Religion vs. Politics

[there buster]

Quote:

who teaches spiritual pearls of wisdom has a great dichotomy between their spiritual and temporal beliefs

And how would such a determination be made? It is my experience that most people's spiritual and temporal beliefs mirror each other. Indeed, usually unexamined assumptions form both.

On the other hand, a person guided by principle seems quite chaotic to the rule-minded individual.

If we state the difficulty as;

'how we think about God' does not match 'how we think about Politics'

the difficulty does not necessarily lie in the character.

The common element in both statements is 'how we think.' And therein lies the problem.

George Bernard Shaw (an atheist and a socialist, by the way) said, "Most people think once a year. I thought once a month and became famous."

Now, if we don't want to think, or don't want to face unpleasant facts, that my be a character issue. But thinking is a skill. It can be taught and it can be learned, but rarely does either one take place.

Most of our religious and political judgments are visceral. This is a good thing, if our viscera have been properly attuned.

And that is the topic of "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. Sorry to bring it up again, but it is really central to understanding this whole issue.

[Woody]

Which one of the following is a good spiritual and Christian belief ...

Teaching one to fish and having them pull themselves up by their boot straps which I would consider a Republican belief.

OR ... Giving them plenty of fish. Which I would consider a Democratic belief.

Is it possible for Christians to be on both sides of the issue.I know that Christians that are on the Republican side of this issue are called cruel and heartless. But I would propose that there can be Christians who fully believe in either approaches.

[Dr. Shane]

I think Jesus said to throw your net on the other side of the boat. Does that mean He was teaching them how to fish?

[Bravus]

I know it's probably Greek rather than Christian, but the idea of finding a healthy belance, rather than embracing either extreme, has some potential I think.

[Bravus]

Recognising that personal responsibility is crucial - in fact a person can't be truly helped without it - but also recognising that it's difficult to lift oneself by one's bootstraps when one doesn't even *have* boots...

[David Koot]

After some reflection, I see the outlines of a concept. Granting that we believe in separation of church and state. "We" not being the Christian majority, but certainly "we" as SDA's and as being familiar with Constitutional history and the intent of the Framers (speaking of which, even the absence of any religious belief or practice was intended to be protected, which is not the spin put out by some conservative Christian think tanks).

However, THAT is not the specific issue here. It is more subtle than that. The whole notion that one's religious beliefs inform his or her political views and decisions, is IMO very suspect, and inherently dangerous. There should be a total disconnect. The alternative would be a religious despotism--not one authored or propounded by elected representatives, but one brought about by the people.

Indeed, we understand that the national Sunday law will be enacted in response to the demands of the people! Legislators will yield to the clamor for a Sunday law.

Surely, we should not start down that road as SDA's. If we teach separation of church and state, then we should model it.

Dave

[Naomi]

Just tacking on here: I don't know if it is a denominational thing or not, but I suspect that no party will ever try to gain our vote because we could not agree on a political platform. Which is perhaps a good thing.

That being said, we do tend to judge our brothers/sisters spirituality by their political position.

That being said, the judging of a person’s spiritual walk is not exclusive to SDA’s, it is more-and-more apparent in all evangelical movements. I suspect that mindset will be a major factor in the Sunday Laws being enacted.

Just my thoughts...........

[there buster]

Actually, the principle is slightly different, and implicit in the story of Ruth.

Boaz took ten of the elders of the town and said, "Sit here," and they did so. 3 Then he said to the kinsman-redeemer, "Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech. 4 I thought I should bring the matter to your attention and suggest that you buy it in the presence of these seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, do so. But if you [a] will not, tell me, so I will know. For no one has the right to do it except you, and I am next in line.

This principle is that justice a)must be done, and b)must be seen to have been done.

In general the right is more concerned with a), while the left is more concerned with .

In addition there are the concepts of justice and mercy.

The right is more concerned with justice, while the left is more concerned with mercy.

The issue is always one of balance.

[Woody]

Quote:

Indeed, we understand that the national Sunday law will be enacted in response to the demands of the people! Legislators will yield to the clamor for a Sunday law.

David ... I would point out that the Sunday laws have already been passed and they have been held up "Nationally"

by the Supreme Court. It is national law that the Sunday Laws are acceptable laws of the land .

We do live in the time of the end.

[David Koot]

Perhaps you are referring to McGowan vs. Maryland, decided by the Warren court? True, that case ruled that Sunday laws such as the one before the court have secular purposes. However, other Sunday laws have been struck down.

I tend to see books such as GC pointing to an overtly religious purpose for a national Sunday, in the final crisis. No pretense about it.

[Dr. Shane]

What do we do with Ellen White telling us to vote for prohibition even if it meant voting on Sabbath?

[David Koot]

What??????????????????????????????

Please DO provide a cite for that one.

[there buster]

Quote:

The whole notion that one's religious beliefs inform his or her political views and decisions, is IMO very suspect, and inherently dangerous. There should be a total disconnect.

This is neither possible nor necessary. Our political judgments spring from the totality of our knowledge and experience.

The disconnect comes between the "what" we advocate, and the "why" we advocate it.

For example, one may oppose abortion as a religious conviction. But we keep forgetting that my religious conviction obligates me, not anyone else.

So IF we support legislation to regulate or ban abortion, our arguments must be based on -- in the U.S.-- constitutional and pragmatic grounds.

I said "IF" we support legislation to regulate or ban it because we do not support legislation to regulate worship, or conscience. Not all evil behavior can/should be outlawed. Lying-- except under oath or in some form of contract-- is not against the law. Nor should it be. The same with coveting. There are many such.

The only reason(s) to outlaw an activity is to demonstrate a civic necessity.

Quote:

The alternative would be a religious despotism--not one authored or propounded by elected representatives, but one brought about by the people.

But that's always the danger, in any form of government. Dispersing the sovereignty throughout the citizenry reduces but does not eliminate the problem. In our sinful world, power corrupts. By dispersing that power throughout the population-- as Adam Smith demonstrated in the economic realm--one man's selfishness almost always cancels outs someone else's. But since we live in a sinful world, there is always the chance that the selfishness of a majority or super majority aligns itself to corrupt the entire state.

Nazi Germany and today's Iran come to mind. It also happens to a lesser degree elsewhere, as [color:#3366FF]when a majority votes to take other's money or property to accomplish something in the interest of the many, but contrary to the interest of the few. This is especially dangerous when the end to be accomplished is driven by a moral or religious agenda which is not shared by all or nearly all.

[Woody]

Quote:

What do we do with Ellen White telling us to vote for prohibition even if it meant voting on Sabbath?

I am with you David ... I sincerely doubt that Ellen White would make such a statement.

[Stan]

What do we do with Ellen White telling us to vote for prohibition even if it meant voting on Sabbath?

Is it not lawful to do good on the Sabbath?

In this case, would a person sit snuggly at home knowing they did not do something that has done significant damage to homes, families and lives.

We can say what we want about 'freedom' but the jails were empty, and wife abuse was significantly smaller..

[Woody]

What is lawful for Ellen White is not necessarily the same as being lawful for me. Ellen White and I seem to differ on a few issues.

I am with you Stan. But I am not sure Ellen White is with you.

[Dr. Shane]

I read the citation from Ellen White in Clifford Goldstien's book. I believe it is called, One Nation Under God, but don't recall for sure if that was the title. It is an outstanding and awesome book for any Adventist that follows politics. I will go as far as saying it should be required reading in any or our academies' civic classes.

[Dr. Shane]

The Bible tells me that in everything I do, to do it to the glory of God. So to me, that means my faith must impact my politics. I cannot seperate the two. However that is not to say that other Adventist members cannot disagree with me about political issues. Nor does it mean they, or I, have less faith because of such disagreements. The problem is that many of us become so judgemental.

Some want to judge others if their position on abortion isn't the same. Or their position on the current war in Iraq. Or their position on legalizing drugs. Or on welfare, universal healthcare, etc. etc. I believe men of faith can disagree on political issues and still be men of faith.