This past week my husband and I attended a series of meetings regarding the foundation of a new organization. I knew that this new organization would be something of a Christian grass roots movement formed to be more involved in the social issues of our day. I knew that this organization was intent upon not being the next Religious Right which was often known by what it stood against and not by giving solutions to aid the nation. This new movement is to be different in that it seeks to be solution oriented and helpful rather than condemning complainers. These people forming this new movement would be ones who would roll up their sleeves and get involved in helping make this nation be a better place. These people would be ones who would not align with one political party, but serve all irrespective of political affiliation.
However, what I discovered in listening to the plethora of speakers from various walks of life and ministries from across America who converged together to address the national situation of our times, were a people with a grander vision than I had foreseen.
What I heard was the coalescence of something that has been sweeping through the Church already; a new Reformation. What I heard was more about the hearts of Christians showing the love and character of Christ to the world. I heard a call for integrity in the Body of Christ like never before. I heard a call to the Church to be more Christ like. What I did not hear was any lamenting on how messed up this world is and how they need to get their act together. What I did hear was how much the Church needs to lead by loving and kind example and help our neighborhoods, communities, states, and nation by aiding them in the matters that are dear to their hearts.
Much was discussed about getting involved in taking care of creation. Also, taking care of the needs of the poor with dignity and respect was high on the agenda. The importance of freedom was also discussed.
Many get fearful that Christians want a theocracy and want to impose religious rule upon people like Constantine procured. However, this is very far from most Christians’ idea of government. We pretty much want the government that was established by the Founders; a nation free from religious persecution and free from an overbearing government. Our ideals are pretty close to that of John Locke or George Washington, not exactly for there is diversity of perspectives, but it’s pretty close I would think. Sure there are some Christians who do in fact what a theocracy of sorts, but I think you’d find them very much in the minority though maybe outspoken at times making it seem like they represent more people than they do.
I would say there are a large number of Christians do not even give much thought to forming opinions regarding government, much less educated opinions. I do not say this to speak ill of them, but only to give some information of the diversity of perspectives.
Once again, the meetings I intended were far more about Reformation of the Church then they were about anything else. The reason I and others want to be involved in social matters and political matters is because we love the world and not because we want to make it more palatable for our own comfort, but so that we can help all people have a higher quality of life and liberty.
There is much more I want to write on this subject as there are many matters in the forefront of most Americans’ minds concerning the direction of this nation. Thus, I will be straying from my normal subject matter to address some of the key issues of our day in the days and weeks hereafter.
20 comments:
karla said: We pretty much want the government that was established by the Founders; a nation free from religious persecution and free from an overbearing government. Our ideals are pretty close to that of John Locke or George Washington, not exactly for there is diversity of perspectives, but it’s pretty close I would think.
So... You want 18th Century Government in 21st Century America.... What an interesting idea. How would that work exactly?
The principals are timeless. It would look like the American Republic.
karla said: The principals are timeless.
Are they? I presume you wouldn't want to go back to the restrictions on who could vote back then? Basically white male property owners.....
karla said: It would look like the American Republic.
Don't you live in the American Republic now? [looks confused] What would be so different?
I'm talking about the principals of why we need government in the first place and the limits of that government. I am not talking about going back to days where women couldn't vote.
The Republic is rabidly heading deeper into socialism which isn't a Republic form of government.
Maybe I should do a post outlining some principals that I am talking about. . . I did a little of that when I outlined some of Locke's philosophy on government.
karla said: The Republic is rabidly heading deeper into socialism which isn't a Republic form of government.
I thought that the definition of a Republic was one without a Monarch...? So surely a Socialist Republic is certainly possible - indeed likely as Socialists tend to be anti-monarchy.
...and of course we did have the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for about 50 years....
karla said: Maybe I should do a post outlining some principals that I am talking about. . .
That might be useful.
"I'm talking about the principals of why we need government in the first place and the limits of that government."
We need government to protect the rights of the people and help to ensure equality, as well as doing things that can't or won't be done by private entities, like deregulation, for instance. Allowing companies to run amok, unregulated, is part of what started our financial crisis. The republican answer has been to decrease regulation. How does that make sense?
"The Republic is rabidly heading deeper into socialism which isn't a Republic form of government."
Socialism is an economic theory, while republicanism is a political theory. They are not mutually exclusive.
"Maybe I should do a post outlining some principals that I am talking about."
My prediction:
You don't actually know what you are talking about...as per usual.
No surprise that we see differently on economic and political matters since we have different worldviews.
The question is do you want to assume things or do you want to really search out why people have an aversion to socialism and government extending its powers?
"No surprise that we see differently on economic and political matters since we have different worldviews."
Our differences on the question of god or no god have no relevance to political and economic disagreements.
"The question is do you want to assume things or do you want to really search out why people have an aversion to socialism and government extending its powers?"
You assume that I haven't looked into this and that I'm completely shooting from the hip. Bad assumption. There is certainly an element in the religious right that socialism = communism = atheism, that I don't think even you can deny. Others have simply accepted that more government = bad because that's what republicans in charge say, regardless of the fact that those same republicans have a nasty habit of growing the government.
Finally, I don't need to assume anything if you actually expound on your views, but I doubt that you can do so in a way that makes sense and doesn't draw on republican talking points that are based on nothing more than lies and propaganda. For almost 30 years now, the rep. party has relied on fear and intimidation and a concerted effort to demonize in order to curry political gain in this country. Look at how they've demonized the word "Liberal" or how much they focused on gay marriage (and all the supposed evils and calamities that would follow) in the past couple of elections. Once the repubs ran out of scare tactics, they started losing elections...imagine that.
I'm not a Republican. That label really doesn't fit me. I'm more libertarian than that, but that doesn't describe me fully either.
I'll be writing more on these topics soon.
I think God does come into it because America is the only nation where the government was established in light of the view that the government and man is under the sovereignty of God and the government is under the sovereignty of man. The government, is thus, not the highest authority in any sense. It can only have the powers man gives it.
karla said: The question is do you want to assume things or do you want to really search out why people have an aversion to socialism and government extending its powers?
Actually many people on *this* side of the pond have no issue with Socialism... and I think calling Obama a socialist is *very* funny. Over here he probably wouldn't qualify as a liberal, never mind as someone from the Left!
karla said: I'm not a Republican.
Funnily enough I am - in the sense that I am against the Monarchy [grin]
karla said: I'm more libertarian than that, but that doesn't describe me fully either.
I do struggle with the idea that someone can call themselves a libertarian *and* a christian. I mean you follow the dictates of the *ultimate* authority... that's not very libertarian in my book... but maybe I'm confusing libertarianism with anarchism (which I actually have quite an affinity for...)
Interesting Cyber. If you are against the monarchy, I would highly recommend reading John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. It's only about 130 pages. I would really like your thoughts on it. You can even find it full-text on-line.
By libertarian, I mean that the government is there to defend our boarders and enforce the law of the land. But isn't to involve itself in social issues and welfare programs, etc. I'm not for anarchy, but limited government.
"I'm not a Republican. That label really doesn't fit me. I'm more libertarian than that, but that doesn't describe me fully either."
Then perhaps you should stop using their talking points.
"I think God does come into it because America is the only nation where the government was established in light of the view that the government and man is under the sovereignty of God and the government is under the sovereignty of man."
Bzzzt, wrong. Please tell me where that is in the Constitution.
"The government, is thus, not the highest authority in any sense. It can only have the powers man gives it."
The government is established by the citizens, but this says nothing about "highest authorities." Of course, when it comes to the law of the land, the government (courts) is the highest authority. This has nothing to do with god.
"By libertarian, I mean that the government is there to defend our boarders and enforce the law of the land. But isn't to involve itself in social issues and welfare programs, etc. I'm not for anarchy, but limited government."
What do you think would happen is government pulled out of all social issues/programs/etc? Do you really, honestly think that the country would survive? Who would handle education? Who would handle many of the other social programs we have? Who would fix the roads?
If the government is to police us and defend our borders, where does the money for this come from, as you also seem to be anti-taxes?
It's the same old, same old of libertarian fairy-tales that things will just work out if we get that government out of our lives without actually understanding how government works or fits into our lives in the first place.
No, I'm not against taxes. I think there is a place for taxation to provide for military, roads, and rightful working of a limited government. This would be paying for the service of the government.
It's where taxes are taken because the government thinks that they have a right to reallocate property (meaning the fruits of ones labor) to others as they think best is a usurpation of it's authority.
This does not mean, I don't want to aid the poor. It does, mean I don't think the government should be doing it for me. I actually want to see them aided much better than the government can provide. I will expound on this in my next post that should post today.
"No, I'm not against taxes. I think there is a place for taxation to provide for military, roads, and rightful working of a limited government. This would be paying for the service of the government."
Roads, schools, etc. If we have to pay for services, then how can you claim that it is stealing? How about the person who goes one step further than you and uses the same arguments, but claims that their money shouldn't go to fund wars that aren't actually protecting us (cough, cough, Iraq)?
"It's where taxes are taken because the government thinks that they have a right to reallocate property (meaning the fruits of ones labor) to others as they think best is a usurpation of it's authority."
And, this is happening where besides in your imagination?
"This does not mean, I don't want to aid the poor. It does, mean I don't think the government should be doing it for me."
Who else will do it, and how will the country run when the poor are ground down into the dirt. Remember, not all poor people are simply sucking the teat of the American system. Some of them are gainfully employed and simply don't make enough money, so they need assistance. Eliminate all those people and where will our society be? How short-sighted of you.
"I actually want to see them aided much better than the government can provide. I will expound on this in my next post that should post today."
Yeah, and how is that going to happen? Oh, I know, it's the Libertarian fairy tale that if we get rid of taxes, people will donate to charity of their own accord and everyone will live comfortably...or something. Yet, you've already claimed that you don't want to get rid of taxes, so where is this money going to come from?
I do not seek to eliminate anyone. I want to help the weakest of society. I just don't see government dependency as ideal. I think there is a better way and I expound on that in my next post.
My problem isn't just the freedom that I may loose but the freedom they loose by being dependent on an institution for their survival.
"I do not seek to eliminate anyone."
Sure you do.
"I want to help the weakest of society."
By eliminating any safety net they have? How 1984 of you.
"I just don't see government dependency as ideal."
Because it's not. It's a reaction to the reality of the situation.
"I think there is a better way and I expound on that in my next post."
Let me guess...by grassroots organizations that help people?
"My problem isn't just the freedom that I may loose but the freedom they loose by being dependent on an institution for their survival."
A) You still have not expounded on how exactly you or anyone else is losing any freedom!
B) Being dependent on others is part of the human condition. We are a pack animal after all. But, anyway, if you want people to be independent, then you should support ideas like a living wage...but that would be socialist, wouldn't it?
Living in community is very important, and helping each other in the community is important. But people aren't entitled to the fruits of another person's labor. I will give freely, but I don't think people should be forced to give.
Also, I don't think people should have to be dependent upon any organization, faith-based or government or what-have-you.
You'll see more when my post hits.
karla said: Interesting Cyber. If you are against the monarchy, I would highly recommend reading John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. It's only about 130 pages. I would really like your thoughts on it. You can even find it full-text on-line.
I think we might have looked at this book near the beginning of the course I've just completed. I'll re-visit him at some point. I intend reading quite a bit of political philosophy over the upcoming months as I'm thinking about doing another MA in Political Theory next time....
karla said: By libertarian, I mean that the government is there to defend our boarders and enforce the law of the land.
I think that the function of government is to create the conditions that enable its citizens to flourish - of course the *best* way to do this are debatable and there are probably several good paths to follow in order to get there. I don't however think that there is a single 'best' form of government.
karla said: But isn't to involve itself in social issues and welfare programs, etc. I'm not for anarchy, but limited government.
I think that its unavoidable for governments to involve themselves in social issues. Many things simply cannot be left to market forces - nor be made a part of the command economy. The best way we have come up with so far is a mixed economy where somethings are owned/controlled by the government and some things are part of the market place - with suitable regulation and supervision.
Anarchy (unfortunately) isn't really practical without a lot of changes both in social structure - naturally - and possibly even human 'nature'. We might be able to produce GM anarchists (now *there's a thought for a SF story!) though....... [laughs]
"Living in community is very important, and helping each other in the community is important. But people aren't entitled to the fruits of another person's labor. I will give freely, but I don't think people should be forced to give. "
No one is being forced to give anything. People are paying for services. Secondly, how does one obtain these "fuits of [their] labor." That's a question I asked that you've so far avoided, and for good reason.
"Also, I don't think people should have to be dependent upon any organization, faith-based or government or what-have-you."
Well, reality isn't amenable to what you want, it simply is. We are all dependent on each other - that's part of being a social animal.
Post a Comment