Whose Side Are You On?

[james423]

I found this editorial in the Frontlines of Freedom newsletter put out by the North American Religious Liberty Association quite interesting and quite thought-provoking, considering some of the discussions or "intense debates" I've seen on this forum. James Standish is writing...

"There is an old folk song from the days of the battles between miners and industrialists entitled “whose side are you on?” I heard it on the radio a few weeks ago, and although the style and sentiment come from a bygone age the chorus of the song has stuck with me. Whose side am I on?

"I get this question quite often particularly when I go out to speak in churches. Listeners are often trying to detect whether our religious liberty message has a liberal bias to it, or whether we are conservative. We must be neither.

"As Christians, we cannot afford to let a political ideology mold our approach to public policy. Rather, we need to evaluate the issues through the prism of the principles Jesus Christ gave to us. And so far, they haven’t created a political party that does a very good job of reflecting the principles of Christ.

"Today we have a real problem in the church. The problem is that some of us see ourselves as Democrats first, Christians second; some of us see ourselves as Republicans first, Christians second. This can’t be. As Christians, we have to be Christians first in everything we do, and Christianity must be the standard against which we measure everything - including public policy. From efforts to curb religious liberty to the legalized killing of children in the womb, from responsibly caring for our poor and elderly to ensuring those who work receive an honest wage for their endeavors, from the exploitation of society by the tobacco and alcohol industries to challenges to the institution of marriage - the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy give us the tools to evaluate the policy positions of those who desire to lead our nation.

"While Christians may disagree on precisely how to apply these principles, we must agree that our allegiance to Christ comes before our allegiance to a political party or ideology.

"So, whose side am I on? Whose side are you on? I pray first, foremost and forever, it is the side of Jesus Christ."

[olger]

"While Christians may disagree on precisely how to apply these principles, we must agree that our allegiance to Christ comes before our allegiance to a political party or ideology.

"So, whose side am I on? Whose side are you on? I pray first, foremost and forever, it is the side of Jesus Christ."

olger says Amen

[Nicodema]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

james423 said:

"As Christians, we cannot afford to let a political ideology mold our approach to public policy. Rather, we need to evaluate the issues through the prism of the principles Jesus Christ gave to us.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

On it's own, an excellent statement. Too bad he didn't stop there ...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"... From efforts to curb religious liberty to the legalized killing of children in the womb, from responsibly caring for our poor and elderly to ensuring those who work receive an honest wage for their endeavors, from the exploitation of society by the tobacco and alcohol industries to challenges to the institution of marriage - the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy give us the tools to evaluate the policy positions of those who desire to lead our nation."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Nope, he had to go and ruin it by making it ALL TOO CLEAR what "side" he was on. []http://forum.projectshapeshift.net/images/smiles/icon_grim.gif[/]

[Dr. Shane]

I started a thread somewhat related to this subject. Christians Can Disagree

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

As Christians, we cannot afford to let a political ideology mold our approach to public policy

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree completely. As members of a democracy, we are participants in the government. Even if we don't vote. By not voting we are actually voting to let others control the government. So it is not correct to say, as Christians we should have no political opinions. However we should not let political idealogues direct us to how we should vote. Our decisions needs to be based on what we believe Christ would have us do. All too often that means choose the best of two bad canidates.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"While Christians may disagree on precisely how to apply these principles, we must agree that our allegiance to Christ comes before our allegiance to a political party or ideology.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is key. As Christians we can disagree on how to apply principles. Some of us believe the best way to reduce abortion is to ban it, others believe the best way is to simply restrict it. Some believe the best way to help the poor is through welfare programs. Others believe it is through funding charity and faith-based organizations. Some support educational vouchers while others support charter schools and others support a state-funded monopoly on education. We can still be Christians and disagree on political issues.

One of the things I admire most about the Adventist church is that it doesn't tell its members how to vote. Although the Pacific Union Conference Religious Liberty department went too far in the past presidencial election and should hang down their heads in shame. They distributed an article the Sabbath before the election with a clear purpose on impacting the outcome of the election.

[gina i]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

By not voting we are actually voting to let others control the government. So it is not correct to say, as Christians we should have no political opinions. However we should not let political idealogues direct us to how we should vote. Our decisions needs to be based on what we believe Christ would have us do. All too often that means choose the best of two bad canidates.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't like that guilt of not voting, blah blah blah. You know, look what happened. GB got voted & it wasn't by popular vote either. So really, it doesn't matter now.

I'm not American, but I pay more attention to american politics than Canadian. I voted once in Canada. It doesn't matter who is voted, they are all crooked. So to me, it's like, vote for whoever, because either way they'll screw something up!

Just look what's happening now, or has been happening.. No seperation of church & state. It's all becoming one. It's very sad. Whatever happened to seperation of church & state? It's in the bible. And these so called 'christians' in government obviously haven't read their bibles. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/Falling.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/catfight.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

In the United States there is more seperation of church and state now than ever before. Fifty years ago there was Christian prayer in public school and the Bible was used in many classrooms.

[james423]

A lot of times those conservative Christians take matters into their own hands. Right now, a "conservative" lady here in Dayton is in court for her latest problem - walking into a Spanish-owned shop, tearing down a flag, and slamming the door on the way out so hard that she broke a hinge. But "conservative" Christians are showing up to picket for her as she faces a court trial for her actions.

It seems to me that both political parties are gearing up to suppress freedom of expression or life for those whom they dislike because of religion or nationality. But I still feel it's my duty as a citizen to vote the best I can even when one party seems to make a lot of wrong moves and the best the other party can do is constantly oppose them and belittle them in place of a decent agenda and plan of action.

[Dr. Shane]

There have always been radicals in society that wanted to do something. The idea of outlawing alcohol seems pretty radical to many of us today and yet it is something that Ellen White supported. Yet the courts are to protect us from the radicals on both sides. The case can be made that the courts have not been protecting us from the liberal radicals but have been providing extra protect from the conservative radicals.

Abortion on demand has been protected by the courts and not only does it infringe on the rights of the unborn fetus, it infringes on a married man's rights. A woman can get an abortion not only without her husband's consent but without his knowledge!

For a number of years the courts didn't even allow a student to fold his hands and pray before eating his lunch in a public school. Thankfully that has been changed.

There are numerous examples of extreame court decisions but for the most part the courts have been protecting us from the extreamists in our society. Now we don't know if they will continue or not and that is our real concern.