Christians' Proper Role in Politics Debated

Well, this is supposed to be about the role of the Christian in politics. I used the Jew because we have the Scriptures of the OT in common, and I think that I've shown why the Christian view of the OT must prevail in public policy. The Jewish view of the OT commands that we Christians must be stoned. Let's leave the Jew and go to the Muslim.

How can Islam be given religious liberty equal to that of Christians? When they kill a Christian they believe they are doing God a service, but we believe they are committing murder. This is a moral evil and punishable by the state. Do you see now how the government is to act as the defender of the church? That non-Christians can reap the benefits of this protection is to be expected, "for even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table."

I think it should be obvious that giving equal religious freedom for all religions is ultimately unworkable. Furthermore, it was never the intent of the 1st Amendment (you all speak as if Baptists wrote it).

The purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the establishment of an national denomination, but the states had wide latitude to encourage or even financially support a state church. Remember, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, 12 of the 13 colonies already had state churches. If the purpose was to eliminate all government involvement in religion, the First Amendment would never have gotten through.

A complete separation like many of you are espousing will only open the door for the destruction of this nation and the ultimate government persecution of the church.

[ July 10, 2002, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Modern day Judaism is really not a stickler for a literal interpretation since it reivented itself after AD70. Israel gives great freedom to Christians though it does restrict foreign missions to a point.

You used an extremist statement. Most Muslims in the USA are law abiding citizens. The ones doing the killing is not typical of the average muslim.

No, I do not. Your use of Romans 13 cannot be used since at the time Paul was writing, the Roman Empire one of the most pagan empires in history ruled.

Uh,...the credit does go to Baptists. James Madison saw how Baptists were being arrested in Virginia for preaching and not belonging to the Episcopal Church which was the state church of Virginia. He even met with James Leland and the 1st Amendment is in there primarily because of Baptists. I don't see why it is unworkable. Christianity has prospered under the US Constitution and is only floundering now because of the superficiality of American Churches. The First Amendment is not the reason False religion is growing...the failure of Churches to obey the great commission is.

The Founders had no concept of state churches and you imply this Country was originaly Christian which is a myth built up by hack historians such as David Barton. Your views are that of Puritan Religious liberty but not of Baptist religious liberty.

I fear the day a Puritan Theonomy type system rules over the USA when Muslim Mosques are torn down, Jewish synagogues bulldozed, Buddhists and Hindus standing before "Christian" Religious courts. Witches burned, Jehovah Witnesses in stocks, Sidewalk executions of Roman Catholics. Oh, what a picture of "Christian "America! Take a look at Europe's State churches today and you will see the Future of American Christianity...dead. Whatever happened to believing the Holy Spirit can transform society through the preaching of the Gospel? Is not relying on the Government to do our job show a lack of faith in the Gospel we preach?

 

Besides, one might take a look at who's in the minority in America. There are more Catholics than any other denomination, and they are steadily increasing their share.

If we removed religious liberty, it might not work out the way some folks would like to think.

Suppose the people who want complete religious liberty decided to make a small exception for those who don't?

[ July 10, 2002, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

I asked How can Islam be given religious liberty equal to that of Christians? When they kill a Christian they believe they are doing God a service, but we believe they are committing murder. This is a moral evil and punishable by the state.

To which one replied: You used an extremist statement. Most Muslims in the USA are law abiding citizens. The ones doing the killing is not typical of the average muslim.

This is not extremist at all. Again, Muslims here don't kill Christians because they're not allowed to, and those who believe their scriptures do not command it simply do not believe their scriptures. One only needs to look at Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the list goes on to know what Islam teaches.

Trying to judge a religion's sentiments by the restricted practice of it in a Christian land is futile. Go to the nations where it is the law. Aren't we in a war over this very thing?

And no, we shouldn't rely on the Government to protect our freedoms. We are to hold the government to it. That's what the Second Amendment is for. And certainly, what is preached in the pulpits is critical to the stability of a free state.

[ July 10, 2002, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Your use of Romans 13 cannot be used since at the time Paul was writing, the Roman Empire one of the most pagan empires in history ruled.

And yet, the Apostles everywhere disobeyed the "powers that be" when commanded to do something the Government had no authority to command.

When it says the powers that be are ordained of God, then that means those magistrates are under and accountable to the law of God. "Let EVERY soul be subject..." Otherwise we have no right to resist oppression and tyranny neither here nor abroad.

Romans 13 also outlines the duties of civil authority.

This is NOT an endorsement of secular authority. In short, it says secular authority does not exist.

[ July 10, 2002, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Yes, you are correct on Romans 13 but the Law of the land is the U.S. Constitution and like it or not we still live in the best country on earth.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.--Romans 13:3-4

All this scriptures say is that all governments authority is derived from God not a command for these Governments to enforce Old Testament judicial law. As Christians we are to obey the law as long as it does not conflict with our faith. The Old Testament judicial law was given only to the Old Testament nation of Israel.

I have no doubt about those radical Islamic governments ...but what does that do with religious liberty? except that you seem to want us to become a Christianized version of Sudan or the Taliban? (Am I wrong?) "Christian" State government in the 1500 and 1700's committed similar if not a times worse atrocities as these and they would do it again.

[ July 10, 2002, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

I have no doubt about those radical Islamic governments ...but what does that do with religious liberty?

My point is that the First Amendment does not guarantee equal liberty to non-Christian religions. Christianity can operate freely, but Judaism, Islam, Witchcraft and other sorts of paganism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. are only tolerated to a certain point. (The state will not allow the JW conviction against blood transfusions to interfere with the saving of a life.)

 

I guess you must be pretty upset with Madison and Jefferson, who set up the Bill of Rights. They both were of the opinion that it completely protected all faiths.

Madison very reasonably argued that if Christians could be favored over nonChristians, the law could just as easily favor one Christian sect over another. He wrote the First Amendment to preclude that possibility. (James Madison -Against Religious Assessments)

And the courts have so interpreted his intent. If you really feel this way, why live in a country based on ideas that are so repugnant to you?

[ July 12, 2002, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

Baptist Believer, thanks for the clarification. I largely agree with much taht you say, and misunderstood some of what you previously posted. I do think that our government and laws should reflect Christian values, as they once did, and as the founders set them up...don't you agree?

As to the above quote from your post, I couldn't agree more. The Christian Coalition is an embarrassment, mainly because it has been mainly an arm of the Republican party, twisting the truth to make Republicans look good when they are in reality little different than Democrats (GW Bush, for example). THAT has resulted in many discouraged Christians who were mislead by these crooked voters guides.

 

Good point. This can be verified by reading the state constitutions set up by the many of the founders. In many cases the original state constitutions required that state officials be Christian, and/or believe in one God and a state of future reward or punishment, and/or be Protestand, etc. etc. The whole frame of reference was Christianity, and as you so well point out it is obviously a practical impossibility to afford equal treatment to any or all religions.

 

It was the intent of the founders to have no government involvement at all in religion, to aid it, or to obstruct it. Madison very plainly stated this in a number of articles, as did Jefferson.

The Constitution originally only guaranteed rights of citizens against the federal government, but allowed the states to abuse their citizens if they chose to do so.

That loophole was closed by the XIVth amendment, which prohibited states from taking away one's liberties.

It should be remembered that the Constitution does not grant liberties to us; it merely enumerates some of the liberties that are ours. Hence, it was not granting the citizens of the states new rights, but was merely compelling the states to recognize rights that the people had always had.

Hence:

and

Are an absolute prohibition against what you'd like to see happen. It isn't going to happen, unless you manage to repeal amendments I and XIV.