said to the Roman Christians years ago, "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind." Or, as I said to the Phillipian Christians, "Ye are a colony of heaven." This means that although you live in the colony of time, your ultimate allegiance is to the empire of eternity. You have a dual citizenry. You live both in time and eternity; both in heaven and earth. Therefore, your ultimate allegiance is not to the government, not to the state, not to nation, not to any man-made institution. The Christian owes his ultimate allegiance to God, and if any earthly institution conflicts with God's will it is your Christian duty to take a stand against it. You must never allow the transitory evanescent demands of man-made institutions to take precedence over the eternal demands of the Almighty God.

I understand that you have an economic system in America known as Capitalism. Through this economic system you have been able to do wonders. You have become the richest nation in the world, and you have built up the greatest system of production that history has ever known. All of this is marvelous. But Americans, there is the danger that you will misuse your Capitalism. I still contend that money can be the root of all evil. It can cause one to live a life of gross materialism. I am afraid that many among you are more concerned about making a living than making a life. You are prone to judge the success of your profession by the index of your salary and the size of the wheel base on your automobile, rather than the quality of your service to humanity.

The misuse of Capitalism can also lead to tragic exploitation. This has so often happened in your nation. They tell me that one tenth of one percent of the population controls more than forty percent of the wealth. Oh America, how often have you taken necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes. If you are to be a truly Christian nation you must solve this problem. You cannot solve the problem by turning to communism, for communism is based on an ethical relativism and a metaphysical materialism that no Christian can accept. You can work within the framework of democracy to bring about a better distribution of wealth. You can use your powerful economic resources to wipe poverty from the face of the earth. God never intended for one group of people to live in superfluous inordinate wealth, while others live in abject deadening poverty. God intends for all of his children to have the basic necessities of life, and he has left in this universe "enough and to spare" for that purpose. So I call upon you to bridge the gulf between abject poverty and superfluous wealth.

I would that I could be with you in person, so that I could say to you face to face what I am forced to say to you in writing. Oh, how I long to share your fellowship.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermonsFrame.htm

[regnaD kciN]

14. In other words...

GOTCHA!

:yourock: