Political Christianity. Legislating morality?

[Taylor Barrett]

When the people of Israel demanded that Samuel make a King over them, God told Samuel that the people wanted a human King because the rejected Himself (God) as King. So Samuel begrudgingly gave the people what they wanted, and made Saul King over them. After doing so, Samuel explained to the people of Israel the mighty deeds that God had done for them, and the people then realized how evil they were and how great their sin was in asking for a human king when they already had God as their King.

In the New Testament, we see Jesus saying "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" and Paul telling us to be obediently subject to governing authorities.

Fast forward to modern day, and we have the question= If we are going to vote, then what kind of policies and politicians should we be voting for? Should we be trying to enforce morality? If so, which morals should we enforce and which ones should we not enforce? On what bases can we justify voting to enforce laws against murder but not laws against blasphemy? Is not blasphemy against the God who created us a much greater offense then killing someone who deserved to die anyway (we all, being sinners, deserve to die) ?


The way I see it, we are called to forgive, and to never seek revenge but "When someone strikes your left cheek, turn to them the other cheek also (so they may strike that one as well). And we are called to give to charity, but we are told "Do not resist an evil person". How can we justify forcing anyone to do anything, whether it be give to charity (taxation), or submit to our own morality ? Does God Himself even do that, or does he let everyone live their life however they seem fit, whether that be murderous, or blasphemous, or any other manner of evil. So then who are we to play God and exert punishments and force participation in our moral programs when God Himself doesnt even do that?

Someone might say, "Well, without a certain level of laws and justice, the life of man would be nasty, brutish, and short; and murder and discrimination and tyranny would run rampant"

But what does Jesus say about this? We are blessed when we are poor, blessed when we are persecuted, blessed when we suffer.

 

[james1523]

I think Christians, particularly fundamentalist evangelicals, should see the bigger picture and overcome the flawed idea that morality is exclusive to the Christian religion or the 10 commandments of Moses. In fact the US congress has stated that America was not founded on the Christian religion but a religion which pre-dates both Judaism and Christianity.

The US congress recognizes the 7 Noahide laws which are the seven universal laws of man as listed by the Talmud (Sanh. 56a):
1. Idolatry
2. Murder
3. Theft
4. Sexual promiscuity
5. Blasphemy
6. Animal Cruelty
7. A just judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws.


“The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation that was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the U. S., George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the U.S. of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day.”

Note that the penalty for breaking these laws is beheading-

“With but few exceptions, the punishment meted out to a Noachid (=non-Jew) for the transgression of any of the seven laws is decapitation” (Jewish Encyclopedia, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., page 648-9.). This is based on Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a.


A set of moral laws imposed upon a population enforced by beheading - sounds familiar?


The only thing which stands in the way of these laws is the US Constitution giving freedom of religion.
If those protections are removed.. then....

 

[Taylor Barrett]

I dont know what your point is James.

The one thing I would say in response to your post, though, is that every morality outside of Jesus Christ is a man-made morality, and idolatry and self-righteousness.

And, also, that "fundamentalist" = person who adheres to the fundamentals; and "fundamentals" are the CORE, basic concepts. Hence, any REAL Christian must in fact be a fundamentalist, or else they are a heretic (because they do not adhere to the basic, core realities)

 

[james1523]

I dont know what your point is James.

The one thing I would say in response to your post, though, is that every morality outside of Jesus Christ is a man-made morality, and idolatry and self-righteousness.

My point is that the efforts to impose a degree of morality upon American citizens by various religious groups is effectively to de-constitutionalize and therefore de-Americanize America.

1) The USA was originally founded on 7 laws of morality (which included blasphemy) but these laws were found to be unconstitutional as they take away the rights and freedom of the individual. In their strictest interpretation, the enforcement of these moral laws includes the death penalty.

The USA was never really founded upon the 10 commandments as many assume, and this is obvious when we realize that the US constitution never enforced the keeping of the Sabbath. The US constitution violates (or allows one to violate) a number of the 10 commandments.

2) the US constitution prevents the laws of morality from being enforced as it protects the rights and freedom of the individual. The US constitution is therefore against morality.
3) We cannot have both individual freedoms and enforced morality at the same time.
4) Enforced morality implies that the rights of the individual are removed and it is therefore against the US Constitution to impose any kind of morality upon its citizens.

Which one pleases God more - a) to adhere to a strict code of morality at the expense of individual freedom?, b) or to allow a person their individual rights and freedoms but at the expense of morality?

The Biblical evidence is that God places more emphasis on morality over individual freedoms, and the only way to achieve enforced morality is to amend or remove the Constitution removing the freedom of religion. In essence, the United States is founded upon the principle of freedom over morality, and to remove that freedom would mean that the United States would cease to exist as we know it. Such a situation might please the various religious groups who can practice their own form of religion in whatever way they choose (with whatever sense of morality they desire), yet these religious groups would essentially have to give up their American identity. This would effectively cause the USA as we know it to cease, and the situation would revert back to pre-1787 America with various independent colonies dwelling on the same continent but under various different laws of morality. We could say then that a wish to enforce a degree of morality upon all American citizens is a desire to go back to pre-1787 America and end the USA as we know it today.

There is a question to ponder - why do we have laws in society? The purpose of laws are not really to give a sense of morality, nor to make anyone a better person or punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The purpose is essentially to create and sustain an economy, it's Capitalism 101, morality hardly comes into it at all. That is why it is acceptable for a country to invade another killing hundreds of thousands of people, but not acceptable for a person to conduct insider trading and gain millions of dollars. At a moral level, killing hundreds of thousands of people is far worse than manipulating a market. It is essentially the dominant class (which in Capitalism is the richest of the rich), who decide what is legally acceptable and what is not. It is considered acceptable for many people to die due to corporate negligence, greed or malpractice under the name of "risk" or "accident" or "lack of scientific evidence", but not acceptable for a poor person to steal a hotdog when they are hungry. We can see that the "laws for morality" argument does not hold in many cases, as laws in society are not really created upon moral principles, but economic principles.

 

[james1523]

And, also, that "fundamentalist" = person who adheres to the fundamentals; and "fundamentals" are the CORE, basic concepts. Hence, any REAL Christian must in fact be a fundamentalist, or else they are a heretic (because they do not adhere to the basic, core realities)

Agree but I mean a fundamentalist is a person who adheres to the movement known as fundamentalism which arose in the late 1800's, early 1900's. But I mean any person who thinks morality belongs only to their particular religion, when it is not (e.g. Noah was not a Christian, and yet would be considered to be a moral person). An idea that without the 10 commandments or religious laws we are doomed, is a misguided view in my opinion, as there are many individuals and societies who have no religion and yet have a high degree of morality. Human morality is a relative concept and varies over time periods and cultures, certain things that are considered morally acceptable today were not morally acceptable so many years ago. God's morality is an absolute thing and centres on Jesus Christ, but the morality includes the 7 Noahide laws previously mentioned, the 10 commandments, the whole of the New Testament commands including the elevation of the 10 commandments into the thoughts and intents of the heart (e.g. murder and hate, adultery and lust etc).

 

[Taylor Barrett]

My question is this= what type of government do YOU support (what do you feel should be forced upon everyone) ? And how do you justify that with The Word of God?

 

[Strypes]

My question is this= what type of government do YOU support (what do you feel should be forced upon everyone) ? And how do you justify that with The Word of God?

On the eve of the mid-term elections here in the USA, I would like to hear your answer to your question Taylor.

When I vote tomorrow, my choices will be between me and God. God is the ultimate authority and it is to Him that I pledge my life my love and my loyalty.


The laws of this land are fickle.


You can murder a baby in his mother's womb and that is "ok" with the government, a legal "right" even.

But a child with cancer in the state of Georgia can not get treatment here (treatment that has been proven to work because he went to Colorado for a year) because the drug is a class one narcotic and illegal. (It is illegal because it works and is cheap to produce and the pharmaceutical companies (who own congress) would lose trillions if it were ever legalized and folks could grow it in their own backyard) ..

Sooooo...

What kind of government do I want and how would I justify it to you using the Bible?..

I want a government that honors God and cares for the people....(Love God above all and love each other)
I want a government that does justly, loves mercy and walks humbly with God.

So I want the opposite of what we have currently as every politician is in it for the money and the perks and not to serve the people that elect them.

What should be "forced" on everyone? Death and taxes of course!

 

[james1523]

An attempt to force any kind of religious morality on the people takes away individual rights and freedoms.

 

[Taylor Barrett]

The way I see it, any and every government policy is, in effect, coercion. Brute force, threatened by gun-point. Either you do what the government says, or face the consequences. And the consquences are jail, or even death. I do not think it is Biblical (New Covenant) for a human to use force to accomplish ANY goal, no matter how good intentioned or lofty in motive. Jesus tells us "Do not resist an evil person" and "If someone steals your things do not demand them back". A common theme throughout the entire New Testament is peaceful martyrdom; complete submissiveness, first to God, second to humans. I do not see any way in which I could biblically justify (New Covenant) the theft of people's resources to fund "good" causes like roads, police, military, etc. Nor do I see any way in which i could (biblically, New Covenant) justify setting rules and regulations over other peoples behaviors and either jailing them or killing them if they do not obey, even to the extent of murder, rape, theft, etc. Jesus had and has the full power to prevent all such behavior, yet he does not. And he didnt instruct us to either (In fact he says "Do not resist an evil person"). So, long story short, my own personal interpretation of the Bible (New covenant) is that, while we are definitely supposed to follow any and all pre-existing laws that do not contradict obedience to Jesus, we are not under any circumstance to try and impose a law of any kind over any one else. Which, taken right down to its fundamentals, means that we should reject all human government in favor of "anarchy", in the knowledge that ultimately God controls everything anyway; so in fact human government is not only futile, but as God told Samuel it is also a rejection of God as our King.