US and UK Christians and Politics

[The Undiscovered Country]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
Matt,

Income is property.

But, I think, in order to judge whether taxation is in violation of property rights, the question "What is the tax money used for" is as important as "How is the tax money collected".

So where does that leave 'render to Caesar that which is Caesars?' becuase the point behind that question to Jesus was that some of the tax was used for purposes that the Jews definately objected to-such as oppressing them. Jesus' response was that the tax should be paid anyway.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Jesus said to render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and to God what is God's. Obviously, then, Ceasar doesn't have unlimited authority to define what is his. His answer did not specifically define the parameters, other than to declare that ceasar and God are not to be confused with one another.

 

[Matt Black]

I think you'll find that Caesar did have that authority; part of the exercise of that authority was behind the Jewish revolt of 66AD. Had Jesus and Paul been around then, doubtless they would have condemned the revolt, based on what they said and wrote elsewhere in Scripture. Also, John the Baptist did not tell the tax collectores to stop collecting taxes because they violate capitalist notions of private property (partly because such notions did not then exist!); he told them to be fiar in their dealings.

So, differences in definitions of 'property' aside, I don't think one can argue from Scripture that tax collection - for whatever purpose, is morally suspect. Inconvenient, annoying, irritating,etc, yes, 'wrong' ,no

Yours in Christ

Matt

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...I don't think one can argue from Scripture that tax collection - for whatever purpose, is morally suspect. ...

Cetainly you must admit that the "for whatever purpose" part will not stand up. The publicans and tax collectors were clearly considered sinful people based on their abusive practices. Not because of legitimate taxation, but illegitimate taxation...thereby affirming the point that taxation is not scripturally an unliminted right.

 

[Matt Black]

No, they were considered sinful because they collected more tax than they were supposed to - and pocketed the difference. Hence John's exhortation to them in Luke 3:12-13

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Right.

As agents of the government, they made their own decision as to the use of tax money. Today's politicians are just more sophisticated...they use it to their own benefit through a maze of "programs" that end up giving them, and their friends, money and power while maintining an appearnce of legality.

Admittedly, this does not address the core issue of what the taxes may be used for.

But I still can't believe that you think the gov't has the right to tax for any purpose that it deems desirable.

 

[Matt Black]

I think we have to be wary of blurring the distinction between what is legal and what we consider to be moral. The tax collectors weren't just collecting money for possibly immoral ends; they were being downright illegal, fraudulent and corrupt in the way they were collecting it. We may like to believe that what our politicians do with our tax dollars and pounds should be illegal, but it isn't, and we have to either campaign and vote to change the law in that regard or put up with it.

On the point of differences between evangelicals here and the US, I can I suppose cite no plainer example than that of the Baptist Church my wife and I were in yesterday; my wife's home church. West Croydon Baptist is in south London in a relatively poor, multi-ethnic neighbourhood; it describes itself as a 'multi-cultural' church and, although there are large numbers of white members, the majority are black. Although these members are probably as socially, theologically and sexually conservative as you get (many of the black members even adhere to a strict dress code, maintain strict discipline at home and would be disgusted by any discussion of homosexuality) and yet would not dream of voting for the Conservative Party but would vote Labour or Lib Dem, along with most of their non-Christian neighbours. The reason: the church undertakes a large amount of social action work, particularly with refugees in the locality and gives generously from its own resources financially, but they know that is but a drop in the ocean in meeting the needs they see all around them and they know that their efforts have to be complemented and supplemented by the government to meet those needs anywhere near adequately (if they were a wealthy church it might be a different story but they're not) and they know that the Conservatives will cut back on those kind of welfare programs whereas Labour and the Lib Dems probably won't.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Does the government just pick the money off of trees?

 

[Matt Black]

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[dean198]

Although these members are probably as socially, theologically and sexually conservative as you get (many of the black members even adhere to a strict dress code, maintain strict discipline at home and would be disgusted by any discussion of homosexuality) and yet would not dream of voting for the Conservative Party but would vote Labour or Lib Dem, along with most of their non-Christian neighbours. The reason: the church undertakes a large amount of social action work, particularly with refugees in the locality and gives generously from its own resources financially, but they know that is but a drop in the ocean in meeting the needs they see all around them and they know that their efforts have to be complemented and supplemented by the government to meet those needs anywhere near adequately (if they were a wealthy church it might be a different story but they're not) and they know that the Conservatives will cut back on those kind of welfare programs whereas Labour and the Lib Dems probably won't.

Matt - no different here....the African Americans will vote for the wicked Dems who are destroying the fabric of American life with secularisation and socialisation of all aspects of American life - yet for the empty promise of more handouts from the government they would vote for people who support federally funded mass murder of the unborn, gay marriage (which WILL open the floodgates to more perversion in society) etc etc. I even had a friend vote Lib Dems - a white pentecostal if you will - in the '97 election in the UK - because he couldn't bring himself 'to vote tory.' I honestly wonder about such 'christians' sometimes.

 

[Matt Black]

The difference here Dean is twofold: first, as I'm sure you remember from the UK, the Conservatives are NOT pledged to reform the abortion laws or reduce NHS funding specifically on that point; abortion bills are always voted on as free votes and are therefore not party-political as in the US. Secondly, many of the voters whose Christianity you so forcefully doubt who vote Labour and Lib Dem are on minimum and near-minimum wage and welfare benefits themselves, and voting Conservative for them would be akin to turkeys voting for an early Christmas or Thanksgiving. Plus they vote thus for the more altruistic reasons referred to in my penultimate post. So, so much for your 'true Christians(TM) only vote Tory' implication

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[The Undiscovered Country]

It does seem to me that there is no inherent reason why the right should be linked with pro-life and anti-homosexuality stances any more than the left. If history had been different, it is just as feasible that the right would have opposed such stances on a liberatian basis whilst the left would have supported such stances becuase it is entirely consistent with an interventionist state that has a high view of humainity and sets clear standards of right and wrong in terms of how people should act and how human beings should be treated. The right's attachment ot such issues in the US seems to me to be far more based on a combinaiton of historical political events and political expediency than any clear philosophical link.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Matt Black:


Yours in Christ

Matt

It was in reference to your earlier post about conservative UK Christians voting for social welfare, because "...they know that is but a drop in the ocean in meeting the needs they see all around them and they know that their efforts have to be complemented and supplemented by the government to meet those needs anywhere near adequately..."

Government can only get money from the people. So, I always wonder why folks think that the government has far more resources to care for the poor than does the private sector.

Again, the church and individuals should do their job caring for the poor, and the gov't should get out of it.

 

[Matt Black]

The difference is that the governement cares more financially for the poor than the private sector does. When the private sector starts matching government welfare spending pound for pound, then we can start realistically talking about the government beginning to give up that job. Can you see that happening? Nope? Neither can I

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Not overnight. But we should head that direction. It is a "chicken/egg" situation...who goes first? I help the poor, and if:

1) there were more poor people around me and
2) I had more money because the gov't didn't confiscate it befoire I could give it to someone,

I'd help more. I don't think I'm unusual...I think most people would help a needy neighbor.

How much nicer than having the government take it and then saying "not my problem...let the government handle it".